Harnessing one of our top desires and human basic needs and putting it to work for the common good and the economy might be a brilliant idea. But it also sounds like a bad 70s sci-fi exploitation film. Don’t you think it’s more likely we’ll reach and finesse virtual sex before we reach the sextopian economy you’re envisioning? I’m talking about body haptics and immersive sense inputs similar to oculus but twenty times more powerful. Scalable, upgradable, customizable, instant gratification. It seems more likely than sex workers. I think your idea smacks of flying cars like the jetsons. It’s too clunky and unwieldy and there are simpler solutions.
Thanks, Gamer, but I think your idea sounds more Jetsons than mine. Technology like that is a long way away if it’s ever possible at all. Star Trek holodeck type technology is probably never possible, not even in a million years. And even that wouldn’t replicate the joy of having sex with a real person.
That’s a fair response so let me explain. And btw holodeck might also be pointless. I think within 10-15 years we will have plausible haptic vitual reality. You might want to read up on it just in case this comes up. It’s not holodeck. The user is stationary and the sense inputs are hacked by on-body technology. And finally, you are having sex with a real person because two haptic suits can be linked and are sexually equipt. As far out as this sounds its one of the more plausible aspects of the “singularity” since sense inputs are simple compared to hairier problems, homunculus et al.
I don’t fly for business anymore. I think it’s because virtual tech and presentation software made it unnecessary. People still fly of course. But if you can stand on the grand canyon virtually you might not need to fly there. The genuine article is better…but the question will be how much better? And how much is it worth? I don’t k ow the answer, it’s diff for everyone. But I guarantee you we will all at least be asking the question within the next two decades.
Technology, at this point, seems more plausible than your scenario. Not to mention, you’d be more likely to start a harem of supermodels than effect the global change in time for your libido to not wear off. Good luck. Keep going. I like where this is going and its hella interesting and could actually sell. Sexocracy is a book that will sell, and guys who sell books get laid.
Thanks, Gamer. I’m not sure these haptic suits are ever going to get better than some porn and old fashioned autosexual stimulation. As I’ve said before, the Sexocracy is about creating a world without war and poverty and crime, not just one where it’s easy for anyone to have sex with someone beautiful.
Haptic suits sounds like a campy fetish. A niche thing that appeals to nerds and sexual deviants, an an interesting novelty, but not an actual replacement for the warmth and intimacy of real love. I imagine it as some kind of fetish suit which robotically squeezes your private parts.
I believe the first step is to legalize and sanitize prostitution. Harems which are structured, safe and clean. To do this we must improve condom technology, and implement the vagina condom. We must give johns and prostitutes the very best of condoms, to maximize pleasure, and minimize diseases.
I believe that my DNA technology is an essential complement to this. Unattractive men, once their DNA is upgraded, turning handsome and stoic, will not make the prostitutes feel disgusted with themselves afterwards, thus making the experience more genuine for both parties.
I havent read your whole thread. Either way, I think tech will render the longing for sex less powerful, and so it will be harder to harness that basic need to pull the society you’re envisioning into place.
Trixie, you can believe what you want. We come here to think clearly and largely, without relying on common boundaries or prosaic bullshit. Haptic suits – we already have them. They’re called bodies. I’m saying we will have better ones, and whether you or I think it’s not as good as the “real” thing is of no consequence. It will be made available with exponentially better and better vividness, bringing with it safety, versatility and human to human link. It will be a factor and you dismiss it out of laziness or wishful thinking. There is nothing deviant about the idea of a haptic suit. It’s simply the logical extension of a phone or video link to encompass the rest of the senses beyond hearing and seeing. It’s funny – people said TV would be a short lived fad. “Why, who would ever want to watch stuff happening when they can watch the real thing?”
Your disagreement can be measured by your ignorance or lack of imagination when it comes to future tech.
Equal – you have the capacity to think outside the lines, so I’m disappointed that you’re so rigid about this, I hope you research it a bit more. If you’re counting on the “demand” to meet the supply your system offers, you may be disappointed when the demand isn’t there.
Look, Gamer, TVs have been around for a hundred years, developing all the time, and still the most hi tec TVs today are no where near close to replicating visual reality. A true 3D image may not even be possible, ever. These ‘Haptic suits’ you talk about are only in their earliest stages, and the technology you envision is way more sophisticated than any TV. To be able to experience sex within a haptic suit that is indistinguishable from real sex is Star Trek level stuff, probably humans will develop lifelike sex worker robots before they can make the haptic suits. And anyway, the sexual service providers in the Sexocracy are real people that clients have emotional and intellectual relationships with as well as sexual relationships. The haptic suit, even if it achieves perfection a thousand years from now will still be just a hi tec sex toy. The SSPs in the Sexocracy are real human beings that make emotional connections with other human beings, that’s a mutual relationship that no machine can achieve.
“tech will make sexual longing less powerful”
that is a great idea morally speaking but tech isnt moral and neither are its producers, the same kartels running the great eternal arms race. So until the earth blows up, tech will be used to make peoples desires and dependencies stronger and less empowering to fulfilling life.
people always keep the dream that tech is here to help us be more happy. it is more that it is here to make money and we need to adapt to it no matter what. man now evolves as part of his techs. it is better this way.
Your interpretation of sexuality in genaral and of sex in particular is false. It is a proton pseudos, because you use it as a premise. So your sexocracy would never work in reality.
My interpretation of sex is that it is a fundamental desire human beings have evolved to have alongside the desires for air, nutrition, excretion, hydration and sleep. We have become like this through the process of evolution. If we don’t fulfill our sexual desires we become frustrated and experience psychological disintegration. A global society that fails to fulfill its populations’ sexual desires and oppresses their sexual desires is a society that inevitably becomes riddled with crime, poverty and war and is continuously on the precipice of self destruction. The society we have today.
If you don’t realise this your interpretation of evolution, humanity, psychology, economics and pretty much everything about reality is false. So you’re the one with the proton pseudos, buddy.
No. You are the one with the proton pseudos, buddy. Your premise is false, because humans have more than one fundamental desire. Humans become even more frustrated, if they do not fulfill other fundamental deires.
So your “sexocracy” does not work. The “flower power society” of the hippies failed, and your “sexocracy” will also fail. But some of those who have other desires will welcome your “sexocracy”, because your “sexocracy” is no competitor for them. In the long run your “sexocracy” will even lead to more inequality, injustice, frustration, and so on.
I am sorry, but there is no doubt.
I know that humans have more than one fundamental desire. I said sexual desire is a fundamental desire, then listed the others. If you’re going to respond to my posts at least read them properly. Human beings will not become ‘frustrated’ if they do not fulfill the other fundamental desires, they will die if they do not fulfill the other desires. If you don’t get air, nutrition, excretion, hydration and sleep then you die. Sexual desire is the only fundamental desire where you don’t actually die without it, that’s why society is able to make such a mess of it without immediately wiping itself out.
The Sexocracy isn’t flower power. It’s a complete political and economic system not hippies smoking weed and making peace signs. You’re drowning in proton pseudos and I’m flying free.
Are you more frustrated now? 
I did not say that you did not list other desires. But that does not change anything. You are referring to mererly one desire when it comes to find a solution for frustration. You will always find the same frustration and even more frustration. Again: Your “sexocracy” will never work because of the said reasons.
You did not read my posts carefully. I did not say that your “sexocracy” was “flower prower”. I am saying your “sexocracy” will fail like the “flower power society” failed. Try to read my posts again.
Your proton pseudos is a huge one.
No.
You said ‘humans have more than one fundamental desire’ which implied that you were suggesting that I was suggesting that human beings have just one fundamental desire.
No I’m not. I am saying sexual desire is a fundamental desire that must be fulfilled for a human being to avoid unhappiness. Without fulfilling that fundamental desire he will always be unhappy. That doesn’t mean that a man whose sexual desires are fulfilled wont feel frustrated, his desires for intellectual or athletic fulfillment may not be fulfilled and that may cause him frustration, but those desires are not fundamental to his well being. A man can still find happiness even if he experiences frustration from not fulfilling his intellectual and/or athletic desires as long as his sexual desires are fulfilled, but a man can never find happiness if his sexual desires are not fulfilled, even if he is a highly intellectual elite athlete.
Your ‘said reasons’ are based on your misconceptions.
Yes I do.
I did not say that you said that my Sexocracy is flower power. I said that it is not the flower power society to make the point that it will not behave like the flower power society. You’re implying that the Sexocracy is not a flower power society but it will behave in the same way as a flower power society? That doesn’t make sense. Get your reasoning together before you try to debate with me.
My ideology is based on reasoning and you’ve got proton pseudos all over your face.
Your “sexocracy” is based on a proton pseudos". If you do not understand what I mean and what the reasons are why your “sexocracy” is nonsense, then read this post from Flannel Jesus who said nearly the same that I said:
Yes.
You do not want to discuss, you want to dictate.
You’re just getting confused, Arminius. I’ve always said that the Sexocracy is not the ‘flower power society’. The statement ‘I said that it is not the flower power society to make the point that it will not behave like the flower power society’ does not imply that I am saying the Sexocracy is the flower power society. The statement ‘I said that it is not the flower power society to make the point that it will not behave like the flower power society’ means that the Sexocracy is not the flower power society and that because it is not the flower power society, it will not behave like the flower power society.
Just saying ‘you don’t understand economics’ isn’t a sophisticated argument. You need reasoning.
I’m having to explain some seriously basic stuff to you now, Arminius. Maybe you should admit defeat.
I’m always prepared to accept the possibility that I may be wrong. Maybe I do have the proton pseudos.
You are telling nonsense. And by the way: You have to give us some arguments for your thesis. But your thesis and arguments are nonsense, because they are false, based on a huge proton pseudos. And now you are hiding yourself behind the “flower power”. That is rediculous.
Your “sexocracy” is comparable with the “flower power movement” and other failed social experiments.
Empty phrases like “all humans will be happy” or “all humans will not be frustrated” are no arguments but examples of your own wishful thinking and your own desires. Your “sexocracy” concept is false.
May I ask you how old you are?
I say: You do have the proton pseudos. Your “sexocracy” is based on a proton pseudos. 