Is technology replacing sex?
Dr. Helen asks. No, it’s not. It’s just creating new avenues for sexual behavior. Also, I doubt the Japanese are a good focal point. This is an entire culture that is amusing itself extinct.
8 Responses to “Is technology replacing sex?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 25th, 2013 at 7:36 am
I would argue that they are pushing social awkwardness as a special skill and an acceptable social position that ends up here.
We in the US arent far behind.
October 25th, 2013 at 7:37 am
Also interesting that you mentioned this Unc, my buds over at OTDT.net are podcasting on the same subject this weekend. I was just reading their show notes.
October 25th, 2013 at 9:54 am
the US is now below replacement, so they aren’t the only ones amusing themselves extinct.
October 25th, 2013 at 11:24 am
Sexual technology’s just upping the ante all around: for both men and women, if it’s easier to get a pretty good level of satisfaction without all the hassles of meatspace, then your expectations from human sexual interaction, and what’s required to pique your interest, will be much much higher. This is bad?
One suspects folks who write about this as a “problem” are just upset that they’re having to work harder nowadays to get laid because of it.
October 25th, 2013 at 2:50 pm
David,
Philosophically, describing the fundamentals of basic human interaction as “all the hassles of meatspace” is pretty nihilistic.
We can achieve “a pretty good level of (sexual) satisfaction” in rats, without requiring them to physically interact with other rats, by putting electrodes directly in their brain and giving them the trigger; that doesn’t make it a meaningful or healthy existence, even for a rat. Even compared to the rough and tumble world of “normal” rat interaction with its occasional fights and constant competition.
The human animal is not evolved to be physically and mentally healthy while living in isolation, self-imposed or not: and a life where all interaction is virtual and sybaretic, without challenge by, or struggle against, forces (or persons) not under one’s own control, has serious implications for the character and moral development of that human being (which is in the end more than merely animal).
Setting aside the philosophical, lack of propagation is cultural suicide. That the only cultures who can currently afford to do so are the heirs to Western liberal thought, where the individual has inherent value, this has serious implications over whether those values can be defended long-term.
That it is -possible- within a culture, based on defending the inherent value of the individual human being as an autonomous moral actor, to pervert that respect of individualism into license to descend into sybaritic dissolution of self does not necessarily make that an individual goal worthy of respect or approbation by that culture. Even the Cyrenaics didn’t quite go that far.
October 25th, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Not talking about “all the fundamentals of human interaction,” just those involved in getting sexual satisfaction.
What you seem to be worried about is a completely separate concept from the notion that tech is making sex between humans, when it happens, more exciting and fulfilling because human sex will have to become *better* than mere tech sex for us to bother.
Now, cultural suicide? I beg to differ. Marriage provides the certainty of a baseline level of sexual availability — which has the effect of freeing us from expending time and energy on the pursuit of sex, so we can devote ourselves, if we wish, to grander pursuits, whether business, child raising, research, the arts, etc.
The availability of quick & easy gratification with the aid of one’s electrical appliance or videoscreen is now giving that *same* certainty — and thus that same freedom — to millions, perhaps billions, more humans than would ever have married. I expect the resulting leap in human scientific, technical and cultural achievements will be both profound and measurable. I’m serious.
Yeah, a bunch of folks who can’t handle the abundance of easy sexual bliss will wank themselves to a childless death. So what? Evolution in action, n’est-ce pas? There’s a reason the Cyrenaics didn’t last; tasp addicts won’t replace themselves either. In our brave new world, those who actually *want* children will have them. For those who don’t want children, but would like to pass on their genes, there are solutions now, and frankly Huxley’s/Heinlein’s creches are just around the corner. You want me to interrupt my groundbreaking research to dump my genes into the pot, society? Okay, no problem! Pay me, absolve me from liability for the kid, and let me get back to work.
Oh, and if you’re worried about the supposedly fecund non-Western hordes, well, I think they’re just as susceptible to a tech-induced sex drought as we are. Being human and all, y’know?
October 25th, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Oh, one more thought: when cultures that don’t value individual life enter a tech-induced sex drought, they will self-extinguish *faster*, because why would they bother reproducing? Yes, the porn-addicted bin Laden had a bunch of kids, but how many of his equally porn-addicted lackeys will? Not many, I’ll bet.
Meanwhile, in our individualized culture, we still value life so much we already pay folks who aren’t interested in raising children to make their eggs and sperm available for purchase to other folks who want to create and raise children!
Bottom line: our below-replacement rate of reproduction will always beat their rate of no-reproduction-at-all. Over time, it seems to me, in the long run those who reproduce in the face of easy tech sex will be more likely to value individual life, period. Problem solves itself.
October 25th, 2013 at 8:45 pm
I think there are some over and under estimations of human nature and technology in your response, but I think it’s valid and well-thought-out.
I was pulling in the simultaneous retreat from more and more meaningful human contact (such as texting, conversation filtered by time and space and a lack of non-verbal cues, replacing in-person conversation with non-verbal cues and the challenge of immediate feedback and personal exposure) that is paralleling the sexual retreat in growing parts of Western society.
I also am not confident the voluntarily fertile are numerous and fecund enough in the short-term to maintain a viable culturally-sustaining population long enough for the same tech to dent the “collectivist hordes” to a meaningful degree.
But I see that as a moral issue philosophically, not something that can or should be positively addressed by government.