Robotic pets could replace the real things in a few decades, according to an Australian based researcher. An increasingly urbanized population could mean real animals remain only for the super-rich, and robotic imitations could become the norm.
The paper was published by Dr Jean-Loup Rault, an animal welfare
researcher from the University of Melbourne, who says the market
for robotic pets will take off in the next 10 to 15 years, with
large tech companies already jockeying for position in the new
market.
“Pet robotics has come a long way from the Tamagotchi craze
of the mid-90s. In Japan, people are becoming so attached to
their robot dogs that they hold funerals for them when the
circuits die,” Rault wrote in the paper published in the
Frontiers in Veterinary Science journal.
The reasons for the possible shift from real pets to robotic
versions are likely to be caused by the increasing urbanization
of the planet. Currently, over half those in the Western world
own a pet, with rapid growth in Asia, where having a domestic
animal is seen as an example of one’s social status. However,
with the global population expected to rise to almost 10 billion
by 2050, Rault doesn’t see how keeping domesticated pet can
remain viable.
“A more realistic future is that pets may become a luxury
possession for people who can afford to sustain their cost and
fulfill their needs in terms of space, social, and mental needs
according to possibly higher ethical standards raised by future
societies,” he said.
READ MORE:
Robots with souls: Funerals held for robot dogs across Japan
Dr Rault is predicting a move from real pets to robotic
replacements could herald a seismic shift on a par with changes
that came in “the industrial revolution.”
“We are possibly witnessing the dawn of a new era, the
digital revolution with likely effects on pet ownership, similar
to the industrial revolution which replaced animal power for
petrol and electrical engines,” the animal welfare
researcher wrote.
However, the researcher believes the possible explosion in
popularity of virtual pets could be a double edged sword. On the
one hand, it would allow the elderly and those with allergies to
experience having a ‘pet.’ But if the population gets used to not
having to feed or exercise a robotic pet, this could have a
detrimental effect on the treatment of domesticated animals.
“If artificial pets can replicate the human benefits obtained
from live pets, does that mean that the human–animal emotional
bond is solely dependent on ourselves and the image that we
project on a live or artificial interactive partner? Does it
ethically matter if the benefits of keeping artificial pets
outweigh the risks, sparing other live pets’ potential animal
welfare issues?”
Dr Rault also cited the example of the Paro robot. This is a
robotic baby seal, which has been designed to engender positive
responses from those using it. It has even been classed as a
medical device in the US, with the designers deliberately using
an unfamiliar animal to overcome expectations people may have had
from a popular domestic pet.
“Patients using the Paro robot reported that they “know it is
not real but still love it,” and talk to it as a living being.
Hence, robots can without doubt trigger human emotions.”
The development and advancement of robotic pets could also have
unforeseen dangers. Bill Gates has warned that artificial
intelligence poses a real threat to mankind, while Professor
Stephen Hawking adds that due to the slow evolution of humans,
they may not be able to compete and would be superseded by
artificial intelligence.
“Are animals what make us humans? Or are we witnessing a leap
into what domestication always was: to select animals to be
perfect pets, with a need to update the definition of pets as an
animal or an artificial device kept for pleasure?” Dr Rault
concluded.