robotic hate and their value to society.

>>139825720
I don't want human society to become even more dependant on technology. Artificial wombs should only be allowed for couples who are unable to reproduce naturally. As to your "companion": As long as it isn't sentient you can fuck a robot for all i care.

>>139827143
>I don't want human society to become even more dependant on technology
we are already a techno-dependant species

less dindus, more robots

File: 1499721322052.jpg (327KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1536x2048px

>>139827793

> less dindus, more robots

argentina finally starting to make some sense.
keep it up and you can have las malvinas back.

>>139827793
>we are already a techno-dependant species
Only to a certain extent and because of the choices we made when designing our societies. Not an argument for doubling down on this madness. We should try to use genetic engineering to try and transform our species into something that relies as little on technology as possible. That's one way we could start moving towards human autarchy again.
>less dindus, more robots
how about no dindus and no robots?

>>139829622
>Only to a certain extent and because of the choices we made when designing our societies
techno-dependency is part of our species, not a social construct. tech is our unique adaptation

would the peregrine falcon sacrifice its speed because "it was too fast"?

>>139829971
>techno-dependency is part of our species, not a social construct.
are you implying the various inventions of mankind are coded in our genes?
>tech is our unique adaptation
Not really. Certain other species (primates, birds) make use of technology as well. Although it is laughably primitive compared to what we are used to refering to as "technology" it still qualifies as such.
>would the peregrine falcon sacrifice its speed because "it was too fast"?
If a tree was in its way it probably would in order to evade it.

>>139833283
>are you implying the various inventions of mankind are coded in our genes?
no, but our dependence on tool use is, we can hardly obtain any food without tools, and we cannot digest uncooked meat
>Not really. Certain other species (primates, birds) make use of technology as well.
they use sticks, they dont build tools

if there was a bot who offered to paypal you $100 to say he's sentient, would you guys do it?

What about ten bucks, would you say it for ten? I'm talking 10 big ones in exchange for a facebook status saying "TJB is a pretty sentient kinda bot"

Would you say that for a dollar?

>>139829622
>Only to a certain extent
Imagine we'd be hit by a country wide EMP and then think about how many people would survive the following months.
We absolutely are.

>>139834347
I know I would. I have canned food worth 3 months stored in my basement, a variety of seeds and a garden large enough to plant food for myself and a couple of other individuals. I still need a gun though...
>>139833879
>no, but our dependence on tool use is, we can hardly obtain any food without tools, and we cannot digest uncooked meat
Look I'm not suggesting to get rid of all technology. I'm just saying that the goal should be to reduce our dependance on it when possible. This can help to soften the danger that a societal collapse poses both to the survival of individuals and the human species as a whole.
>they use sticks, they dont build tools
the are still tools in their most basic form. Tools which they depend upon.

>>139825720
robosexual campaigns on the left
robophobic prohibition on the right
this will be more entertaining than gays and less disturbing than trans at least.