It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The future and the separation of men and women

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

If you have the cash to spare, go pay for it... if they put these A.I's out there for sex, why ridicule men who actually pay for sex with hookers? With real life women who actually want to do that out of their own choice?
edit on CDTThu, 27 Sep 2018 05:33:29 -05000000003005x129x1 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

I don't intend to ridicule anyone. Nor do I desire sex with robots. I am married anyway.

I sympathize with some of those that for whatever reason can't get a woman or have had bad experiences. Most of all, I advocate for development of robots. This might seem like a cheap, kind of disgusting way to do that, it does appeal to base instincts. Bear in mind that development of the internet was, to a large degree, driven by pornography.

So far the driver behind robots has been automation of manufacturing. This doesn't really lead to humanoid robots or support the type of AI humanoid robots use.



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

I said that Europe would unlikely see any more war within Europe , we haven't had any European nations fight openly since the end of WW2 , after constant war and conflict for over 3000 years . I could guarantee the European countries would never engage in open warfare with each other.

As for Africa , of course there will be constant conflict until things improve on many levels.

No one can annihilate European culture !
unless its done through total nuclear annihilation

So no immigrants from Europe from 1965 onwards, what about the previous 200 years ?



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

I don't see much point arguing your views on Europe. Even if mine are different, you're entitled to your opinion.

As for "no immigrants from Europe from 1965 onwards," that isn't what I was trying to say. I said up until 1965, the US only allowed immigration from Europe. According to Wikipedia History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States, that's not altogether true. "Immigration is distinct from naturalization. For the first century of the United States' history, immigration to the country was unrestricted." "Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character"."

So people could come here but naturalization (right to vote or hold office) was tightly controlled. "In 1870, the law was broadened to allow blacks to be naturalized.[2] Asian immigrants were excluded from naturalization but not from living in the United States. There were also significant restrictions on some Asians at the state level; in California, for example, non-citizen Asians were not allowed to own land." Over the years the law was revised frequently. "The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act) revised the quotas again, basing them on the 1920 census. For the first time in American history, racial distinctions were omitted from the U.S. Code."

"The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (the Hart-Celler Act) abolished the system of national-origin quotas. There was, for the first time, a limitation on Western Hemisphere immigration (120,000 per year), with the Eastern Hemisphere limited to 170,000. The law changed the preference system for immigrants. Specifically, the law provided preference to immigrants with skills needed in the U.S. workforce, refugees and asylum seekers, as well as family members of U.S. citizens. Family reunification became the cornerstone of the bill. At the time, the then-chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee Edward Kennedy remarked that "the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1–3.)"

Basically, at first people were allowed in but only free white people of good character were allowed to become citizens. As time went by, immigration became more controlled with quotas but naturalization gradually opened up.

The practical effect of all this was as of 1965, the US remained 90% white.
edit on 27-9-2018 by toms54 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
ERROR preventing post
edit on 18000000pppm by yuppa because: error



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Heres a thought..putting a AI into a human body so it can reproduce. now with brain to brain links coming into play its possible to spread AI's into other brains.



new topics

top topics
 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join