AnimalHelp

Comment

Comment by Sarina W on November 20, 2008 at 12:34pm

For lack of any other words...Wow. What a very small pony.

Comment by PonyXpress on November 19, 2008 at 12:14pm

You make our hearts sing!

Comment by Marco Antonio on November 19, 2008 at 11:18am

I should have mentioned earlier. I ADORE your embassador. I would take my girls to meet him. He's the most fantastic embassador anyone could hope to have, ever. :D He's a nice approachable size, too! I'm wary of horses, but McHippus gets my vote!

Comment by PonyXpress on November 19, 2008 at 10:27am

...even robotic ones. woof--beep---woof

Comment by PonyXpress on November 19, 2008 at 10:25am

And below is my ambassador to help bridge this apparent gap, Iota McHippus, io for short. And he IS short. We were on a mission spreading smiles on the faces of the ultra-hip in Chicago's Bucktown neighborhood.

I appreciate you all leaning into this robot concept as hard as you are - it is very DOG of you. And you can bet I love dogs.

Comment by Beverly on November 19, 2008 at 9:23am

Perhaps using the name of 'pets' to describe robot creatures is what is holding us back from exploring this option further?

Comment by Marco Antonio on November 19, 2008 at 1:26am

Hehe, that's because you are you, Pony. :) For the more techno-minded out there the choice might not be as you'd expect. There are plenty of people (myself included) who might find 'nature' (anything bigger than a cat) quite intimidating and hard to relate to. However a pet bot, or an AI digital pet might be more accesible, practical and something we could relate to a lot more.

Live creatures, loveable as they are (including my own kids!) smell and poop and don't have volume control. This to some might be a disadvantage...

Anyways - i'm not saying we don't need animals, i'm just saying within the context of AnimalHelp, it is good to define who/when/how such help is needed for both parties involved. :)

If you were so inclined, you can always include a 'introduction to live animals 101' as one of your services; for those kids who still think milk comes from a carton, or have never seen animals up close and personal...

Comment by PonyXpress on November 18, 2008 at 2:22pm

I love my car. She has a name. Lucky. She serves me well, and takes me wherever I want to go. I have a horse. His name is Mumu. He serves me well and takes me wherever I want to go. One day I was sad and walked outside. Guess who chose - indeed could choose to come be with me just then?

And that is the difference between technology and life - spontaneous free will. People will have robots that I'm sure will someday be easily programmed to come to them. With time a robot will be taught to learn to read that person's body language and even respond alarmingly close to a living beings natural response. And maybe then there will be no difference in how one experiences that response. For now, though, I would find it less than a perfect experience because I will believe the machine is merely responding as it was programmed to do - not as an affirming choice to do so.

That said, created things, like these machines still retain the essence of their creators - how could they not? In a sort of homeopathic way, is what I'm saying. So in fact they are not without a life element in some way. After all, when you look at it in a certain way you must admit there is no such thing as unnatural - as we are natural beings with natural proclivities so it follows what we make is natural too - like a bird's nest.

For now - I choose living animals as companions because I live in a time, in a place where this is especially convenient and affordable. I find robots insufficiently mobile and prohibitively expensive. It might not always be so. For me the best choice would be to offer all options! Let robots muck out the stalls. Now we're talkin' Utopia.

Comment by Sarina W on November 18, 2008 at 2:04pm

I think you've made a point. There are certain kinds of purposes for living and breathing animals and those that require a little engineering. I think robot pets can serve humans in greater ways (i.e. as better aides to the disabled than normal animals), and it is quite possible, especially if a robot is notably realistic, for a human to form a fulfilling companionship.

However, it is also in our nature (well, most of us anyway) to want to shelter and provide for a pet. The need to love and be loved by something that thinks and feels, on no matter how basic a level, is often innate and deeply ingrained within animal lovers.

Comment by Marco Antonio on November 17, 2008 at 4:41pm

they probably both serve different needs - and more so in the future, in light of the ultra-realistic robots being created right now as we speak.
I guess we should question what 'pet' means, and what its purpose is. A human can create an emotional bond with just about anything - (the human brain is an amazing thing), but the requirement for retribution is something different from case to case.

If it's just about having a living entity in your surroundings, robots will do me fine. (re: Blade Runner, the inventor's house). If it's about saving animals from the pound, i'll take as many cats as I can feed without going broke. If you live in the countryside, you can have 'free pets', those animals you feed and develop a 'habit' bond with (my sister does. She's a park ranger in north Australia). In the city, may not be so easy to have animals in the house...

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last