>>12733675You take exceptions as norms and shift the allegory -- but that rhetoric holds no water under scrutiny. Synthetic life would serve as an extension of humanity and human empathy only in separation of humanity; upon coexistence, voluntary or involuntary substitution is natural -- be they conscious or subconscious. You discuss the import of raising a child beyond passing genetics, but through that you make my point. Yes, today, through our children, more is passed then our DNA: our ideology, our honor, our hopes for the future. In that, by proliferating and sculpting a world that this responsibility is stewarded to a machine built not for the love of the children of parents, but by a corporation with standard and intentionally gentrified set of ideals and thoughts. Emmy has not harmed the relationship between Madeline and her parents, she is a produced of the decline of intimacy and dependency propagated the technological society the Delaire's inhibit. It is this loss of intimacy in life that this loss of empathy can be expected. When one has been rasied to believe that a machine can care for your child's needs, emotional, physiological, social, then where can any sanctity regarding responsibility be found? Emmy is doesn't act like a tool, but this unemphatic society would suggest her to be one. A companion who you can throw away is no companion to man.
While machines are paramount and progression unstoppable, so is a decline in the moral standards. It is in this decline that our progressions shape our world. Robots replacing mothers and father -- even half the time -- is a decline begotten a decline. A demand must have existed and notion that this demand be just. Thus they were created. Man's child now man's mother.
