Man eventually has gone all in and developed robots that look just like us. Same physique, nicer chests on both males and females, legs to die for, and absence of degrees of beauty. No shades of beautiful, pretty, plain, dowdy, attractive, handsome or interesting. Just different shades of beautiful or handsome.
Robots are everything man ever imagined. They make living easier, drive us to parties yet maintain our confidences in respect of all that transpired on the back seat of the rented hovercraft en route. We no longer are afraid to have help in our homes. Robots can’t make a play on our wives or husbands. If we have a mulatto child, we know for sure its genetic perturbation not adultery. How do we know this? The wife is in a cryonic state all day at home earning a guaranteed “stay at home and do not look for work paycheck.” By remaining in cryonic state all day, wives minimize choices of how to spend daytime and have energy to interact with husbands all night. Ditto stay at home husbands.
As could reasonably be expected, robots are programmed by man, as such are not quite as sophisticated as man. They are able to accumulate knowledge faster, but lack man’s innate interpretive capacity in matters that are not clear cut, that is in “gray areas.” With all of the development of robots, professions that specialize in interpretation of knowledge or data have gained even more prominence. So while wives lie at home in cryonic states, men involved in interpretive professions work flexible 6-hour days ensuring knowledge and information are interpreted in a robust or accurate manner. Ditto women in interpretive professions.
Fast track 500 years to 2500 AD. Robots have become part of man’s total existence, interfacing with man and not requiring any programming on man’s part. Physiologically, robots are indistinguishable from man. Robots, however, continue to lag man in interpretive capacity.
A child is born, observes deficiencies of robots and postulates “Man is a higher order Robot” whose co-mingling with robots has induced improvements in robots’ cognitive capacity. No one knows any better. No one challenges the factually correct observation because origins of robots were lost 200 years back in course of some natural tragedy. The child’s observation is factually correct because absent interpretive capacity, robots appear no different from man. “But man created robots” muses a sage, endless, but dismembered wisdom, meaning “robots are robots” and “man is man.” The child is observationally correct, yet deficient in his or her interpretation, exactly the weakness of robots.
But man created robots, meaning “robots are robots” and “man is man.” The child is observationally correct, yet deficient in his or her interpretation, exactly the weakness of robots.
Science has proven man is similar to animals in so far as physiology is concerned, hence the conclusion man is a higher order animal who possesses intellectual capacity. The observation is factually correct, yet in light of the preceding analogy can turn out to be an “observational fallacy.” Just as knowing how robots came to be renders the conclusion “man is a higher order robot” observationally fallacious yet factually accurate, so also absence of knowledge of how animals and man came to be renders the conclusion, “man is a higher order animal” a potentially fallacious observation or conclusion. In the evidence that none of the antecedents of man had capacity to write, a fact agreed to by most reputable historians, lies evidence of possibility of an observational fallacy.
The alternative conclusion devoid of potential for observational fallacies?
Man is Man. Animals are Animals. Neither loses dignity from this distinction.