Humanity is having trouble with the prevalent rate of which technology is developing. It is remarkably rapid that it cannot be controlled by the human mind. Children are choosing robotic machines over regular biological individuals, which creates this bizarre experience between the human and the computer. As a society, we have yet to decide whether this development in the robotic machines is ethically concerning, or if we are able to control the path it takes. Sherry Turkle, author of “Alone Together,” believes we can control the pace and direction of technology. However, she states, “when the singularity comes, no one can imagine where she [the robot] could go” (Turkle 459). Singularity is the time when everything becomes technically possible,
…show more content…
Barbara Frederickson would have a difficult time understanding how robots can create love with a biological individual. She would not be able to contemplate over the fact that a robot and a human could create positivity resonance with one another. Both Barbara Frederickson and Sherry Turkle talk about what makes the emotional aspect of a relationship, but both have two totally different visions. Living in the time of technology does not just create a companionship with our robots. By matriculating these robots, we define who we are and what we are going to become. In comparison to Sherry Turkle’s beliefs, Barbara Frederickson shares her differences in “Love 2.0,” which include neural coupling and robotic machines, that spark a debate of whether a biological individual or an animate robot can give love to a human. Turkle starts her essay with a short story from the …show more content…
With her late studies in the 1970’s, children talked about a “people kind of love” and a “robot kind of love” because “children were comfortable with the idea of a robot being both machine and creature” (Furkle 462). Creatures were alive and demanded attention, while machines did not demand attention, but instead did not eat. Tamagotchis and Furbies, the robotic machines, turned children into more mature individuals that think about why something is happening. With a Tamagotchi by a child’s side, children felt obligated to take care of these animate robots. In theory, children gained a lot of responsibility, which leads to a feeling of caring. This does create a positive connection between the child and the robot to an extent. When Tamagotchis pass away and restart a new life, children don’t feel like the same Tamagotchi has come back, and they wish they would have taken better care so this would not have happened. Frederickson would agree with children making connections with others, mentally and physically. When people make connections with other individuals, they are more capable of empathizing and feeling for each other. The children are making connections with the robots, but they make themselves too trustworthy by getting attached to the inanimate toys because the robots are human-like. Therefore, children feel as if these
Barbara Frederickson would have a difficult time understanding how robots can create love with a biological individual. She would not be able to contemplate over the fact that a robot and a human could create positivity resonance with one another. Both Barbara Frederickson and Sherry Turkle talk about what makes the emotional aspect of a relationship, but both have two totally different visions. Living in the time of technology does not just create a companionship with our robots. By matriculating these robots, we define who we are and what we are going to become. In comparison to Sherry Turkle’s beliefs, Barbara Frederickson shares her differences in “Love 2.0,” which include neural coupling and robotic machines, that spark a debate of whether a biological individual or an animate robot can give love to a human. Turkle starts her essay with a short story from the …show more content…
With her late studies in the 1970’s, children talked about a “people kind of love” and a “robot kind of love” because “children were comfortable with the idea of a robot being both machine and creature” (Furkle 462). Creatures were alive and demanded attention, while machines did not demand attention, but instead did not eat. Tamagotchis and Furbies, the robotic machines, turned children into more mature individuals that think about why something is happening. With a Tamagotchi by a child’s side, children felt obligated to take care of these animate robots. In theory, children gained a lot of responsibility, which leads to a feeling of caring. This does create a positive connection between the child and the robot to an extent. When Tamagotchis pass away and restart a new life, children don’t feel like the same Tamagotchi has come back, and they wish they would have taken better care so this would not have happened. Frederickson would agree with children making connections with others, mentally and physically. When people make connections with other individuals, they are more capable of empathizing and feeling for each other. The children are making connections with the robots, but they make themselves too trustworthy by getting attached to the inanimate toys because the robots are human-like. Therefore, children feel as if these