-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ Do you queue to fill up your car before the fuel price increase every month?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleInventor builds his perfect woman
- Thread starter PeterCH
- Start date
RazedInBlack
RazedInBlack
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 37,362
Never! Even if its an android, the b1tch will still need a charge. 
Oblig. 'Don't Date Robots!': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu0TXl15PgU
One day these things will be 'better than the real thing' ... so one really wonders if men will still want the real thing. The only downside *is* that they won't be 'real'. And, from a man's perspective, that they will be "easy", which will make them by definition less desirable, since it's the achievement and difficulty of "scoring" a hot woman that help gives men an ego stroke but more importantly give them social status putting them above their peers. If we consider many men's reactions to fake boobs already (a little implant and suddenly they're called "fake", even the woman herself may be considered questionable), I suspect men may ultimately quickly purposely stigmatize perfect-woman-robots (i.e. define them as being 'for losers'), and rather perpetuate the idea (perhaps fictional at that point) that a "real woman" is better (apart from if one truly wants to procreate).
From an evolutionary perspective, if robots become common surrogate non-breeding partners, it would probably cause a Darwinian shift in the "type of men" that do choose to breed with real women; in fact "genetic coding for wanting a real woman instead of a robot" would become a fitness trait; these genes will then perpetuate almost by definition because those lacking that genetic desire would be much less likely to breed ... robot-lovers would naturally decline, keeping things in balance. This effect may be mitigated if by that point genetically modifying offspring is anyway commonplace.
I can't help but think that no matter how perfect a robot woman was I'd still keep thinking "she's not real", but I wonder if sufficiently advanced technology and realism would cause you to forget that quite easily.
Lol, would a guy even care if a robot sex-toy 'had' an orgasm? Apart from it being a truly "fake" orgasm in that case.
Just a few tweaks? What's he waiting for?
One day these things will be 'better than the real thing' ... so one really wonders if men will still want the real thing. The only downside *is* that they won't be 'real'. And, from a man's perspective, that they will be "easy", which will make them by definition less desirable, since it's the achievement and difficulty of "scoring" a hot woman that help gives men an ego stroke but more importantly give them social status putting them above their peers. If we consider many men's reactions to fake boobs already (a little implant and suddenly they're called "fake", even the woman herself may be considered questionable), I suspect men may ultimately quickly purposely stigmatize perfect-woman-robots (i.e. define them as being 'for losers'), and rather perpetuate the idea (perhaps fictional at that point) that a "real woman" is better (apart from if one truly wants to procreate).
From an evolutionary perspective, if robots become common surrogate non-breeding partners, it would probably cause a Darwinian shift in the "type of men" that do choose to breed with real women; in fact "genetic coding for wanting a real woman instead of a robot" would become a fitness trait; these genes will then perpetuate almost by definition because those lacking that genetic desire would be much less likely to breed ... robot-lovers would naturally decline, keeping things in balance. This effect may be mitigated if by that point genetically modifying offspring is anyway commonplace.
I can't help but think that no matter how perfect a robot woman was I'd still keep thinking "she's not real", but I wonder if sufficiently advanced technology and realism would cause you to forget that quite easily.
Lol, would a guy even care if a robot sex-toy 'had' an orgasm? Apart from it being a truly "fake" orgasm in that case.
Just a few tweaks? What's he waiting for?
Last edited:
You're assuming that genes exist for "wanting a real woman". Since humans are the product of transmissible traits, mutated traits and environment modified traits (upbringing, temperament, social status, social perceptions, culture, acquired physical and psychological illness etc), I think the reality would be far different. You're also assuming that genes for "wanting a woman" automatically also grant (ie are linked to) genes which perpetuate better physical health. If it were to be opposite however, ie men who find it impossible to date robots are also found have worse state of health and thus lead shorter lives (notwithstanding the real life women who drive men early to the grave) then these two characteristics would cancel each other out. Fit men wouldn't procreate and only sickly men would lead to offspring.
ROFL "Honey seeing that you are causing me an early death I want to trade you in for one of these new models" Can you imagine how short your lifespan is going to be then?
Flanders
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
- Messages
- 14,741
...but that thought quickly subsides as I power down her vocal center, disengage her emotions chip and put her back in her cupboard.
I was just trying to keep my message short without delving into minutiae, but I actually think the reality is a combination of the two, and in different individuals with different circumstances and genetic makeup, some would tend one way while others the other, plus it will play off one another - as males compete to be losers vs non-losers, even those with the presumed genes in the far future will, on the 'loser fringes', choose fake women. I would be extremely surprised though if there wasn't some genetically based propensity for ending up one way or the other, even if it's indirectly caused via other genetic traits - probably those VERY genes that already lead to the way men readily and always form social hierarchies. In other words, geek types on the fringes, and the alpha-type guys who currently score hot chicks will continue to score the real women. It needn't even be about "wanting a real woman" (though I imagine there might well be genes like that - e.g. differences in brain processing that make some people more readily able to be "convinced" by a sufficiently good robot) - it might be just about the usual genes for wanting social status and thus avoiding anything defined as being "for losers" - if it's thus stigmatized, men will avoid robots if they can. The choice of what to stigmatize is partially cultural, but partially absolute - things that are easy to obtain are by definition not desirable - so it's unlikely that any other culture will choose not to stigmatize this, so some might do so less readily (e.g. Japanese cultures will probably be more accepting of it, I guess). Though if there are genes that lead to a strong effect of, say, less intelligent people being "easily convinced" and more intelligent people being bothered by that "she's not real" effect - then indeed the opposite may happen in some cases ... and the reality will probably be a combination of all of the above.
No, I'm not not AT ALL, and I don't know where you got that, since it appears nowhere in my post. I can only assume it's because you misunderstood my use of the word "fitness", but you must know that in the field of evolution "fitness" has a very specific meaning that is NOT linked to physical fitness or health at all (in many cases it 'happens to' in reality, but it by no means needs to) - evolutionary "fitness" is defined in terms of traits that in the context of a particular environment simply lead to higher chances of survival. So for example in a world where intelligence often determined your odds of survival, intelligence would be regarded as a "fitness trait" (often in evolution this in fact implies that being physically weaker at the same time may incidentally be an advantage, provided it isn't an explicit disadvantage, because it takes energy to focus on particular traits in development - i.e. an organism may have the energy to be either physically strong or mentally strong but not both - and being both will always require more energy than being just one of the two ... what this in effect means is that in certain situations even being physically weaker can specifically be termed as "greater fitness" - a notion that appears contradictory and confusing to many people). In a world where purple skin with yellow spots gave you higher chances of survival, that would be considered a "fitness trait". It's almost arbitrary and isn't related to physical health. It's the meaning of the word "fitness" in that field. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology) ... there is no absolute concept of health or fitness in evolution, it's entirely environment-dependent ... this is a common mistake by laypeople who misinterpret phrases like "survival of the fittest".
I in fact said nothing about physical fitness at all, but now that you bring it up, it is probably in this case the 'athletic' types (and e.g. those with better social skills) who would tend to more likely to score the real women (I think) ... this is almost incidental though ... we've been 'programmed' this way by millions of years of evolution in which that was an important determinant of male status hierarchies. It is still important actually, since we don't live in the most civilized of worlds yet.
Last edited:
Alpha type guys? You should know in the more developed societies fewer women actually marry, rather remain in their chosen careers. The birth rates in 1st world countries such as much of Europe, Japan, Korea are below population sustainability levels. Women simply no longer procreate. This also goes with the sort of male the women choose in those societies. The more well off the society the more likely a woman will go with the more educated man with a better financial future. Perhaps a less of an alpha type?
Hmmm. A man who is more emotionally in touch with his feelings - metrosexual? The alpha types fall by the wayside in school, usually don't attend college or university and unless they are lucky to start a business they are not 'loaded' with well being for family sustainability. The latter is more rare in developed societies. You seem to model your hypothesis on high schools.
I think we can't link the desire to want to have sex with a non-doll with automatic fertility.
Not at all I didn't misunderstand at all. I assumed you refered to fitness as desire to procreate with a biological woman, as you've repeated in your reply. What you did do, as I suggested was link the 'gene' or 'trait' for desire to want to be with a real woman with longetivity and being able to impregnate a woman successfully ie being fertile. Wanting to procreate is one thing, being able to bring that to fruition is another. A great example of that in biology is viral replication when subjected to an dampening chemotherapeutic effect. In this case retroviruses but also DNA viruses, I'll stick to retroviruses. Retroviruses eg HIV tend to generate a high degree of mutations - with each replication, ie subsequent generations are prone to developing new traits very quickly when coming under selective stress. The wildtype virus, that is the virus which exists in the untreated population of people, replicates and procreates very fast, however it is very susceptible to enzyme blocking drugs. With time, due to the high rate of mutation, the said enzyme becomes resistant to the drugs. The drugs are no longer able to bind it well and virus is able to copy itself. However the same resistance to anti-enzyme drug ALSO
slows down the rate of growth of the virus - because the abnormal mutated viral enzyme is able to withstand the drug but at the same time its replication speed drops. Its 3D conformation is such that it simply is not capable of copying the virus as fast as before. We have in short an example where one trait seems to affect fitness (ie the virus is resistant to drug) but at the same time the viral replication rate drops to maybe 5% of the previous rate.
(Perhaps you're alluding to this. Another great example of this in biology is the resistance Sickle Cell Trait gives to sufferers of Malaria.)
In our example you assumed that a man who is interested in biological women would automatically also be healthier or more virile - but that need not be the case since numerous factors affect a person's desire for procreation with biological women. You also assumed that no other factors drove men to want to father offspring. Simply saying that a class of men would rather have a robot girlfriend but not a family is also counter intuitive, since we know better from societal models. Men tend to want to start families as they grow older and their sexual instincts subside while the desire to retain the family line takes over. The biggest nerds settle down, marry and date the hottest women that is unless they find a rather hot academic female colleague.
I'm not a lay person
and your arguments are a bit over simplified, make a great deal of assumptions and reduce human behaviour, human physiology and the modern societal makeup to negligible levels - where they appear not to factor into the equation - which is far more complex in human terms than a mere desire for finding a biological mate vs an artificial one.I would disagree. We are more civilised than at any point in history.
Brute strength and ability to resist disease have been overtaken by the need for greater mental abilities because of the sophistication of society and advanced medical care. The men who succeed in our post-hunter-gatherer/stone-age world have different fitness factors - they are either intelligent or intuitive. They are either highly educated and motivated to do so by various factors - love of work, ego boost of success, want to expand knowledge or make money. As the society advances and automates it's processes fewer men can get away with having a poor education, unskilled or unspecialised labour becomes a fringe profession in the modern world, unless of course we assume a very socialist form of government where laziness or ineptitude are rewarded or at least sustained - although never to the same levels to grant the emotional satisfaction and improved well being that good performance in a chosen field of work (eg nerd developer enjoying his work vs a high school jock trashman who is now forced to abuse alcohol)that offers better emotional health.
In short I don't believe that we can link the laid-back, easy-going attitude of some men who prefer dolls vs the men who fight for women. You're automatically also assuming that Alpha types want to procreate. If we disconnect the need for pleasure with the need to procreate - if that can be done - will not the Alpha types resort to dolls themselves? They are easiest to have sex with and without emotional comittment afterwards, while the socially inept nerd may well be more apt to empathise with the well educated, modern woman - so while he may have a doll too, the woman will probably seek him out sooner. As said - too many factors. Besides introducing dolls into the equation may only provide pleasure to men who right now get no pleasure NOR procreation ie keeping the other societal factors the same, the same group of people passes their genes to the women while the same nerds who couldn't get a 'real woman' as you put it (I disagree here too, as sensitive, educated woman is a bigger turn-on and more likely to take better care of herself) still don't get to pass on their genes - their genetic pool dies out in each case - with doll or without.
Biological mathematical modelling is very complex. I just attended a lecture by some guys from Berkely about that.
Last edited:
Woah, long post, just this quickly ...
I am aware of that, but have a theory for that; women, like men, also want social status but typically or traditionally attained that "through" a man - i.e. by "scoring" an alpha male type (and/or in the older days, financially successful type). Multiple females 'compete' for the more alpha types (alpha on traditional more 'animal' ratings bases - i.e. more primitive, non-financial). Because most women instinctively want "status" in and of itself more than they want "a man" *as such*, if a woman can't score an alpha or someone reasonably high up the social scale, she is more inclined to choose NOBODY AT ALL rather than settle for a low-status male.
In the "old days", pre-feminism, women were usually financially dependent on men too, so they didn't even have their own financial status, so even to get by they 'needed a man', and all their status was attained 'through' the man they chose ... so his earnings were very important .. and more mates paired up *all along* (up and down) the social scales ... because women 'needed' a mate to survive .. and that was "just how things were", you got married and stuck together. Also they couldn't "plan" around their own bodies (i.e. pregnancy) due to lack of 'the pill'. Feminism and 'the pill' changed a bunch of things.
Nowadays, women with decent careers don't need a man for money or financial status - so why sit with a "social loser" even if he has some money? All that's left for the financially independent female to desire in a mate then, and on which to compete with other females to attain status relative to them, are the more traditional 'animal' alpha or alpha-ish traits ... social skills and physical size/strength and so on. Of course he can't be a totally dumb type, I'm not saying that, but there are many financially successful men who also have fairly strong physical/social/personality traits, and these types are the most sought after. Women for the most part aren't really sexually attracted to metrosexual types.
Of course these are far from absolute things, but general tendencies/trends.
Hmm .. perhaps a bit much yes, but I also look at the behaviour of adults today relative to, say, the conventions of 50 or 100 years ago ... in many senses it does seem more like that of high school kids.
I am aware of that, but have a theory for that; women, like men, also want social status but typically or traditionally attained that "through" a man - i.e. by "scoring" an alpha male type (and/or in the older days, financially successful type). Multiple females 'compete' for the more alpha types (alpha on traditional more 'animal' ratings bases - i.e. more primitive, non-financial). Because most women instinctively want "status" in and of itself more than they want "a man" *as such*, if a woman can't score an alpha or someone reasonably high up the social scale, she is more inclined to choose NOBODY AT ALL rather than settle for a low-status male.
In the "old days", pre-feminism, women were usually financially dependent on men too, so they didn't even have their own financial status, so even to get by they 'needed a man', and all their status was attained 'through' the man they chose ... so his earnings were very important .. and more mates paired up *all along* (up and down) the social scales ... because women 'needed' a mate to survive .. and that was "just how things were", you got married and stuck together. Also they couldn't "plan" around their own bodies (i.e. pregnancy) due to lack of 'the pill'. Feminism and 'the pill' changed a bunch of things.
Nowadays, women with decent careers don't need a man for money or financial status - so why sit with a "social loser" even if he has some money? All that's left for the financially independent female to desire in a mate then, and on which to compete with other females to attain status relative to them, are the more traditional 'animal' alpha or alpha-ish traits ... social skills and physical size/strength and so on. Of course he can't be a totally dumb type, I'm not saying that, but there are many financially successful men who also have fairly strong physical/social/personality traits, and these types are the most sought after. Women for the most part aren't really sexually attracted to metrosexual types.
Of course these are far from absolute things, but general tendencies/trends.
You seem to model your hypothesis on high schools.
Hmm .. perhaps a bit much yes, but I also look at the behaviour of adults today relative to, say, the conventions of 50 or 100 years ago ... in many senses it does seem more like that of high school kids.
Last edited:
Yes, but what I meant was, if you have guys who have some such hypothetical gene that make them desire procreating with *real* females, vs. if you have other guys who lack those genes and thus prefer robots (because, I am assuming, robots will be eventually better than real women in every other respect - much more exciting in bed, give much less trouble, can't get STDs and so on - so there would be no other reason to "prefer" a real woman, if the fake one can satisfy you better and more easily), then far more likely that only those with that genetic desire will even try in the first place. They won't all succeed (I definitely didn't say that), but the ones without the gene will be far less likely to even try AT ALL, so those with such a gene would certainly have much higher procreation success rate ... especially when broody real-females go about looking for sperm, and the robot-daters aren't interested). Such a gene (or genetic desire) would thus certainly be a "fitness trait" in and of itself in such a situation.
I suppose there's a difference between a man "desiring a real woman" and a man "desiring to procreate", even if it leads to the same thing ultimately. One would think the act of *desiring* reproduction is probably one of the original and most widespread "fitness traits" (genetic asexuals are going nowhere, in any species) ... unless we're just programmed to want *sex* rather than procreate specifically .. which is possible too.
Last edited:
No, I didn't - I ONLY assumed that a man who is specifically *interested* in a biological woman, would be statistically more likely to *actually reproduce* than one who prefers the robots - REGARDLESS of his physical condition, which could be anything. This seems obvious, and has nothing to do with health etc. Elsewhere I did conjecture that there might also be a stigmatization-based effect whereby robot-dating becomes a trait upon which social status hierarchies are formed (i.e. men collectively decide robot-daters are "losers" and "real men" score real women). But this again doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with physical health though --- I just think it might happen INDIRECTLY as I think that traits used for forming social status hierarchies are very primitive and deeply hardwired and based on things like physical condition and social skills --- but that is also incidental --- it could just as well have been based on toenail length historically, and then that would've been the determinant of who the "real men" were who would thus score the most sought after females (unless they too preferred robots, but that is actually unlikely, since men are programmed to want to score the most sought after females since status is the stronger instinct ... so indeed, my initial hypothetical gene will probably only play a very small part).
Last edited:
I would disagree. We are more civilised than at any point in history.
Brute strength and ability to resist disease have been overtaken by the need for greater mental abilities
Well, go to the average bar, and you will see people behaving in quite uncivilized and animal states, and physical strength remains a crucial quality. But you might be right ... I don't hang out in bars much, but don't socialize much in the "civilized" world either, so maybe I am just moving in the wrong circles, looking at the wrong things, and seeing a biased view. Selection bias, perhaps ... I'm looking for evidence of primitive animal behaviour, so I find it. I'll try to be more receptive to this civilized world you speak of.
You're right, it's complex and there are many factors involved. Men do indeed also have a genetic desire later in life to perpetuate their family line.
Smooth Criminal
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,895