E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRobert Broadus of Protect Marriage Maryland uses the "Star Trek" argument in his testimony against gay-marriage legislation.
In a case of life imitating "Futurama," Maryland's gay-marriage debate has somehow morphed into worries about robot-human marriages.
The rant against robosexuals came during Robert Broadus' testimony against the gay-marriage legislation currently before Maryland legislature. "If you pass this bill, you will set the groundwork, that one day when artificial intelligence is that advanced, we will be considering whether or not people can marry their androids. ... If you say that any two people who love each other can get married, then you set that precedent," said Broadus, who heads Protect Marriage Maryland.
To make his case, Broadus referred to Lieutenant Commander Data's ability to feel emotion and shed a tear in "Star Trek: Generations," a science-fiction movie. "You laugh, but it's true," Broadus said.
For better or worse, sex with robots is already a reality, although the robots in question are really just glorified blow-up dolls. Researchers have long discussed whether there might come a day (maybe 2050?) when true love could exist between humans and artificially intelligent machines. In recent years, however, the idea of building robots that look and think like humans isn't as, um, sexy as it once was.
"The robotics field is away from that approach and geared toward specific applications," said Anne Foerst, a computer science professor at St. Bonaventure University in New York who has been dubbed "the robot theologian." (And yes, she does hold a degree in theology as well as computer science and philosophy.)
Tony Gutierrez / AP file
Self-titled "sculptor roboticist" David Hanson, right, poses with his creation, Hertz. Hertz is an animated robot head that Hanson modeled after his girlfriend. For the record, Hanson and Hertz are not in a relationship. Click on the image to learn more.
In the old days, roboticists could build cute-eyed machines like Cog, Kismet and Leonardo to test the boundaries between biological and mechanical beings. MIT's Leonardo, an Ewok-like robot, could even pass some of the psychological tests aimed at studying social cognition in children.
That kind of research "is pretty much dead right now, which is very sad," Foerst told me.
"You basically get applications, and applications which in my opinion are much less interesting," she said. "Those machines do not raise any questions of personhood, because they don't have anywhere to go. ... The reason why is that the funding has changed."
For better or worse, it seems that the folks funding the research are more interested in real-world results rather than the prospects for robot romance. Who knows? Maybe the academic debate over sex and marriage with robots will be revived in 2050, or more likely 2150. But in any case, Broadus needn't worry about robosexuals anytime soon.
"Gay relationships obviously consist of mutual give and take," Foerst observed. "They're equal partners, and that's completely different from robotics. To apply human-android research to gay marriage is, in my opinion ridiculous."
Foerst is apparently not the only person who feels that way. Lezgetreal's Bridgette P. LaVictoire reports that Maryland state Sen. James Brochin changed his mind and decided to vote for the gay-marriage legislation after hearing the "appalling and disgusting" testimony against it.
Did Broadus' "Star Trek" maneuver backfire? Feel free to weigh in ... after you watch this "Futurama" video clip about Proposition Infinity on robosexual marriages.
More on robot-human relations:
- 'I do' goes high-tech with robot priest
- Robot can read and learn like a human
- Sneaky robots taught the art of deception
- Soon, the 'new guy' at work may be a robot
- Robo-teacher smiles and scolds in schoolroom
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
God and robots? Go to hell you ridiculous, anti-gay, Christian bigot. Your disgusting religion deserves wicked scrutiny and bankruptcy. Keep your god-damn religion out of my life!
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I think your Pride panties are on a little to tight - they seem to be cutting off the circulation to your brain
Folks, I've deleted a couple of comments here just because they got a little too personal. I realize this is the kind of topic that can get folks very hot ... but let's be respectful of others, even if you violently disagree with their opinions. I'm very much opposed to personal attacks on other commenters. For now I've left in some of the pretty harsh knocks against Broadus, but I'd feel better if we kept the discussion on a higher plane.
Thank you, Alan. :-)
I think the analogy is obsurd and if this is the best argument that the anti-gay marriage can come up with then we have nothing to worry about. I think the anti-Christian remark is unfortunate because you paint all Christians with the same brush and assume that Christianity is a monolith which it isn't. I am a Christian and I also believe in gay marriage. Some denominations have even begun ordaining openly gay clerly and have authorized the blessing of same-sex unions. I can understand your frustration with those on the right who want to use their religion as a justification of bigotry and intolerance, but by posting a rant that assumes all Christians believe and act the same way, aren't you engaging in the same type of bigotry and intolerance?
Does this mean I won't be allowed to marry my blow up doll?
I find it ironic that people, not too long ago, thought marrying outside their race taboo, and something that shouldn't even be addressed, let alone talked about as if it were going to happen.
Yet today, you have a woman in Ghana who marries her dog. A woman in India who marries a snake. And there are other examples of human-animal marriages.
This may seem beyond your comprehension or just an idea you wouldn't have entertained, but it has happened nonetheless. This really has nothing to do with gay marriage, but how marriage will be defined. Will it be man-woman, human-animal, human-robot, or marrying anyone or anything one desires?
My point is the human mind is a vast treasury of ideas; thinking people would never do this or that may lead one face to face with what was once unthinkable.
Robert, do you mean inflatable or exploding?
What do the exploding ones do?
The conservatives better start thinking about banning human versus alien marriages. There may be a day when aliens come to earth and may want to marry a human.
Oh my,
If this keeps on going someday they may allow others to marry outside of their race or religion! That would be the death of humanity and each race/religion's God would strike us all down as infidels and heretics. We'd have to build a whole new military to defend against all these God beliefs.
Think it's time for me to go back down to my undergound laboratory and build a 'marryme' app for my ipod. Whoo-hah-hah-hah-hah-ha.
Actually, if we want to use Star Trek as an example, I like the idea of a 5 year renewable marriage contract that Kirk had in the first ST Movie. Of course, we'd have to achieve a few things first, like infinite government resources, food, energy, land, water, education, medical, jobs, etc. And of course outlaw money like they did too. That's the problem with utopian thinking, it's all or nothing. Too bad these Science Fiction buffs don't understand why there's an F in fiction!
<LOL>
LOL!!! Geez, don't they have something better to 'strike fear' into our hearts!! :)
Well, that testimony does strike fear into my heart. I worry that my son could marry a crazy black man from Maryland! I'm not opposed to allowing gays to marry. I just think we need legislation to prevent crazy people like Mr. Broadus from marrying!
Ralph: And God help us if he has kids!
They won't be allowed to marry robots, Indigo. Or, or, or. Nice to see you around. Haven't seen your name pop up for a long time. Hope all is well. :)
What's to worry. Without a doubt, robots would vote Tea Party just as they do today!
So Data can't marry a human because he is artificial? One of the main themes of Star Trek The Next Generation was exploring humanity through Data and that he is in fact human and has a soul. This argument is illogical.
if corporations are people and get married (merged) all the time without any divorce... then this is the next step- it is a republican desire not a democrat wish.
This is by far the stupidist argument I've ever heard. Marriage is a contract. You can't enter into a contract with a robot, a dog, or anything else that isn't human.
Bill, I'm surprised they aren't trying to prevent republicans from marrying democrats and compromising the political gene pool.
I wonder why people are just starting to panic about human/non-human marriage now? Inflatable dolls have been around for decades.
I love my andriod phone but I dont want to marry it...
Marry it? You can't even spell it!
You think there's no divorce costs? Read your contract!!!
belief program.. sorry about spelling error
The Big L-
My phone? No. However, my dishwasher is looking pretty good!
I love my car. Over 330HP. Not sure if it's a boy or a girl car? Does that make me a buy-auto-sexual?
Who knows, maybe some day they will have an app that will change your I-phone to a sex robot! Will you change your mind then? LOL
The irrational bigots are why equality will win in the end.
Yeah, but there's a remedy for that - a good aim.
Just remember this dragon, THAT can go both ways.
Skipping right on past rational debate to death threats, certainly a sign of losing.
Exodite Dragon, please don't death wish. Mind the Code of Honor.
This has to be the most stupidest thing I have ever read. What an idiot to stand up and talk about Robot marriage, "This is an equality issue jerk." But I guess you have no concerns about that, do you?
I want to marry an up-graded version of the Cherry 2000 (see the movie) that does not short out.
Their main advantage over biological women is that their behavior is fully programmable.
Richard
Does that mean we can program her for headaches and her time of the month? Think we can get her to nag?
Damn protein chauvinists!
It is to our benefit to have them speak in public as often as we can. They are practically working towards equality. maybe we should thank the bigots?
While I get your point, the only thing they deserve is the legal fees for our lawsuits.
Where do they find these mean-spirited bigots??!! And besides being mean-spirited, they are sufficiently dim-witted to stand up before a group of people and spew forth this bilious diatribe and, then, expect to be taken seriously.
uh, have you ever met an idiot that didn't expect to be taken seriously?
I see an incredible number of idiots on here who expect to be taken seriously as they advance the absurd notion that complete equality should be extended to a biological deleterious genetic defect that does nothing to advance the species. Forget all the religous BS. A genetic flaw that drives an organism to not reproduce is a negative and any appreciable increase or dominance of that flaw in the gene pool threatens the existence of the species. I now raise my anti spit and venom shield for the anticipated salvos of invectives from incensed sodomites throwing their hissy fit.
Your argument appears to be that we should deny basic civil rights to anyone you think has a birth defect, correct?
Watchman -
Dr. Mengele would be so proud of you.
Watchman, you can use all the big words you want, it won't make you sound (or be) any smarter. One question for you, though: for women and men who are infertile, but straight, do you support their right to marry? The percentage of people who are infertile is higher than those who are gay, and unlike the latter, their "defect" speaks directly to their inability to "advance the species". (Wow, that is such a cruel, evil thing to say that even writing it sarcastically makes me wince.)
You would think that people who so hate homosexuals would encourage them to get married. After all, if they are forced underground by societal pressure, they may actually marry opposite sex partners and reproduce; then their "deleterious gene defect" will, horror of horrors, be passed on. I guess it is a bit much to expect them to stay true to their own twisted logic.
Hereditary characteristics that hinder survival vanish from a species' gene pool in just a few generations, yet the tendency among a few for same-sex attraction has remained in all human cultures for thousands of years at least. Therefore, it appears that homosexuality does something to advance the species, though there is not complete agreement yet among evolutionary biologists what that is.
Watchman,
Any idiot can reproduce.
If reproduction is a restricition being argued, should we not then only allow couples CAPABLE of reproducing to get married and bar all other marriages altogether?
Dan, you presented a salient argument. I believe gays should be allowed to marry. Excluding them from the misery associated with that antiquated institution is unsupportable. For those who were driven to post the obvious Nazi references I must illuminate your slight error. I maintain no animosity toward Gays. Most gays are very hard working and productive. And again, I point out, I have no religious convictions and I know that homosexuality is not an elected condition. It would be as wrong to maintain hostility toward a gay as to someone with a congenital heart defect or is born color blind. It is the incessant tedious piousness of the Gay movement that I find corrosive and annoying. I have been around gays in school and at work all my life and I have never seen anyone picking on them or abusing them. Yet a large number of gays have a political self-serving chip on their shoulder as big as chock block. Where no slight is given one will be found. Where no offense is intended one will be discerned. All for personal leverage and advancement.
I reserve the Nazi solution for the fully capable but chronic self-absorbed lazy who refuse to work and produce nothing and the criminal element who prey on eveyone. Oh yes, would we but crank up the gas chamber I would keep it well oiled and maintained.
Maybe it's just normal. After all, it's the homophobes that seem to be gradually dying off.
You must be a straight white male who has enjoyed the special rights and privileges of your status, blithely unaware that others don't receive the special legal treatment you do.
Try walking a mile in someone else's shoes, then decide whether you'd be angry about being denied legal equality.
Your comment speaks volumes about your character.
This describes a reaction to what's termed "social marginality": those people that society tends to ostracize (to varying degrees), and generally including --in our culture-- anyone not white and male. These people can see more subtle patterns about their own treatment than we who don't fit their demographic can. For example, I am a white female, so I can't judge a black person who says some treatment is racist, simply because I've never been black. They have probably seen a long-term pattern of behavior towards themselves that I would never notice. And it's the pattern they notice that promotes them to think that, not just an isolated incident. However, I can judge whether or not something is discriminatory against women because I am one, and have been on the receiving end of discrimination myself.
If that's not clear to anyone reading this, think about when you learn a new word. You begin to see it everywhere, when you can't remember seeing it much before. The word was always there, it's just that you never noticed it; you didn't have the right experience (knowing the word) to remember it, and you probably just skipped over it. But now that you know the word you see it everywhere.
It's like that with people who are socially marginalized. They know the vocab, so they see it a lot, but we who don't fit the same demographic, who don't know the vocab, don't particularly notice it, even though it's right there.
For your quote, watchman73, gays see a lot of discrimination that you don't see because you're (quite obviously) not gay. Discrimination can be as little (to us) as saying "faggot" or "dyke" even when the person saying it doesn't mean it literally. A gay person hears it and recognizes discrimination. It's like calling a black person "@!$%#" (and I might hear back from people who say I shouldn't even type that because it's such a terrible word. I agree completely and I assure you I only use it to advance the concept of civil rights). A black person hearing that would recognize blatant racism. The gay slurs mentioned above give the same reaction to gays. The only difference between the two types of words is that the n-word is now thankfully recognized by almost all people as racist, whereas the gay slurs are still widely used without thought.
Discrimination can also be as large as the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, which is roughly the same as asking a black man to paint his skin white and pretend it's real. And obviously, gays still can't marry. How much more discriminatory can we as a country be? Take away their right to life? We don't give them the full rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness. They're not full citizens and they have no reason not to be.
(Also, I apologize if any black person has been offended by this, it was not at all my intention but I know it can be misconstrued as such. The only reason I used all the references to blacks is because that civil rights movement is the most recent and most likely to make people understand my arguments.)
...and if you'll look at my comment above, you'll see that they censored my use of the n-word (not meant discriminatorily) but not the gay slurs (ditto). Wow good job MSNBC! (I really need a sarcasm font)
Skrekk, and your willingness to indulge and pamper the intentional lazy who produce nothing and the criminals who actively feed on us speaks volumes about you too. You are probably 'Green' and recycle and feel good about yourself while thousands everyday undo everything you contribute. There are very few problems facing the Earth that could not be solved with a sudden reduction in the population. I lived for a time in a foreign Asian country and once saw about 40 very elderly people out walking slowly along the highway with a couple of white clad orderlies. The elderly were picking up highway trash and picking weeds. I asked a native of the country about this. He replied that the elderly on the government dole who are physcially able are trucked out to the highway and other places to pick up trash and clean up common public use areas. They get exercise and feel like they have contributed. What a great idea. We have a few hundred thousand very physically able sitting on their asses collecting welfare checks and food stamps who could use a bit of exercise and contribute too. Or take a short walk to the gas chamber. They can have a choice.
watchman, i have two words to say to you, of course that is after i say these words, and the words are : Illuminati Bastard.
to all others: Case. In. Point.
This is what happens when you have an organisation that is dedicated to keeping people from being inquisitive and asking questions about the world around them, you get and idiot who is bigoted against a certain sexual orientation, ranting against something that is like never to happen in the forseeable future, nevermind the mechanical requirements for something like that to be truly successful.
Would that make cyborgs bisexual? Trans-sexual? Metro-polisexuals? Ah well, what do you expect from people who would take orders from a talking snake.
Low-blow. True, and funny, but sheesh, low-blow.
Transclownomorphisexual
And their human... is you!
These people should really be more focused on how it will be when Aliens from another world want to marry a human. To go to these lengths referring to Commander Data as a reason why homosexual people (taxpayers) shouldn't be allowed to marry is outrages. Address the issue of robots and humans marrying when it happens, which is at least 50 years down the road. Most of the people bringing up this point will be DEAD long before we have robots like Commander Data. The issue is best left to those people, not us today.
With science going the way it is it will be a lot longer than 50 years. Cars were supposed to be flying by now. What if all the robots turn out to be gay?
I guess it's a good thing that Lt. Yar didn't want to marry Data after they had sex in "The Naked Now", a first season episode of "Next Generation".
Really, let's worry about fictional artificial life forms less and concentrate on humanity.
There was something very instructive about this video: We now know that Christians hate robots as much as they hate gays. Having hatred for homosexuals is irrational enough. But it is beyond the pale to hate an entire demographic of people that DON'T EVEN EXIST YET! Think about it!
I guess we know, in 50-100 years, who the next whipping boy will be for the Christian Right. Christians always need someone to hate or else the ca$h stops flowing in.
Personally if Commander Data wanted to get married, I'd have no problems letting him get married. I'm not Dr Pulaski here.
Besides, the TNG episode "The Measure of a Man", 9th episode of season 2, established that Data is a sentient life form with the same rights as any other Starfleet officer, and therefore he would have the right to marry.
Let's not forget Bicentennial Man.
Which brings up something else - with the advancement of technology in medicine, how many artificial implants can someone have before they are no longer considered "human?"
It sucks when you are forced to change your mind because all the craziest idiots are on your side.
Go Equality!
I really liked your site on Facebook, that is until I read this. People love who they love. People ask all the time "When did you choose to be gay?" My question to you is when did you choose to be straight?
Love can never be denied no matter how much you and others disbelieve in it. You can't legislate morality. Live and let live. You have the right to marry and receive benefits. Why can't we? It's racist! When are we going to stop being treated like second class citizens? The constitution of the United States of America States "All men are created equal and we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Shame on you for posting such racist remarks.
Maybe someday you'll realize what you have done. When can we vote on your right to marry?
Since we believe in the words of the constitution that all me are created equal then we have admited that all men were created and if that is ture then that must mean there is a creator and if that is true then we must also believe he created male and female instead of two males only or two females only
If what is stated is true that all MEN are created equal then there is really no purpose for females.
Oh well just a thought
Brian, that phrase about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution. They are in the Declaration of Independence.
That being said, I am wondering why the article and, indeed, the commenters here are limiting marriage to two people? I see no reason, based on the arguments for gay marriage, that the state should interfere with polygamy or group marriages either.
By relating anti-homosexual comments to racist remarks, you are in fact doing more to ostracize the gay and lesbian population than they are. Since you insist they are racist in origin, you are referring that homosexuals are a completely separate race of people. Is that your opinion on the current state of affairs? Are you trying to deliberately segregate homosexuals? While your arguments for the social inequalities that are endured by homosexuals are correct, you fail to intelligently further your agenda.
Brian: "You can't legislate morality."
Really? What about murder, rape, theft, and other such moral indecencies? While I understand your sentiment (regarding gay marriage), you need to be careful about using such sweeping generalities.
Well, calling my partner and I robots is maybe a step up from tables, goats, gerbils, and a bunch of the other stupid crap we've been compared to in regards to our desire to marry each other.
Make a robot that looks and sounds like Angelina Jolie ... and I'll take 3!!! No wife bitching at me ... no pre-nup .... sounds like the answer to my prayers. Is there anywhere I can donate money to this project....
On the other hand ... "Harcourt Fenton Mudd, have you been drinking again!?!"
Money ?? Heck, I'll donate my BODY to this science!
At last we will be able to stomp out Robomhidia or as it is called in the vernacular Chassis Crotchrot.
All joking aside what ever happened to minding your own business and letting people be happy as long as they aren't hurting anyone else?
Robomhidia. lol. Better than Mechanoherpes or Siliconiphilus.
Though I agree with you I fear unfortunately there's no such thing as minding your own business anymore. People love to meddle and tell others how to live.
If robotics ever gets to the point where robots are self-aware and insisting on being human, then we'd have an issue to discuss. Until then, it's rather silly to discuss hypotheticals. I could just as easily suppose that a self-aware intelligent robot would not want to be thought of as "human" and have no desire to marry - it certainly wouldn't have any "biological urges", unless we programmed them in!
Basing his argument on a totally fictional character - LOL! But then, come to think of it, a lot of religion is based on totally fictional characters...
Believe me, if robots ever DID become self-aware, the issue of marrying them would die immediately! Who would want to live with someone who remembers EVERYTHING. You think you have trouble winning an argument with your human spouse!
Come to think of it, wives are very robot-like in this regard, don't you think?
The fear is reasonable... How many people would LOVE to have a partner that they could turn off when they are sick of hearing them... LOL
Of course, that's only until the robots become self-aware. Once one does, do you think it would LET you turn it off?
You ever see the "Terminator" movies?
Just say no to the marriage police.
Onward to full marriage equality rights now. Period.
hhhmmm....robosexual...like what? Don't get me wrong if something is possible someone will eventual do it. Until we abolish religion I am sure there will be plenty of people out there trying to force their version of morality on others. Marriage at present has little to do with any real religious tenants and is mostly just a legal contract between two people. On a similar note do we really need to legislate every damn thing...oh wait we have to because we live in a society were everyone feels that they can tell other people what to do with their lives.
I personally don't care marry same sex, different sex, your cat, your dog, your neighbor, a bunch of women, a bunch of guys, your vibrator, or uniquely human appearing robot/android or your car. Whatever makes you happy and its not harming others go for it. It's really time to just but this stupid debate to rest already...humans marry humans or humanoid and be done with it allowing for the same benefits as the rest of us and throw in legalizing pot or just make everything deemed evil illegal like free speech or GMO free foods.
Thisties intoMove.on's corproate personhood debate too. Corporations are artificial persons under the law.Yet, theyhave theright to marry-ie-merger. If artificial people can alread ymarry, why can't real live humans.It's notabout sex-there never has beena direct co-reation between marrriage and sex. Yes, a marriage canbe annualled if not consumated, but there is no law saying it has to be..it's the convience of the partners that comes into play. There has never beena strict standard requirng sex be perfomed and witnessed under Amreican law to assure consummation did in fact occur. And this also goes into the "naturally born" persons under the constitution..that naturally born persons have "natural rights" alluded to in the consitution, and th atmarriag eis a "natrual right". This is the sum essence of Theodore Olson' s arguement before the Supreme Court.
Why should artificial people have more rights than real people?
So they can donate hundreds of millions to Republican campaigns with no accountability or transparency. That was the whole purpose of the Citizens United case.
haha real life humans, you aren't human till you declare yourself such in Marine Admiralty court of law, oh and don't have a birth certificate, or a social security card. Until then, you are a "product" of the United States of America, and therefore they have every right to use you to pay off their debts, and sell you to other countries. But, of course, they won't tell you that. So no biggie right? Wrong. Sometimes what you don't know can hurt you.
JUstanother thought— some posted on humanand ailen sex. I recall in theBible part of the reaon that God sent the flood was that there was sex betweenhumans and angels in the Bible. . This is found in Genisis 6:1-7. S opresumbly that has already been covered. According to theBible a race of "mightly men" resulted, and Goliath was oneof the distant ancestors that some how survived the flood.
Fooling around with angels gets you nowhere in heaven..
I would so totally take my chances...
I think the antediluvian Nephilim and the post-diluvian Nephilim were the results of separate incidents of the Sons of God mating with the Daughters of Man. So Goliath and the other sons of Anak were the results of post-Flood human-angel nookie.
If the Bible describes marriage between a man and women... Why would a preacher wed two males or two women?
The only way to get married is from a priest, who was raised and taught to do just that. I'm sure it would be very hypocritical of a priest to marry two men or two women since they're taught to marry a man and a woman.
Regardless of what anyone thinks that's just how it is.
Well, I'm glad you settled that for all time.
Lets take our moral advice from somebody with the screen name Hitler. Good idea.
Is "Dangerous Mind " supposed to make us feel any better?
So you think the story of Ruth and Naomi is about a couple of gal pals hanging out together? You don't know a lesbian love story when you see it? Just asking.
Oh, snap out of it! All of you!
Homosexuality is prevalent in all mammalian species. Go spend some time on a working farm. Livestock, four-legged critters of all kinds -- they all have same-sex urges. Like it or not, it's true.
Because to the Christian mind, no other religions exist.
And somebody has never heard of marriage by a sea captain or by a Justice of the Peace.
And never mind the gay love story of David and Jonathan, or the gay love story of Jesus and John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved". A guy wanders all over Israel with 12 guys, including a bunch of sailors, and he never gets married, oh, he's totally straight.
What about a Justice of the Peace? You don't need to a preacher to get married. Atheists get married all the time. It's legal too.
Another thoughtabout sex and robots Greg Bear in oneofhis books point out that sex is actuallyinformationtransfer. Youare tranferring the geneticcodes of two individuals and transposing it to create another one.Therefore Bear says through his character's lecture "Sex is information..and it took till the 2010's for them to figure this out..theyhad this greatromantic thing about it..all it was was an information transfer..Sex is information transmitted and transformed. That's all it really is.."