Virtual kids...

[petrushka.googol]

How can we promote family values while maintaining the interest of wooing the opposite sex? I think virtual marriages are the solution. Partners can share their key genetic information like racial profile, sex, age, height, weight etc and an algorithm could create a virtual kid that the prospective parents can "adopt". The kid will actually be an artificial intelligence bot that responds to the stroke play (transactional) of the parents. They can watch the kid grow and those parents that do a good job could be rewarded by actually being introduced to each other. Virtual kids of other parents could be adopted by new virtual parents. That way parents can look after a child who gene pool does not necessarily match theirs.

 

How feasible and realistic is this? And does this promote good social mores?

[Endy0816]

We do have the tech to combine parent's faces at least and determine a rough idea of what their offspring might look like. There are more responsive programs out. I'd hesitate on the intelligence part, but they can fool us monkeys pretty well. We evolved to read into things, even if said thing is totally inanimate we can mentally assign it human attributes.

 

One concern is that parents might become overly attached. Could become a problem.

[MathCat]

I have no idea what the purpose of this kind of a thing would be.

I think you would have people sign up and use this service for entertainment or maybe to test their compatibility with certain mates, but the idea that this is somehow going to have any affect on mores and "family" values is likely very misplaced. The only way I would see this having any greater effect on the society is if this were required in order to have kids. Thankfully, there be absolutely no way to mandate this kind of procedure.

Furthermore, how are you going to define what makes a good parent? Scientists usually make terrible philosophers.

Edited May 2, 2014 by MathCat

[petrushka.googol]

Furthermore, how are you going to define what makes a good parent? Scientists usually make terrible philosophers.

 

Well there is no a priori evidence for the latter. Maybe you could cite certain examples to corroborate your viewpoint.

[Marshalscienceguy]

How can we promote family values while maintaining the interest of wooing the opposite sex? I think virtual marriages are the solution. Partners can share their key genetic information like racial profile, sex, age, height, weight etc and an algorithm could create a virtual kid that the prospective parents can "adopt". The kid will actually be an artificial intelligence bot that responds to the stroke play (transactional) of the parents. They can watch the kid grow and those parents that do a good job could be rewarded by actually being introduced to each other. Virtual kids of other parents could be adopted by new virtual parents. That way parents can look after a child who gene pool does not necessarily match theirs.

 

How feasible and realistic is this? And does this promote good social mores?

So you want to replace all live children with artificial robot children? While this might fix the current over population issue for a short while if we stop having kids all together eventually everyone is going to die out unless you think of a way for the remaining people to live forever or to create actual artificial children. I don't really understand the point of your program.

 

I have no idea what the purpose of this kind of a thing would be.

 

I think you would have people sign up and use this service for entertainment or maybe to test their compatibility with certain mates, but the idea that this is somehow going to have any affect on mores and "family" values is likely very misplaced. The only way I would see this having any greater effect on the society is if this were required in order to have kids. Thankfully, there be absolutely no way to mandate this kind of procedure.

 

Furthermore, how are you going to define what makes a good parent? Scientists usually make terrible philosophers.

Many philosophers were scientists. Leonardo da vinci was considered a philosopher and a scientist.

[petrushka.googol]

So you want to replace all live children with artificial robot children? While this might fix the current over population issue for a short while if we stop having kids all together eventually everyone is going to die out unless you think of a way for the remaining people to live forever or to create actual artificial children. I don't really understand the point of your program.

 

Many philosophers were scientists. Leonardo da vinci was considered a philosopher and a scientist.

 

As a spin-off of this I see the following benefits accruing :

 

1) Developing a compassionate and empathizing personality.

2) Developing a need to procreate (at least in the long run...is this an evolutionary adaptation?

3) Maybe this experiment could be extended to pets...and further more..more hybrid species could be generated by computer algorithms which could be offered for virtual "adoption". This offers new vistas in parenting.

4) Parents could be offered courses based on virtual parenting where they could take their digital "wards" to a virtual cinema and see how their "wards" react. This is a sociological exercise and prepares parents for the challenges ahead if they are in courtship.

5) It promotes serious parenting as opposed to frivolous exchanges which more often than not end in discord.

 

i agree on the latter assertion though. Philosophers and scientists are not mutually exclusive. Consider...

 

a) Archimedes

b) Pythagoras

c) Hypatia of Alexandria

 

and the list goes on... I would even include Isaac Newton on the list.

[Marshalscienceguy]

 

As a spin-off of this I see the following benefits accruing :

 

1) Developing a compassionate and empathizing personality.

2) Developing a need to procreate (at least in the long run...is this an evolutionary adaptation?

3) Maybe this experiment could be extended to pets...and further more..more hybrid species could be generated by computer algorithms which could be offered for virtual "adoption". This offers new vistas in parenting.

4) Parents could be offered courses based on virtual parenting where they could take their digital "wards" to a virtual cinema and see how their "wards" react. This is a sociological exercise and prepares parents for the challenges ahead if they are in courtship.

5) It promotes serious parenting as opposed to frivolous exchanges which more often than not end in discord.

 

i agree on the latter assertion though. Philosophers and scientists are not mutually exclusive. Consider...

 

a) Archimedes

b) Pythagoras

c) Hypatia of Alexandria

 

and the list goes on... I would even include Isaac Newton on the list.

Everyone would still die out since you are not allowing them to have real children. Teaching better parenting doesn't matter if everyone is dead.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[petrushka.googol]

Everyone would still die out since you are not allowing them to have real children. Teaching better parenting doesn't matter if everyone is dead.

 

I never said "prohibit prospective parents from actual courtship.". Actually having virtual kids is only a simulation towards a real life scenario and helps you both emotionally and intellectually to deal with the actual process of child-rearing.

 

As an extension, we could also have virtual pregnancies...with statutory warnings about the deleterious effects arising out of promiscuity...how does that sound?...I think even this as an extension to the postulate, has definite social benefits accruing thereby.

[Marshalscienceguy]

 

I never said "prohibit prospective parents from actual courtship.". Actually having virtual kids is only a simulation towards a real life scenario and helps you both emotionally and intellectually to deal with the actual process of child-rearing.

 

As an extension, we could also have virtual pregnancies...with statutory warnings about the deleterious effects arising out of promiscuity...how does that sound?...I think even this as an extension to the postulate, has definite social benefits accruing thereby.

So you are saying to have kids that they would first have to qualify with a simulation? Well yeah I agree with that idea.

[Bill Angel]

I think that the concept of virtual children sounds like an interesting concept for a video game. I would be interested in seeing if my experiences in life could be constructively channeled into giving advice or disciplining a virtual child, given that I've never been an actual parent, nor do I expect to become one. And I would enjoy the challenge of dealing with childraising in the context of a virtual marriage, as I have some selection criteria that I could provide to a computer program to aid it in choosing a virtual partner for me.