Hilarious topic, yes, I know. I was laughing myself at a post on here almost all day. My friend and I literally sat there talking and snickering about it for a few hours. It's very laughable.
These two questions are the ones that I'm specifically referencing:
www.girlsaskguys.com/relationships/q4162781-any-other-guys-rather-stay-single-have-an-imaginary-girlfriend
www.girlsaskguys.com/qt/social-relationships/q4196687-do-you-agree-with-the-mgtow-crew-that-intelligent-female-robots-will
As my friend Brittany and I were discussing this today, what we found interesting is that we both have the same major and the same scientific interests but yet we see this topic in completely opposite ways. We are both biochem majors, but she is more pro-science and is less concerned about religion or people's feelings, whereas I put religion first and am more concerned about how I treat others. This makes the biggest difference on views of this topic. Here's the contrast, so pick your side. :)
BRITTANY'S SIDE:
Okay so first I want to clarify on what eugenics is. Google defines it pretty accurately: "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable." As a biochemistry major, I see this in one light: it's the natural selection we need but can't have due to people complaining and our psychology creating societies that will ruin our whole species just to make these complainers happy. We are the only species in the Kingdom of Animalia with this problem, and it's because we don't tell people no when they want to downgrade humanity just due to their own desires.
As a bio student with a firm desire to improve the human species instead of make it worse, I am all for these guys getting robot partners. Here's why:
1) It would stop a lot of complaining from guys.
Apart from funny questions about robots as partners, most guys at some point have complaints about not being able to have a relationship or get laid. So why not create a machine that you can program to do exactly what you want it to do that requires no love? It's a perfect solution to those guys who are into this idea. All you have to do is keep the battery full!
2) Eugenics: The Unwanted Men With the Robots Can't Pass Their Genes Down
Perfect. This is eugenics at its finest working with women without us even asking for it. Instead of us having to deal with society letting people reproduce who should not be reproducing, we can just leave those men out and let them be satisfied with a robot. If it's a robot and not 100% human then those unwanted genes don't get passed down.
(INSERT: Brittany mentioned a scenario:
- woman: "Then why don't you have kids? You got no balls?"
- man: "No. My wife is a robot.")
Now this is where I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.
3) It would leave women with only the men we desire and less of those we don't.
It gets rid of the unwanted men, who will resort to robots. The good thing is that the men whom are at least fairly desired by women will not pick up on having robotic partners. What makes those men think we will want them more after they resort to robotic females? It only shows their desperation and their inability to get real women, and it clears the path between us real women and the men we prefer.
MY SIDE:
Although some of the things she said are true (the scientific facts, not her opinions), this kind of eugenics is not something I would enforce or even like to see happen. Also a biochem major, I do want humanity to improve, but it shouldn't be done in such a way that mistreats others. By "mistreats others" I mean leaves out anyone from being able to find love or fulfill desires.
My side is a little more religious-centered, but some of you who aren't religious may take it as just ethics, and so that's okay.
Religiously, humans are the species that God purposely singled out and created differently from all the rest. We could have been made to be like every other species in the kingdom of animalia, as she said, but we purposely weren't.
Does this mean that we should take any partner who comes at us? No. But it does mean that we should respect them and not take it conceitedly (or as "entitlement," as a lot of guys on here say). Whether it's a woman who only gets asked out once in her whole lifetime or gets asked out multiple times every day, she shouldn't take it as an opportunity to disrespect or even take for granted those that she doesn't want. Obviously the same is true the other way around too. Rejection is a good thing; it's a lesson and a teaching method in one, and it is a freedom, YES, an entitlement. Rejection is an entitlement in itself for everybody.
Along with this, everybody has a purpose. If someone has an undesirable trait - guy or girl - like my friend said, that doesn't give us the right to single them out and tell them they can't love or be loved. I believe that everything happens for a reason and that every individual has a purpose. I also believe that anyone can love and be loved, and that everybody should be loved and respected. Most of the time, these undesirable traits are things that the person can't control and inherited, hence this topic. There is no sense in shaming that person. Will it be harder for that person to find love? Yeah! But why? People cut others off just for one thing.
As I said, this is not something I'd like to see happen, and it's sad that society has come to this. I don't understand why everybody can't appreciate each other and get along, or why the two genders can't be more humble to each other. It doesn't mean you go with any potential partner who shows up, but it does mean respect for everybody and equal opportunity. Preferences are good, but they are set by the mind based on subjectivity and generalizations, and they shouldn't be a 100% determining factor. Standards and preferences are different, and sometimes one who meets standards and not all preferences just might be your other half.
CONCLUSION: So this is a summary of separate views by two biochemistry majors and the similarities and contrasts thereof. I agree with her on the facts of science, and she agrees with me on some of the morals, but ultimately we are on opposite sides of the spectrum with this. As you can see if you click on the two questions I referenced on GAG and read my comments, it is laughable to me that this is even a thing now, and it's a shame.
Feel free to share which side you're on!
Most Helpful Opinions