Robots are replacing a man’s best friend in society. Robotic pets are slowly entering mainstream society, specifically targeting elderly population to provide companionship and affection. Parents have even given the robots to their children to teach them the responsibility of caring for a live animal, but there is no proven evidence this works. While invading the space we have in our hearts for genuine pets, the robots continue to provide many negative outcomes that comes with owning this imitation pet. Robotic pets have several negative effects such as limited responsibility to teach to a child, social isolation, and artificial affection, which outweigh the positive effects greatly. Robotic pets are automated and require little care, so this
…show more content…
Although a robotic pet provides companionship, it truly it is not genuine. As shown in “Maya’s Human Interaction-Sensors (A Genio-QD Film),” the robotic dog became surprised and angry with a quick tap and happy and playful with a long stroke. Every action performed on the dog will always generate the same response. One may argue that many robots are programmed to react differently to different users. However, the robotic dog’s responses are solely determined by the computer chip programmed in its head. Mullin asks, “Would the owner still feel pride, knowing in the back of her mind that aloofness was coded into the cat by some computer programmer?” These unnatural actions by the robotic pets are programmed and not made with natural love or affection. Quite frankly, although the owner may love their robotic pet, it will never provide true love back. A robotic pet can never provide any real and meaningful affection to its owner. Robotic pets do not provide natural affection, as they increase social isolation and decrease the opportunity for teaching children responsibility. People should never live in a world where technologically advanced machines dominate over living creatures. Robots have been created to assist a person to live a long, healthy, and quality-filled life, but they cannot replace a living pet which can provide the more effective assistance. The future is coming, and it will be pointless if someone wants to adopt a pet at the animal shelter, and they are redirected to an electronic store to buy a
Although a robotic pet provides companionship, it truly it is not genuine. As shown in “Maya’s Human Interaction-Sensors (A Genio-QD Film),” the robotic dog became surprised and angry with a quick tap and happy and playful with a long stroke. Every action performed on the dog will always generate the same response. One may argue that many robots are programmed to react differently to different users. However, the robotic dog’s responses are solely determined by the computer chip programmed in its head. Mullin asks, “Would the owner still feel pride, knowing in the back of her mind that aloofness was coded into the cat by some computer programmer?” These unnatural actions by the robotic pets are programmed and not made with natural love or affection. Quite frankly, although the owner may love their robotic pet, it will never provide true love back. A robotic pet can never provide any real and meaningful affection to its owner. Robotic pets do not provide natural affection, as they increase social isolation and decrease the opportunity for teaching children responsibility. People should never live in a world where technologically advanced machines dominate over living creatures. Robots have been created to assist a person to live a long, healthy, and quality-filled life, but they cannot replace a living pet which can provide the more effective assistance. The future is coming, and it will be pointless if someone wants to adopt a pet at the animal shelter, and they are redirected to an electronic store to buy a