[ExI] Kelly's future

[Stefano Vaj]

On 31 May 2011 17:03, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would not consider a corpse human in any meaningful sense... but
> hey, to each his own... ;-)

Why, a human corpse is human if anything in the sense that it is not a
canine corpse... :-)

>> OTOH, a sex bot that had to be seduced and/or could politely decline
>> your sexual proffers would frustrate the entire point of manufacturing
>> sex bots, would it not?
>
> Perhaps not Stefano. Part of the need (for at least some men) would be
> to seduce their partner; to fall in love.

What I mean is: if it could decline your sexual proffers, what would
make it different from any other sex-capable android or for that
matter human being?

> In any case, a sexbot that is programmed to be somewhat hard to get,
> but who you know will eventually be open to your advances,

Mmhhh, there again if the final outcome is never in doubt I suspect
that "hard to get" would be considered as stupid a feature as making a
masturbatory device overly complicated to operate.

> The air force thinks simulators are good enough to teach people
> to fly multi-million dollar airplanes, so why not?

Another human being cannot offer a flight simulation experience. A
therapist or a prostitute can teach a human being probably as well as
a sex bot, albeit admittedly with a similarly reduced degree of
satisfaction for the patient/client.

-- 
Stefano Vaj