Elena Soto Rise Of The Robot Pet

That they do not yet exist has not stopped science fiction writers from envisioning the implications of a future where they do exist. In Super-Toys Last All Summer Long, author Brian Aldiss imagines intelligent robots that can emulate humans (Aldiss 668). The robots have no rights and are instead treated like slaves: one robotic boy scrawls letters describing how much he loves his “mother,” but is then sent unceremoniously back to the factory to be “fixed” (Aldiss 671). This is a future that we should strive to avoid. If it acts like a human and has feelings like a human, then it should be treated as morally equivalent to a human . Its rights must be protected. This reasoning has an obvious expansion: because physical appearance does not matter, even intelligences that do not resemble humans deserve rights and respect. These measure may detract from our uniqueness, but this is a necessary concession. Being fair is not always comfortable. To escape from this uncomfortable corner, some argue that such artificial intelligence is not possible: they say no program that will ever be written can attain a human level of emotion. Anthropologist Loren Eiseley lovingly describes a falcon yearning for its partner, concluding that even simple creatures like falcons show uniquely biologic features: “the machine does

In my opinion, we should embrace and welcome robots into our daily lives because they improve our society in various ways. Some of the ways our society has benefited from the creation of robots include transportation, home maintenance, home assistance, education, security, entertainment, disabled assisted living, and even elderly assisted living. In the article The Future of Robot Caregivers, the author, Louise Aronson, states that the idea of robot caregivers shouldn’t be as threatening as most people perceive. She also states that our society as whole, not just the elderly, will benefit greatly in many aspects. For example, Aronson begins by mentioning that caregiving is a difficult job and that “it is work that many people either can’t or

In his 2011 The Chronicle Review article “Programmed for Love” Jeffrey R. Young interviews Professor Sherry Turkle about her experience with what she calls “sociable robots”. Turkle has spent 15 years studying robotics and its social emergence into society. After extensive research and experimenting with the robots, she believes that soon they will be programmed to perform specific tasks that a human would normally do. While this may seem like a positive step forward to some people, Turkle fears the worst. The article states that she finds this concept “demeaning, ‘transgressive,’ and damaging to our collective sense of humanity.” (Young, par. 5). She accredits this to her personal and professional experience with the robots. Turkle and her

At work, people are claiming to be too busy on their devices to be able to have conversations. In fact, they do not want to have the face to face interaction, but would “rather just do things on [their] blackberry” (136). Moreover, a “sixteen-year-old boy who relies on texting for almost everything says wistfully, ‘Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I’d like to learn how to have a conversation’” (136). The reliance on technology has increased significantly and the necessity for conversation has pivoted. A teenage boy confesses that he feels more comfortable talking to an “artificial intelligence program” (138) about dating instead of his own father. Similarly, many people want “Siri, the digital assistant on Apple’s iPhone, [to become] more advanced, [because] ‘she’ will be more and more like a best friend” (138). Robots are being given more credit for comforting humans than humans themselves. Not only are the younger generations thinking this, but also the elders. When Turkle brought a baby seal robot to a nursing home, an elder woman began to speak to it and feel comforted by it. It is a tragedy that humans are feeling a deeper connection with robots than other humans. Humans have the experiences and the feelings that the robots are not capable of having. Hence, there is confusion about the difference between conversation and

The ironic thing is that even though this woman supports the idea, she said the very thing that is wrong with it. Feelings aren’t being hurt because the robot can’t feel. Robots can be the best substitute in the world, however they will never be able to have a real relationship because of their inability to share emotion. This is where the relationship aspect starts to take place. There are a select few that have a new technology in their hands. A robotic seal has made its way over from Japan that has the ability to “understand” what you are feeling and can make you feel better. This robot would be a great toy to have, unfortunately the people that own this are people that are having trouble with normal relationships. The robot can take away time from a person’s relationships in reality. Although the relationship with this seal is fantastic, relationships with friends and family are diminishing. I can see why it is happening. Robots, because they have no feelings, cannot judge, make you feel guilty, nor do they require effort to maintain relationships with. However, part of life is being able to weather the highs and lows. It’s what makes us human.

Studies have shown that the children who grow up in homes with animals have a better ability to show empathy later and as adults. Pets are easy to communicate with, and their body language is much simpler than a human’s. This simple body language allows children to learn to empathize with them, a skill they can carry with them as they go through life (Holistic Online, 2007).

The author's purpose of this essay is contemplating whether or not laws should be made protecting robots. Throughout the essay he uses evidence from scientists who have dones tests, and it shows how people act.

“Just as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, so too will robots in our society.” Frank Mullin accurately explains the growing role of robot pets worldwide. Robot pets, are the adorable synthetic toys, that warm the hearts of thousands with their almost life-like movements. Once just a thought and a dream, robot pets now grace the shelves of department stores. Along with their wide popularity comes a question; “Should robotic pets replace real pets?” Well, they interact differently, and are frankly just programmed to do what one sees. Allowing robotic pets is depriving people of the interactions they experience with real pets, and does not nourish responsibility. For now, robotic pets should be left on the shelves because they will never provide

“Isolated, his family deteriorating—“I couldn’t show affection, couldn’t hug my kids”—Soliz turned to the Palo Alto V.A. Medical Center” (Colin n.p.) “Soliz says his life is slowly coming back to him and he now can go to the movies without panicking—and hug and kiss his two kids” (Colin n.p.). Moore who explained in her dissertation that, “some of the veterans spoke of ways their Psychiatric Service Dog has bettered their relationships with other people, in particular through increasing interpersonal interactions, Similar to Ensayra and Love's (2008) finding of the dog serving as a "social lubricant”

Once this is determined and the robots get the drift of it, the scientist are saying that we will be able to have “nanny” robots. Who in their right mind would leave their child with a computer-controlled machine? I personally would never feel comfortable leaving my child with a robot. Yeah, the robot might be able to get the necessities like getting them food and drinks, but they won’t be able to give the child that “mother” feeling. Try and picture back to when you were a small child. Weren’t you always attached to your parents? Especially your mom? She just had that warm-motherly feeling that you happened to love. Imagine trying to get that same feeling from a robot. It just wouldn’t be the same. Like when you fell down and got hurt, what was the first thing you wanted? Most likely your mom, right? She just automatically made you feel better. There is no way for a child to get that same warm-motherly feeling from a cold, metal, machine. Not only am I worried about the child not feeling comfortable with the robot, but it could also be harmful for the child. What if the robot was changing a diaper or getting the child dressed and the robot has a glitch, it could easily shock and injure the child. There is just no reason for leaving a child under only the supervision of a computer-controlled machine. It just sounds extremely risky to me.

Lately there have been more and more smart machines that have been taking over regular human tasks but as it grows the bigger picture is that robots will take over a lot of tasks now done by people. But, many people think that there are important ethical and moral issues that have to be dealt with this. Sooner or later there is going to be a robot that will interact in a humane manner but there are many questions to be asked like; how will they interact with us? Do we really want machines that are independent, self-directed, and has affect and emotion? I think we do, because they can provide many benefits. Obviously, as with all technologies, there are dangers as well. We need to ensure that people always

First, owning a pet can give people some major health benefits. Without a pet, a day at work or school can be stressful. By the end of the day, people could be ripping out their hair or throwing papers everywhere. This can make anyone’s heart rate go up as well as their blood pressure. Thankfully, studies have shown that interacting with a dog or other pet can lower his or her’s cortisol levels. For instance, after only three months, a group of people working with dogs were shown to have significant drops in blood pressure and stress. Pet’s happy go lucky vibes can impact their owners to feel the same, lowering his or her’s stress level. Even when someone sees a picture of their pet when they're stressed, it can immediately cause his or her’s heart

Today, people have a decision to buy real pets or robotic pets. Robopets cannot do the same things as real pets can. Therefore, most people want to buy a real pet. Also people go toward buying real pets because, that is how most people were taught and they are comfortable with it. People want to go with what they feel most secure and safe with. People chose real pets because, they are make people happy, to save them in animal shelters and form a bond with them, and give children an opportunity to care for a living animal.

This is a vital independent variable that should be evaluated and questioned in further studies due to humans’ need for some sort of social contact. The closer and more bonded that an individual is to their pet, perhaps the more socially fulfilled that individual will be, and in turn, the happier they will be. On the other hand, if the individual and the pet do not have a connection, then does having a pet make a difference, or is the individual happiness still above average, worse, or at a societal

People have pets for various reasons, whether given as a present or perhaps the children are interested in having their first pets; or you were unable to have a pet as a child but are in more suitable circumstances or simply because you and they share a love for animals, the notion to need and want a pet is deep-rooted in our psyche. This is perhaps not surprising considering pets act