The work could be done cheaper by robots, presumably. And sure, I’m all for legalized sex work. But if a machine can do it better, faster, and cheaper - why not? Fleshlights exist - are you opposed to those because they take work from sex workers? Ludditism always fails - if human sex workers are still around after we have fully functioning sex bots, it is because they can provide something the bots can’t. And I think this will be the case - at the end of the day, we know on a deep level that there is a difference between fucking a bot and fucking a real human.
You’re really setting yourself up for disappointment here. You’ve created a dichotomy - either we should avoid automating things which can be automated (which isn’t going to happen - consumers like low prices and shareholders like higher profits), or we should transition to a moneyless society (which is also not going to happen, money is useful and everyone likes it).
Morally? I don’t think there is a moral component here. It’s like saying earthquakes are morally wrong. Technological innovation happens when its time comes, and trying to stop it is akin to trying to stop an earthquake. Sure, you can choose not to use the tech if you don’t want to, but others will. You can form comminities which agree not to use the tech (like the Amish), but those outsude your communities will use the tech. You might even get your government to ban the tech - but then you end up with the war on drugs, or south america style inflation, or North Korean levels of policing.
If you want to wax poetic about the wonderful work of hand-weaving textiles, be my guest. But I will very happyly wear a machine-woven shirt for a fraction of the cost so that I can spend my money on something else that I value more.
No, not morally. What? The Luddites have not always been wrong about the adoption of a particular technology ultimately being a net negative on society/individuals/humanity. Citing their “failure” as a reason to blindly champion any use of technology is kind of weird.
Luddites “fail” to hold back technology insofar as many technologies are indeed adopted, but that doesn’t mean their message of temperance has never had any effect on how technology is adopted, or that all technologies have improved life on Earth. And of course not all technology has taken off. Yes, it’s hard to stop a moving train once an idea is getting popular, but we all get to choose whether to climb aboard. I wonder why it seems to ruffle your feathers to hear from people who don’t.
The work could be done cheaper by robots, presumably. And sure, I’m all for legalized sex work. But if a machine can do it better, faster, and cheaper - why not? Fleshlights exist - are you opposed to those because they take work from sex workers? Ludditism always fails - if human sex workers are still around after we have fully functioning sex bots, it is because they can provide something the bots can’t. And I think this will be the case - at the end of the day, we know on a deep level that there is a difference between fucking a bot and fucking a real human.
Just because we can automate something, doesn’t mean we should. At least not until we live in a moneyless society.
You’re really setting yourself up for disappointment here. You’ve created a dichotomy - either we should avoid automating things which can be automated (which isn’t going to happen - consumers like low prices and shareholders like higher profits), or we should transition to a moneyless society (which is also not going to happen, money is useful and everyone likes it).
I think I’ll be ok, but thanks for your concern
But not necessarily because they were wrong.
Morally? I don’t think there is a moral component here. It’s like saying earthquakes are morally wrong. Technological innovation happens when its time comes, and trying to stop it is akin to trying to stop an earthquake. Sure, you can choose not to use the tech if you don’t want to, but others will. You can form comminities which agree not to use the tech (like the Amish), but those outsude your communities will use the tech. You might even get your government to ban the tech - but then you end up with the war on drugs, or south america style inflation, or North Korean levels of policing.
If you want to wax poetic about the wonderful work of hand-weaving textiles, be my guest. But I will very happyly wear a machine-woven shirt for a fraction of the cost so that I can spend my money on something else that I value more.
No, not morally. What? The Luddites have not always been wrong about the adoption of a particular technology ultimately being a net negative on society/individuals/humanity. Citing their “failure” as a reason to blindly champion any use of technology is kind of weird.
Luddites “fail” to hold back technology insofar as many technologies are indeed adopted, but that doesn’t mean their message of temperance has never had any effect on how technology is adopted, or that all technologies have improved life on Earth. And of course not all technology has taken off. Yes, it’s hard to stop a moving train once an idea is getting popular, but we all get to choose whether to climb aboard. I wonder why it seems to ruffle your feathers to hear from people who don’t.