He also offers this easily understood summary of it for the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies.
The paper lays out two contrasting hypotheses: one in which robots dominate the sex industry; and another in which robot use actually leads to an increase in human sex work.
In both scenarios, Danaher argues, a “basic income” policy would be helpful — either to fund newly unemployed prostitutes or to provide an alternative to people who have lost their jobs to robots so they don’t end up as prostitutes. “Basic income” is an idea that economists have toyed with for years. It’s the notion that the majority of government welfare payments ought to be abolished in favor of a single, unconditional cash payment that everyone gets regardless of their employment status.
So, yes, he’s literally arguing that in the future, sex robots may finally make the case for a basic income scheme:
The second leg of the displacement hypothesis — the advantages thesis — simply suggests that robots designed for sex work will have advantages over human sex workers. For example, sex robot manufacture is legal in many countries where prostitution is illegal. There are also ethics and health advantages, as sex trafficking and objectification need not be a concern for robots. And as long as sanitation is maintained, STDs would largely not be a concern.
Leave a Comment