From: rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 21:57:05 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Apr10.210136.21271@athena.mit.edu> tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes:
>The perfect partner has artificial intelligence at least equal to
>mine. When such is available, so also will perfect beings which are
>artificial but alive come to be. I shall take one as my mate. I shall
>have my body and brain reconstructed to match their perfection and
>upon transfering my awareness to that body I will look back at this
>old heap and I will simply remember to turn off the power and close
>the door for good. That's assuming of course that the new body will
>have enhanced sexual capability! Mr. Chlimar, life, is a hoax. The
>very computer you are using right now is destined to supercede the
>spontaneously arising human body which rots in three score and ten.
>The so called natural way to become conscious through evolution is
>just the random kick start on what will be ever afterward a controlled
>and ever more elegantly perfected process of machine evolution through
>direct control by the beings it affects. Until then, no relationship
>with a machine will live up to the real thing. There was a hew and cry
>that computers would make us all a bunch of video screen nerds as
>children. We are not. We are better for it as well. - Steve Walz
>
>
>--- end of quoted text ---
>
>
>'upon transferring my awareness to that body...'
>Neat trick.  Good luck, Mr. Walz.  
>Did it ever occur to you that the eventual mechanization of humankind would
>eliminate the need for sex?  That a 'perfected process of machine evolution' 
>would probably come to the conclusion that the procreative act was without value
>or function in an elegant and controlled masterplan?  Like breathing or shitting,
>sex would go the way of the dodo as Man became machine- maybe not at first, but
>in the long run? 

Yes, the "need" for sex might be obsoleted, but if we and not
evolution are in charge of how we configure ourselves, then we are
very likely going to build in some pleasure center function. Since we
are social, we are likely going to have these pleasure center
apparatus used to mutually interact through pleasure. You fail to
realize that at the point I have described, we are in complete charge
of our evolutionary destiny, and not the frugal nit-wit nature. We
will likely come up with something our improved brains would recognize
as vastly superior to sex in its depth of sensation.

 Evolution is based on energy-conservation- things tend to evolve
>into more efficient forms- evolution into a 'human' machine would be a heinous
>waste of efficiency.

Since when haven't humans "wasted" stuff and energy in the pursuit of
fun. There are plenty more stars where this one came from if you are
nearly immortal, (complete personality and memory back-up's galor
scattered around to refresh from).  

>Machines are tools.  They can make life more efficient, but not 'better.'
>a lot longer for you to die.

Yes, but wouldn't you prefer the life of the universe to three score
and ten? Vibrators are also tools, tom. You are a tool, tom. Join us.
- R. Steven Walz