That’s horrible !!! Question, would you say that attitude is specific to a sub-segment of society somehow?
When I was a kid I, and all my friends, had something called “parents”. I’d like to say maybe an AI generated “parent” would be better than no parent but, I’m not sure what these LLM’s that drive the GPTs would actually conjure up.
Makes me want to go change the cat litter.

“Is it just me or does it feel like tech and science are trying to eliminate the need for biological women altogether?”
No, Daniel, it’s not just you. In some ways, women are threatened, as you say, by the development of new technologies. But so are men, not only because of new technologies but also because of other cultural patterns both new and old.
At one time, after all, many people worried that machines (automation) would replace the humans who worked in factories. And most of these technologically redundant workers–almost all of them before World War II–were men.
A closely related matter, almost always ignored, is the longstanding belief, fostered now by pop-evolutionary psychology, that men not only are potentially replaceable by machines but actually are nothing of more value than machines: weapons to be used and discarded in combat.
In our time, we should worry about additional cultural forces, both technological and sociological, that would eliminate the need for men. In connection with reproduction, for instance, we have sperm banks for women who (apart from anything else) either don’t have or don’t want to have even the most fleeting interactions with men in order to become mothers. At the same time, many people (both women and men) have by now come to believe that fathers have no distinctive and necessary function in family life, which leaves the impression that fathers–which is to say, men– are either luxuries or assistant mothers at best and “deadbeat dads” or potential molesters at worst. The stats on fatherless children are not encouraging.
It’s true that many people either can’t or won’t define “woman.” But they also either can’t or won’t define “man.” This goes back long before the rise of transgenderism. Even sixty years ago, traditional definitions of manhood were under attack and new ones were not forthcoming. Men and women, it then seemed obvious in some circles, were interchangeable except for gestation. As a result, it quickly became clear that men had no way of establishing a healthy identity at all, which relies on the ability to make at least one contribution to family or society that is distinctive, necessary and publicly valued.
My point here is not to trivialize your idea that “tech and science” pose problems for women but to suggest that they (and other cultural patterns) pose analogous, and dangerous, problems for men.

“Is it just me or does it feel like tech and science are trying to eliminate the need for biological women altogether?”
No, Daniel, it’s not just you. In some ways, women are threatened, as you say, by the development of new technologies. But so are men, not only because of new technologies but also because of other cultural patterns both new and old.
At one time, after all, many people worried that machines (automation) would replace the humans who worked in factories. And most of these technologically redundant workers–almost all of them before World War II–were men.
A closely related matter, almost always ignored, is the longstanding belief, fostered now by pop-evolutionary psychology, that men not only are potentially replaceable by machines but actually are nothing of more value than machines: weapons to be used and discarded in combat.
In our time, we should worry about additional cultural forces, both technological and sociological, that would eliminate the need for men. In connection with reproduction, for instance, we have sperm banks for women who (apart from anything else) either don’t have or don’t want to have even the most fleeting interactions with men in order to become mothers. At the same time, many people (both women and men) have by now come to believe that fathers have no distinctive and necessary function in family life, which leaves the impression that fathers–which is to say, men– are either luxuries or assistant mothers at best and “deadbeat dads” or potential molesters at worst. The stats on fatherless children are not encouraging.
It’s true that many people either can’t or won’t define “woman.” But they also either can’t or won’t define “man.” This goes back long before the rise of transgenderism. Even sixty years ago, traditional definitions of manhood were under attack and new ones were not forthcoming. Men and women, it then seemed obvious in some circles, were interchangeable except for gestation. As a result, it quickly became clear that men had no way of establishing a healthy identity at all, which relies on the ability to make at least one contribution to family or society that is distinctive, necessary and publicly valued.
My point here is not to trivialize your idea that “tech and science” pose problems for women but to suggest that they (and other cultural patterns) pose analogous, and dangerous, problems for men.

Brilliant

Disagree. Treat the cause (hard) not symptom (all too easy, especially with this delusory tech). If you only treat the symptom, you aggravate the cause.

That’s just dumb! You *should* feel negative emotions. They motivate you to change some aspect of your life. Humans should be happy all the time? Maybe for a few people that would be healthy, but not most people as their daily circumstances change.

Loneliness is a lack of human contact. Curing a lack of human contact with a tool that encourages even less human contact isn’t a solution.