Abstract
This chapter discusses three types of sociable robots for older adults: robotic caregivers (carebots); robotic friends (friendbots); and sex robots (sexbots). The central argument holds that society ought to make reasonable efforts to provide these types of robots and that under certain conditions, omitting such support not only harms older adults but poses threats to their dignity. The argument proceeds stepwise. First, the chapter establishes that assisting care-dependent older adults to perform activities of daily living is integral to respecting dignity. Here, the argument establishes the vital role that carebots-of-the-future might play in aged societies as the supply of working age adults falls shy of demand. Next, the chapter extends this analysis to designing friendbots for socially isolated older adults. The argument holds that reasonable efforts to provide access to friendbots for socially isolated adults is also a future societal responsibility. Finally, the chapter applies similar reasoning to show that societies ought to make reasonable efforts to support sexual capabilities for older adults who want to be sexual but are bereft of sex partners. The argument draws on capability accounts of justice to show that when central human capacities, such as bodily integrity; intimate relationships; and the use of senses, imagination and thought, are at risk of falling below a threshold level, society should intercede.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adioetomo, S. M. and Mujahid, G., 2014. Indonesia on the threshold of population ageing. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Indonesia Monograph Series, July 2014. [Online] Available: <https://indonesia.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/BUKU_Monograph_No1_Ageing_03_Low-res.pdf>.
Aristotle, 2009. Nicomachean ethics, trans. Ross W. D. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baldassar, L., L. Ferrero, and L. Portis. 2017. ‘More like a daughter than an employee’: The kinning process between migrant care workers, elderly care receivers and their extended families. Identities 24 (5): 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2017.1345544.
Banks, M.R., L.M. Willoughby, and W.A. Banks. 2008. Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: Use of robotic versus living dogs. Journal of American Medical Directors’ Association 9 (3): 173–177.
Bathaee, Y. 2018. The artificial intelligence black box and the failure of intent and causation. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 31 (2): 890–938.
Bemelmans, R., G.J. Gelderblom, P. Jonker, and L. de Witte. 2015. Effectiveness of robot Paro in intramural psychogeriatric care. Journal of American Medical Directors’ Association 16 (11): 946–950.
Birks, M., M. Bodak, J. Barlas, J. Harwood, and M. Peth. 2016. Robotic seals as therapeutic tools in an aged care facility. Journal of Aging Research 2016: 8569602. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8569602.
Brave, S., N. Clifford, and K. Hutchinson. 2005. Computers that care. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62 (2): 161–178.
Breazeal, C. 2002. Designing sociable robots. Boston: MIT Press.
Carney, M. T., Fujiwara, J., Emmert, B. E., Liberman, T. A. and Paris, B. 2016. Elder orphans hiding in plain sight: A growing vulnerable population. Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research 2016: 4723250. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4723250.
Danaher, J. 2019. The philosophical case for robot friendship. Journal of Posthuman Studies 3 (1): 5–24. https://doi.org/10.5325/JPOSTSTUD.3.1.0005.
Elder, A. 2017. Robot friends for autistic children. In Robot ethics 2.0: From autonomous cars to artificial intelligence, ed. P. Lin, K. Abney, and R. Jenkins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, M. 2011. Ageing is a development fact. Age international, facing the facts: The truth about ageing and development 18-20. [Online] Available: https://www.ageinternational.org.uk/Documents/Age%20International%20Facing%20the%20facts%20report.pdf.
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Census and Statistics Department. 2016. Population by-census thematic report: Older persons. [Online] Available: <https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/press_release/pressReleaseDetail.jsp?charsetID=1&pressRID=4367>.
Guadagnom, R.E., K.R. Swinth, and J. Blascovich. 2011. Social evaluation of embodied agents and avatars. Computers in Human Behavior 27 (6): 2380–2385.
International Labour Organization (ILO), Labour Migration Branch and Department of Statistics. 2018. ILO global estimates on international migrant workers. 2nd ed. International Labour Office.
Jecker, N.S. 2020a. Ending midlife bias: New values for old age. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2020b. You’ve got a friend in me: Sociable robots for older adults in an age of global pandemics. Ethics and Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09546-y.
———. 2021. Nothing to be ashamed of: Sex robots for older adults with disabilities. Journal of Medical Ethics 47: 26–32.
Jecker, N.S., and J.L. Chin. 2019. Justice and global care chains: Lessons from Singapore. Developing World Bioethics 19 (3): 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12213.
Kaliarnta, S. 2016. Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships. Ethics and Information Technology 18 (2): 65–79.
Levy, D. 2004. Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relationships. New York: Harper Collins.
Lindau, S.T., and N. Gavrilova. 2010. Sex, health, and years of sexually active life gained due to good health. British Medical Journal 340 (7746): 580–591.
Lucas, G.M., J. Gratch, A. King, and M. Louis-Philippe. 2014. It’s only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior 37 (August): 94–100.
McArthur, N., and M.L.C. Twist. 2017. The rise of digisexuality. Sexual and Relationship Therapy 32 (3/4): 334–344.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Social isolation and loneliness in older adults. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Nussbaum, M.C. 2011. Creating capabilities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Robinson, H., E. Broadbent, and B. MacDonald. 2016. Group sessions with Paro in a nursing home. Australasian Journal on Ageing 35 (2): 106–112.
Sen, A. 1980. Equality of what? In Tanner lectures on human values, volume 1, ed. S. McMurrin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sorrell, T., and H. Draper. 2014. Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics of Information Technology 16 (3): 183–195.
Sparrow, R., and L. Sparrow. 2006. In the hands of machines? Minds and Machines 16 (2): 141–161.
Sung, H.C., S.M. Chang, M.Y. Chin, and W.L. Lee. 2015. Robot-assisted therapy for improving social interactions and activity participation among institutionalized older adults. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry 7 (1): 1–6.
Takayanagi, K., Kirita, T., Shibata, T., 2014. Comparison of verbal and emotional responses of elderly people with mild/moderate Dementia and those with severe dementia in responses to seal robot, PARO. Frontiers in Aging and Neuroscience 6, article 257.
Turkle, S. 2017. Alone together. New York: Basic Books.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2017. World population ageing 2017. United Nations.
Wareham, C. 2020. Artificial intelligence and African conceptions of personhood. Ethics and information technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09541-3.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2002. Ethical choices in long-term care. World Health Organization. [Online] Available: At: <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/ethical_choices.pdf>.
———. 2015. Global: Health and aging. Geneva: WHO Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jecker, N.S. (2021). Sociable Robots for Later Life: Carebots, Friendbots and Sexbots. In: Fan, R., Cherry, M.J. (eds) Sex Robots. Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82280-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82280-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82279-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82280-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)