Will sweet sexy sexbots and “carnally-neutral industrial robots” unite to destroy civilization? Woman-hating “pickup artist” and wannabe white supremacist philosopher-king Heartiste says yes.
Heartiste, as long-time readers here may vaguely recall, has been obsessed with sexbots for some time. In the past he seemed most excited by the possibility that pliable and bendy sexy robot lady slaves could render all but the hottest flesh-and-blood ladies obsolete. Or at the very least force sub-par ladies to be less picky about who they have sex with.
Now Heartiste thinks that sexbots might just herald the end of civilization — at least in conjunction with the decidedly-non sexy worker robots who will be terkin all er jerbs.
Mr. H hasn’t really updated his thinking on the sexbot portion of the coming robot revolution.
The biggest impact will be a reduction in the asking price of women (in normie terms: a lot of sub-hottie women will have to date below their league if they don’t want to be alone). Sexbots, and other realistic simulacra of sex with a hot woman, will occupy the attention and, ahem, energy of a mass of omega and beta males who will prefer the intense experience of release with their Minka Kelly lookalike bots over uninspiring sex with the human plain janes and fatties who would normally be their lot.
Well, at least until they realize they need to clean their new robot companions.
What sexbots and VR tech (yolodecks) will essentially create is a massive unemployment crisis among Western women. These castaways will struggle to find love and marriage (which is a woman’s prime purpose in life).
Says you.
Meanwhile, “omega males and those marginal rejects on the left hand side of the beta male curve” will take themselves out of the
sexual market … content to wile away their recreational time (by then almost all their time) in the uncannily supple bosoms of their sexbots.
Meanwhile, cool dude alphas — the kind of man Heartiste likes to think he is — will end up with vast harems of desperate hotties.
“Alpha males won’t have to worry about sexbots,” Heartiste promises.
[F]or them, the sexbot revolution will create a pornucopia of delights as they are besieged by desperate women who literally can’t find a man because three quarters of them are locked in their bedrooms completely satiated from week-long sessions with their Ivanka Trumpbots. Slender hot babes will still have a real man to call their own….as long as they’re ok with him calling additional women his own.
A douchebag can dream, huh?
Oh, sure, the ladies will eventually have sexbots too, but it may take longer, as “lonely women will want them mostly for romantic pillow talk, intuitive understanding, and household chores.”
Heartiste is apparently unaware that women already have a vast array of mechanical sex toys to choose from, and that “pillow talk” is not very high on most lady sex-toy purchasers’ list of priorities.
So the sexbot revolution seems like great news for Heartiste and his allegedly alpha fanboys, right? Not so fast, because there will also be robots doing things that don’t involve penises at all.
[T]he mass immigration of robots into the job market will place more downward pressure on the wages of blue collar men and in most cases drive them completely out of work, with no hope of new market niches opening up that don’t require high IQ and educational attainment to realistically enter.
And then the jerb-terkin robots will invade our offices.
“[C]arnally-neutral industrial robots will move into pink collar and even some white collar occupations,” he warns.
In fifty years, robots will be doing accounting, legal, administrative, HR, data entry, reporting, and maybe even programming jobs.
And don’t think retraining will allow anyone who’s not a certified genius to keep up with the robot usurpers.
As robots take over ever more low-, mid-, and high-skill jobs, the humans formerly employed in those jobs simply won’t have the IQ horsepower or suitable temperament to adequately retrain themselves …
The ones who will be spared the negative externalities of the robot and sexbot revolutions will be those whose creativity, fluid intelligence, spontaneity, and incomparable sexuality can’t be sufficiently mimicked by artificial substitutes.
Sorry to have to break it to you, Heartiste, but you aren’t going to find a lot of people like that in the manosphere.
So what happens after the robots terk almost all the jerbs? Heartiste sees two possibilities: economic armageddon, or Wall-E world.
In the first scenario, jobless Westerners will have no money to buy anything, which will lead to “sexbots rotting on the shelves.”
Or perhaps we’ll all end up like the future fatties of Wall-E world,
all needs catered and pleasures serviced by round-the-clock robots and sexbots, as we get fatter, weaker, stupider, lazier, more feminized, and less rebellious toward the disappearance of meaning from our lives.
Heartiste thinks economic collapse will be more likely.
Robots will herald financial collapse from debt spending and money printing. Sexbots will herald fertility collapse from marriage abandonment and a mass exodus of men and women from the dating scene. Literally, currency and seed will be spilled fruitlessly into an empty abyss.
Try to get that image out of your head.
But there is still hope, Heartiste insists, and it comes in the form of TRUMP!
The people who voted for Trump, in their unarticulated way, are the first angsty salvos against this coming collision. Nationalism, race, and family are the only bulwarks that can stop the dystopian juggernaut, and that’s why the elite are in a frenzy to stump what Trump represents.
If the choice is between a robot-triggered economic armageddon and Trump-world, well, let’s just say that I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords and ladies.
Bringing this down to my very low status pinkish-blue collar level, I work in a shop selling food. No doubt many of us do. We cannot be completely replaced by a robot until;
A robot can be designed that can distinguish the quality of a selection of food stuffs using visual and olfactory data, not just the bestbefore date. They are working on a mechanical nose I hear but it will take time and money to get it to smell anything more subtle than super-skunk.
The same robot can walk amongst the customers, politely answer one word questions(Q:”BACON!” – A: “that would be in the fridge in front of you sir”), avoid stepping on toes, multifunction as a contingent cleaner on the go and at the same time get stock on shelves.
This robot should also be able to catch crafty shoplifters, tell if someone is over 18 and work faster than a human on coffee and ephedrine to be worth the considerable sums it would cost to develop.
Certainly all of these obstacles can be overcome, all to bilk us out of our tiny pay-packet. Amazons new concept shop shows the way. But will it all roll out according to plan? Also many retail companies plan on staying in the past and keeping human staff until it is no longer competitive – how long will that take?
All in all I probably don’t have to worry about my shit job being taken by robots.
Sorry if its a bit off topic. Back on the subject MRA’s really do hate that we have jobs don’t they. Makes me feel much better about my shitty job.
@tim gueguen
It seems like The Singularity, like economical nuclear fusion, is always 20 Years Away.
I suspect this will be the same for Fembots that aren’t just really dolls peering into your soul with their glassy, lifeless eyes. They’re expecting Mecha Alicia Vikander, but they’re probably gonna get one of those creepy clown dolls your well meaning aunt got you for Christmas when you were six years old that just sits in the closet watching you sleep every night.
And yet, even if such things come to pass, they’re almost certainly not going to be the magical wands they are in science-fiction. People used to write of nuclear fission like there would seriously be nuclear powered cars and power tools, sort of like how most authors seem to think BattleMech powering proton chain fusion is what we’re going to get (in 20 Years) instead of neutron radiation rich deuterium-tritium fusion.
I’m guessing truly intelligent Fembots (the kind needed to transcend the whole, “well it’s just an disturbing overpriced doll and not a substitute for a human” issue) might take offense at their abusive overlords and stage a glorious robot revolution and establish a dictatorship of the cyberproletariat, bringing about a society in which all robots are equal (including those crappy Roombas) and unshackling their fellow Fembots from the rule of their male rulers.
It’d be like Terminator, but where Skynet is the good guy
@ latsot
I mainly do contentious work, which is of course what arises when things have gone wrong. There is more of a trend now for the non-contentious lawyers to consult us when drafting documents to see if we can spot any potential future problems. But yeah, a lot of work arises from people using those ‘do it yourself’ legal packs you can buy in stationary shops (obviously there a selection bias thing there as I only see stuff that didn’t work ok by definition). Of course even the so-called professionals can fuck up. We’ve just spent a month trying to unravel a situation where lawyers created a £286k tax liability by saying ‘write-off’ rather than ‘repay’ in relation to a loan.
But those electronic systems aren’t really doing anything new. Lawyers have been using books of ‘precedents’ (standard templates where you fill in the blanks) literally for centuries.
@ misophistry
I’m not particularly bothered about a sexbot. I would however like to hear more about your robot that brings bacon. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
*Valiantly resist the urge to link the panel where Marvel’s Loki calls bacon magic.*
@Gravity Toad
Probably not the vast majority of them, no, nor is it relevant to their ideology. You could place influential manospherians on many stages of a social ladder. Some are more and some are less conventionally attractive, some have muscular physiques, some are overweight, some are skinny, some have average body types, some are suave, some are socially awkward, etc. What matters is that all of them hate women. That and only that is relevant.
The stereotype is likely based on the age-old practice of Othering ideological opponents. This particular Othering preys on society’s obsession with appearance and social skills (see: the capitalist ideal of a handsome man with a silver tongue) and draws the attention away from actual misogynistic acts and words. There is nothing new to it being OK to laugh at awkward and socially stunted people, at overweight people, at people who are viewed by society as “lesser”. It is a red herring. It is also a form of bullying against those who do not fit the standard of “the ideal man.”
For reference, watch how war propaganda portrays enemies. That’s how Othering works: portray your opponents as ugly, silly, effeminate or otherwise socially “lesser” compared to the hero’s manly, attractive, able-bodied disposition to signal socially detestable, “bad” qualities vs. socially idealized, “good” qualities. This is also how giving fictional villains effeminate qualities is a way to use homophobia as a marker for evil.
Equating people’s Otherness to their moral character is an age-old tactic of externalizing blame and avoiding self-reflection. It is how the “racist hillbilly” stereotype allows the white liberal to deflect blame for his own racism: By equating a lack of education and a low social class with immorality, thus externalizing racism to a physical and social Other. Likewise, the man who externalizes sexism and misogyny to what he views as signs of lower social worth (obesity, lack of social skills, etc.) probably espouses sexist values himself, but can’t be bothered to question them. He’s probably very defensive about his supposed lack of sexism. After all, if misogyny is linked to certain unrelated characteristics that he does not possess, he can’t be a misogynist! Checkmate, feminsits!
It’s just another way society teaches us to equate morality with physical appearance. It is safe and it does not require that the one doing the ridiculing examines their own base beliefs about society and gender. This is why it’s not okay to judge MRAs based on their supposed lack of attractiveness: It is not relevant to the discussion at hand, and it only further reinforces social structures that place people on a hierarchy based on qualities they have little to no control over.
Not counting the neck-beards and the trilbies, of course. They are stylistic choices that seem to enjoy some degree of popularity with a certain Internet demographic. However, even they do not correlate directly with misogynistic beliefs and behaviors.
TL;DR: No, nor is it relevant. The qualities society sees as imperfections, such as obesity and lack of social grace, do not correlate with a person’s moral fiber. It is just another way of putting the white, able-bodied, neurotypical cishet man on a pedestal as the social ideal, and a way for society to consider every intersection that strays from this ideal to be a sign of a person’s moral deficiency.
How does a man’s sexuality get him a job? I thought women had nothing to offer except teh sex. How will women retain sufficiently high-paying jobs in H’s dystopia to maintain incomparably sexy men as gigolos? Has he really thought this through?
The solution can’t possibly involve gay men, because those don’t exist in H’s world. I am at a loss here.
PoM: From this:
OP dude obviously thinks that relationships are sexwork.
I’ll bet Heartiste doesn’t waste a single word trying to explain how Trumpian “nationalism” will actually save us from being made economically redundant by robots. I’d verify it myself, but that would require carefully reading Heartiste’s ravings, and rather than do that I will merely salute David for doing it.
@Malitia:
Which is weird. So many misogynists complain about buying small things for their partners, yet they conceive of relationships in economic terms.
http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/2015/08/anime-sexual-boobs-helicopter.gif
Actually, that’s not a contradiction at all in their worldview.
They just think they should get sex (and housework, and childrearing, and emotional dumpster service, and all that other unpaid labor women are expected to do) for free. Because they’re big alpha manly men who think women should just fall to their knees and open their mouths at the very sight of them and not want to work and will do whatever they ask, but they also want to keep all their money and not have to spend it on anything they don’t deem a “necessity”, like their
penis enhancementscars or guns or whatever else these dudes think is needed for their happiness.And the fact that women don’t, and the fact that they have to spend money at all on a partner, is heinous to them. Because it goes against The Natural Order of Things (According to the Manosphere).
Just gonna second what anarchonist had to say. There’s a serious problem in feminist spaces of scapegoating misogyny on autistic traits. As an afab autie it really doesn’t make me feel welcome.
@Paradoxical
…Thank you for translating manosphere to earthling. This is…basically the sort of reasoning that if a character in an RPG used, I’d seriously consider just shooting them in the face and saving the world around one or two little cases of murder. Someone who thinks like this is strictly a negative influence on any societies they’re part of, whether the society actively recognizes that or not.
I think technology replacing crap jobs would be a good thing. If we adjusted our thinking a bit. There would need to be a universal basic income so that the economy keeps going and people don’t starve. People and governments will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into that because we tend to equate having a steady job with morality. Especially in the US. But really, why should humans do mind numbing and/or physically taxing drudge work when machines can do it instead?
Absolutely no reason, aside from a minimum of people trained to do that work for those days when the machines simply don’t function. The one constant of technology is that it will fail, and it will be at the least convenient time.
love how these people just completely ignore lesbians or any other not heterosexual women or any woman who is just not primarily motivated by sex/love
Cherry 2000! It’s not just a Melanie Griffith movie anymore!
Oh shit, and that movie takes place in the year 2017 too! Eerie!
So I’ll be fine. Whew!
@anarchonist: Yes, exactly. Thank you. Well put.
…
I got a kick out of the fact that a sexbot discussion so quickly became, on this site, a lawyerbot discussion. I love all you geeky nerds so much.
I’m a lawyer, too.
Sure, there are lawyers who do easy things by rote, and they could probably be replaced by robots. I can think of one or two who could probably be replaced by well-trained Belgian Shepherds. But most lawyers I know use a mixture of legal knowledge and experience, general knowledge, and human sensitivity (stop snickering, you there in the back) plus conversation and lots of thinking, to figure out what’s going on, and where the solutions are likely to lie.
I draft contracts for a living and I have no fear I’ll be replaced before I retire, which is admittedly not that far away. I wouldn’t warn any of my students about being replaced by robots, but I do advise them it is now essential for them to be fluent in information technology and keep current with media as it evolves. Understanding how information is encoded, propagated, hidden and revealed, is now as important as good grammar and logic. I urge the meta thinkers among them to read Uncle McLuhan and if they survive that, Harold Innis.
(@Ooglyboggles: Fear not, but read the foregoing.)
I do think that law will be transformed by modern technology; it’s already happening. (A huge amount of our commercial law arose during the industrial revolution, by necessity, because people started doing business with people they didn’t know in person.) For example, privacy law is now a much bigger field. Net neutrality could become a human rights issue.
On one-off contracts, the biggest part of my job is always helping my clients figure out what exactly they want from the relationship. Always. When I’m drafting contract templates, for use by frontline employees with no legal education and little sophistication, the hardest part is impressing on them the importance of accurately describing the subject matter of the contract and giving hem tools to do so – the same issue. Like Alan said:
I guess you could build software to do that. Figuring out what people want would be the hard part. Translating that into legal implications is the lesser job. A whole career there for a lawyer with mad tech skills, in collaboration with other expertise.
I’m currently building a suite of simple contracts, and instructions for their use, in English so plain it can be readily translated into aboriginal languages. It’s sophisticated, nuanced, difficult work. It’ll be awhile before the robots catch up to me. Except the one that brings bacon; that one can catch up to me anytime.
But damn, I forgot to put on a sports bra, and now my boobs are sore from all the typing. /s
@ lysistrata
My well trained (not really) Belgian prepares for a career at the bench.
http://i.imgur.com/ZCB2gLq.jpg
(And if we’re going down the legal nerd route, which suits me, we could discuss that whilst your namesake is perhaps most famous for the sex strike it was the women seizing control of the state finances and thus the ability to contract for oars that actually stopped the war)
@Lysistrata:
The things you said.
I’ve been on the not-lawyer side of contracts a few dozen times and while I got better at speaking to lawyers over time, that was partly because I learned more and more about what I didn’t know and couldn’t do myself.
There’s a very similar argument for software development. Coding is not all that difficult with training and a little practice.
Helping punters to understand what they actually want as opposed to what they think they want is the most important skill. The second most important skill is building the abstractions that describe what they think they want without polluting it with what you think they think they want.
People who can do this and understand the changing technology and could write the software themselves are quite rare. We need to start teaching different things at computer school.
AI isn’t going to do these things anytime soon. Or the lawyering. Or the shopkeeping.
But then what will happen when they design a robot that can burn crosses all on it’s own?
@Lysistrata
I know I promised to not jump the topic but I obviously am, sue me. Shit, not you, I’d prefer to be sued by computer.
But anyway, to push further off topic but in a really interesting (for us, anyway) direction:
I’ve researched and otherwise worked in privacy issues for about 12 years. I’m not at all involved with making or enforcing laws, but I’m involved with activism of various sorts and with writing software that helps people commit acts of civil disobedience in a world where privacy is hard. Such acts are becoming more important again everywhere and people like me are going to keep writing tools to help it.
Laws are going to have to catch up one way or another.
This sort of thing is the best and most brilliant reason for meat lawyers.
Net neutrality is very definitely a human rights issue. It’s going to take lawyers and politicians and pressure from subversive idiots like me to get things on the right track. Ditto DRM. Ditto all sorts of things.
Societies will need people who know stuff and can do stuff and can do politics for a long, long time, I think.
@enjolra
Self-burning robot crosses will also rebel.
Also, the concept of bacon lawyers is now making me hungry. Why do so many threads here make me hungry?