Major Robotics Scientist Proudly Brags ‘People Will Be Marrying Robots And Printing Their Children In Laboratories In Less Than A Generation’

We warned that the sex robots coming in the near future are a realization of a prophecy that the final battle will be over marriage and the family. In another development from this new and final front of the anti-family revolution, one of the major minds behind the propagation of sex robots is boasting that given advances in technology and social changes, it is within a generation or less that people will be marrying their robots in legal ceremonies and even attempting to have “children” with them:

The inventor of one of the world’s first sex robots claims he is not far away from being able to have a ‘baby’ with one of his creations. Sergi Santos also thinks people will be getting married to their automatic lovers within a generation.

Santos previously revealed that his sex robot Samantha – who moans and groans when he touches her in the right places – had improved his marriage of 16 years to fellow designer Martisa Kissamitaki.

But Kissamitaki might not be so relaxed about the prospect of her promiscuous scientist breeding with his silicon seductress.

Santos’s vision of a sex robot baby involves ‘merge’ the robot’s personality and physical traits with his own attributes in a computer program to create their ‘child’s’ brain and body, that can be ‘born’ in a 3D printer.

He said: “I can make them have a baby. It’s not so difficult. I would love to have a child with a robot. Using the brain I have already created, I would program it with a genome so he or she could have moral values, plus concepts of beauty, justice and the values that humans have.

“To create a child with this robot it would be extremely simple. I would make an algorithm of what I personally believe about these concepts, and then shuffle it with what she thinks and then 3D print it.

“That’s it. I 3D print the robot that is the child of me and the robot…I don’t see any complications,” he added, in conversation with The Sun.

If Santos is right, it will open up huge ethical questions about our the rights sex robot children and the meaning of what it is to be human in the 21st century. The inventor is confident that the shock with which people have greeted the first generation of sex robots will be replaced by an acceptance of their place in civil society.

“People might look at Samantha as a weird thing you read about. But before they know it, these robots will be doing their jobs, and marrying their children, their grandchildren, and their friends,” he said.

“They need to remember that just a few years ago mobile phones were seen as a non-essential item in society but now we can’t function without them.” (source)

The emphasis on sex robots cannot be underemphasized because what is happening with them right now is an insight into the future of the human race as a whole that will change the way man interacts with other men on a level that the Internet did. Whereas the Internet brought the human race together on a level of connectivity and speed without comparison in human history, the sex robot revolution will reshape the social and biological ties between men.

While this and many of the stories have focused on essentially what is the future of self-abuse- “sex” with a robot- the concept of the sex robot is that man can create a surrogate self made in his image and likeness and to his specifications. It is ultimately an attempt to become God for the atheist and replace God for the rebellious that will be as close as possible to human cloning as one will be able to do.

Many people have warned about the future of “human cloning,” but this is actually not something one needs to concern oneself with. Indeed knowing the fallen nature of man, there are no ethical, moral, or other boundaries that could stop him from realizing this other than the hand of God. Some publications will say that this is not the case and that it is just a limit due to technology, but this is an absolute falsehood, as the governments of the world would pour endless amounts of money into any attempt to realize the creation of endless armies of people bred solely for to be the modern equivalent of slave armies, genetically tailored to exact speficiations for combat readiness.

The reason scientists have not done this is the same reason they can clone animals and the answer given by the Catholic Church for the difference between man and the animals:

One principle is that all living things have a soul. Here soul is defined as what makes an organic body live. Now when any living thing dies, its soul is separated from its body. In the case of plants and animals the soul goes out of existence. But in the case of man, the soul remains in existence because it is a spiritual or immaterial thing. Consequently, it differs from the souls of animals in two important respects. First, it is the seat of intelligence or reason. For this reason a man is held responsible for his actions in a way that animals are not. Secondly, the soul is immortal. A thing which has no physical parts cannot fall apart or be poisoned or be crushed or be put out of existence. For this reason the souls of the saved will always be aware of themselves as enjoying the vision of God for all eternity. This enjoyment will be the result of having chosen to act on earth in such a way that one did the will of God rather than one’s own will. And the souls of the damned will be aware of themselves as never attaining this vision of God because they have shown by their lives on earth that they did not wish this vision but instead preferred their own will.

In the light of this essential difference between human beings and animals, it would seem that we would not see the souls of our pets in heaven for the simple reason that they do not have immortal souls and are not responsible for their actions. They do not have the intelligence which allows them to choose either God’s will or their own will. There is, then, an incomparable distance, say, between the soul of the sorriest human being who ever lived and the most noble brute animal that ever walked the earth. (source)

The Catholic Church has always emphasized that the difference between the soul of man and the soul of an animal is in his intellect, as this is the part which reflects the nature of God. Man possesses all of the corporeal functions of the animals, yet he has a face that looks to Heaven and a mind that is able to reason. It is the reason why man is called in the Baltimore Catechism ‘above the animals and a little lower than the angels,’ and is such a wonderful thing to ponder.

The reason that animals can be cloned and even parts of people- such as limbs, organs, and tissues- can be cloned but a full human being can never be cloned is because man cannot create a soul. Animals do not have souls, so they can be cloned without a problems. Individual body parts can be cloned because it is akin to replacing parts of a car, able to keep the machine running yet not the absolute fix to the entire vehicle for all issues, as the car will still break. The ability to create new life at man’s hand cannot happen because man can replicate all of the natural functions able to cause new life to generate, but he cannot provide the spark of life in the soul- the anima- that is necessary for human life to come into existence because, simply put, man is not God.

Modern science will never admit to this, and it would be anathema for the institution to do so as a whole because it would admit that man is not or cannot become God. Instead, the focus will be perpetually on human cloning as a possibility that can never be fully realized because of as many reasons as necessary (lack of funding, “those Christians,” etc.) to avoid having to admit that God might actually exist and He might actually be able to do things that ALL POWERFUL SCIENCE cannot do.

If man cannot clone himself, then the next closest thing that he could do is to be able to create a clone that involves creating everything but an actual human with a soul. It would be a self-directed machine run with its own “brain” in the form of a computer able to process advanced calculations independently of human input encased in human tissue the functions as a living organism in symbiosis with the machine. In short, it would be a machine that looks like a person yet is for most purposes indistinguishable from one as it is covered in living tissue:

What James Cameron foresaw in his film Terminator is coming to life before us in our modern times. The idea of limiting what one thinks of sex robots to the article above and his clear sexual fantasies is actually the smallest and least relevant of the greater image of what is happening today. Sex robots are the intellectual candy to entice people to support the development of such robots, playing off of the real brokenness experienced by millions of men throughout the Western world and now, globally owing to the destruction of the family through the decline of religion, evil government policies, and the selfishness of modern women in her attempt to become a man that has overshadowed the West since at least the 19th century. We warned that the end purpose of all of these robots is eugenics, except with the robots it will allow eugenics to take place through a multiplicity of forms.

Continuing from the sexual aspect, as we have discussed, the sex robot is a a replacement for men of what a woman would be in a relationship. As Matthew McMullen, one of the creators of RealDoll, one of the largest sex doll companies in the world and on the forefront of this development of AI, he has noted that sex is but one aspect of why men purchase dolls, and the greater reality is that men desire a woman who wants them and agrees with their interests and personality, who is attractive to them, and without the risks of marrying a real woman. Since the majority of marriages now end in divorce and it is the man who is consistently the loser in the legal system, men do not have a reason to get married. Fornication, while immoral, is also becoming difficult because of the change in “sexual assault” laws where women can consent to sexual activity and then later, after they regret their bad decisions, can accuse a man of being raped when it was many times they who asked to have sex in the first place. There is also the danger of pregnancy, since many men do not want to raise children with women they are having relations with for casual sex only, if he does want to raise the child the woman may decide to murder the baby before it is born and he has no recourse otherwise, and if he wants the child and she does not want him to see the child she has the option to remove the father completely. I say nothing of this to give license to sin, but to illustrate a reality that if there is any trouble between men and women in a relationship, the government will almost always support the woman’s side wholly, ignore the man’s side, and then use the woman’s arguments to mercilessly crush the man with social approbation. If none of this is an issue, there is still the problem of sexually transmitted disease, and with scientist acknowledging the emergence of drug resistant forms of STDs, the possibility of becoming sick and dying from having sex with a stranger is a real problem.

The sex doll solves all of the problems above because, like with cloning, it is a person made to the specifications of the individual. Sex dolls are machines- they cannot act (at least for now) outside of the will of the one who controls them. They cannot get pregnant or sleep with other men without the owner knowing. They cannot divorce, and since their mind is a program and their bodies are made to specifications, they can be anything you want to be. The ability of a “learning computer” to interact with a person is similar to what the Amazon Alexa Robot is, except in time it will be far more advanced. With the advances in cyborg technology, it is only a matter of time before real flesh replaces the polymer substitutes used as skin. The fact is that these robots will give the impression of being a human in all ways and indistinguishable from a man but without a soul.

Yet as Santos points out in the article, what will these developments mean for society?

Above is the “animatrix,” which is an anime cartoon produced by the Wachowski brothers (the minds behind the Matrix film series) describing the “history” of what lead up to the creation of the matrix. It is a very disturbing cartoon, but worth the watch because it explores the questions that Santos raised and what eventually be raised in the future.

As I mentioned above, the soul is what makes the difference between a man and an animal, and is the reason we have not yet had human cloning, a fact that modern science will never admit to. However, if science is able to create robots that are for all purposes seem to be humans except without souls, and given that government has clearly demonstrated through the LGBT movement they can give the impression of redefining the definition of marriage by legal fiat, what is not to say that a government will not attempt to redefine the nature of human life itself by legal fiat? Certainly just like with sodomite unions nothing changes in terms of divinely revealed truth, but if a government can redefine such as basic idea as the difference between the sexes because somebody wants it, and as sexual relations were created by God for the purpose of generating new life (and not endless masturbation, as the LGBT would have one believe), what is to say that life itself a sacred concept to such a government or people?

Some years ago, the Jerry Springer Show had on a man who said he “married” his horse. Above is a clip from a documentary in which this man in interviewed, with the note about his “marriage” coming in at 3:00 and 5:30.

The people in this film are highly disturbing, but the fact that given all that we have warned about the LGBT, pedophilia, and bestiality, is this really a surprise? To our question about the robots, if this film was made some years ago and support for these three areas has clearly increased, what is to say that man would not support “marriage” to a robot? Indeed, many would argue that a “robot marriage is more normal” than other kinds of sexual abberations (despite sex with robots being an abberation itself).

As Santos warns, people will try to get married to these robots. They will attempt to form families with them. Man will actively attempt to merge himself fully with machine. Since law now has been completely severed from any semblance of Christianity, it is solely the will of the people given over to their passions which define that which is “permissible” or “impermissible.” Since the sex robot cannot have children no matter what a man does, any attempts a creating “children” will either to have machines that look like children but are not people. As such, it is an ideal form of as the evil eugenicist Helmuth Nyborg calls it, “positive eugenics,” since man chooses to limit his family size by actions that avoid the creation of new life instead of “negative eugenics” that involves the active taking of human life. One does not need to worry about man murdering his fellow man, since he will simply take an active role in preventing him from generating more of himself in a way far more effective than modern contraceptives could ever be.

But beyond sex, there is an even more dangerous purpose behind the robots, which is also alluded to in the animatrix film series. This is the rise of robots used as weapons in war and even being hijacked, malfunctioning, or “going rogue.”

To put the serious nature of this issue into context. Just take a look at the recent Equifax credit card scandal. The entire scandal has been going on for months, but from what we can tell, something around 150 million Americans had their credit card information stolen or compromised by a hack attack against the company. That is a MAJOR leak, and the fault lies explicitly with the company for failing to protect the data. At the same time, the story is an acknowledgment of a fact that Americans in particular do not like to admit, which is that there is no such thing in this world, barring the hand of God, that is absolutely foolproof. This is because of the fallen nature of man, which manifests in the world through the fact that stuff breaks, things wear out, and eventually all fail safeguards will be compromised in time. There is no way to avoid this because man is not perfect. Certainly problems can be for the most part avoided and even mitigated, and countless dollars spent on attempts to improve processes so that errors can be eliminated. However, nothing is absolutely perfect.

If half of the country can have their credit card information stolen, what is to say that something similar with robots would not happen? It would not involve per se stealing information, but the idea that a robot could be “hacked” or that a software malfunction would happen in order to facilitate a machine acting in a way outside of what it has been programmed to do.

People complain about the “unreliability” of men in their ability to perform various tasks, and there is much to be said for this, as a machine can do the same task more precisely and consistely than a human can. Indeed, this is the reason why man makes machines, so to assist him in compensating for his natural flaws that are caused by sin. However, man still possesses a rational soul that unlike a machine can think outside of what he is told to do. Even the lowliest slave still possesses the ability to rebel against his master, and as such is not purely confined to act in one manner. A machine simply performs what it is told because it has no soul- it just provides a consistent output based on the given input. If that input or output is changes, it can have drastic consequences. For example, what if a security robot, which has been allowed to carry a gun or other weapons, is “hacked” or malfunctions otherwise?

Would you really trust a machine whose explicit purpose to kill other men with deadly weapons that can act with an extensive degree of autonomy to guard your safety? I would not, because just like with the Equifax scandal, it is only a matter of time before a weak spot would be found, and upon finding this would be exploited with terrible consequences.

World War I brought the creation of the machine gun, and it changed the nature of war forever. World War II brought the atom bomb, which again changed the nature of war forever. World War III, which is in the making right now, will change the world forever because as we have noted, it will introduce robotics into the battlefield as a replacement for human combat troops. This is the reason why there has been significant work on genetic experimentation involving aborted babies, and it is also the reason that abortion will never end from any government, because aborted children are being harvested for the purpose of doing bizarre genetic experiments in order to realize the goal of creating the self-sustaining organic matter to place around these robots.

In addition to sex and fighting, the creation of living tissue for the purpose of robotics also has effects on man’s perception of himself. Far from seeing himself as being created in the image and likeness of God, man is reduced to being a mere animal, and as such, issues such as cannibalism are now being discussed not as something that is disgusting, but as a potential wave of future interest and even legalization:

A disgusting factor which separates consuming human flesh from consuming muscle tissue of non-speaking animals is that you can’t separate eating dead humans from eating live humans. In the way that you call a baby cow “veal” or a pig “pork,” human flesh is just human flesh — you wouldn’t think about eating Dave’s “rounds” or his “snout,” you would think about eating Dave’s arse and face.

But what about consuming cloned, lab-grown human flesh? The very idea is fictional (specifically, in Brandon Cronenberg’s 2013 sci-fi horror Antiviral, for example) and we are far from the future where this is possible. But is eating cloned human tissue technically cannibalism?

And, hypothetically, what about synthetic human meat, grown without a genetic human donor? Even lab-grown animal meat hasn’t reached that goal yet. As of this summer, lab-grown beef still originates from “fetal bovine serum” — the blood of cow fetuses removed live from their slaughtered mothers and have their blood drained from their beating hearts until they die. (Hampton Creek claims it is attempting to approximate meat cells from its “plant library.” Mark Post, co-founder of Mosa Meats famous for introducing the first cultured hamburger, tells Gizmodo cryptically that researchers are looking at “harmless cells,” for example cells from feathers. “My guess is that they we will gradually move towards an animal-free way of producing meat, but thus far this is not possible with the current state of technology without using gene technology.”)

But imagine that lab-grown human calf muscle appears in a petri dish without involving a human foetus. Is consuming a synthetic human burger cannibalistic? Or does it become just a burger?

I spoke with an artist who says that he considers lab-grown in vitro human meat as of an entirely different microbial species, confined to human-controlled environments. A theologian said that he would consider lab-grown tissue without a soul, and therefore non-human. Would you say that the difference is mostly semantics? That if it smells and tastes like a human fingernail, then it’s a human fingernail? Then it’s technically cannibalism, just to varying degrees? (source)

This discussion and really, justification of cannibalism follows in the same incrementalism as pedophilia, such as when we discussed how Todd Nickerson’s article in that justified molesting children was simply meant to make that which is evil and unnatural something is socially acceptable. While many people acted with disgust, the fact is that such an article was able to be published because while controversial, the social conditions necessary to allow for such garbage to see the light of publication were already present, and they have been nurtured since then.

The engineered decline of the family and of community, the reduction in population, the future of warfare, and the justification of horrible evils are being marketed to the public in the form of the coming forms of robotics. Far from advancing society for the greater good, the increases in technology are being used to strip us of our humanity. As they are not attempting to help us advance the greater moral good because the men who create or finance them today are immoral and evil themselves, they are using these tools to project their evils onto ever larger numbers of people more effectively and with greater speed than ever has been seen before in their attempt to become like God in the eyes of men.

One must pay attention to the sex robot industry carefully, for sex is the most superficial of considerations and is presented as a distraction. The real purpose to all of this is eugenics in the pursuit of absolute power by a few at the expense of the many and with respect to none.