I imagine that, deep down, most of us consider the ideal relationship to be one in which there is "unconditional love", and in which our partner will never leave or reject us. And I'm not only talking about romantic spouse-type relationships-- these aspects, for example, are often cited to me by dog-owning friends as reasons why dogs make better companions than cats.
But
here's a story that might make you reassess. It's about the prospect of developing "robot lovers"-- robots not just as sexual partners, but as full-on romantic partners. Technical challenges aside, the article raises the interesting question of whether such a robot should be programmed for eternal dedication, or not.
Dylan Evans, a British computer scientist who has published several books on the interface of technology, emotion, and psychology, is quoted as predicting that an "unconditionally" loving robot would become boring to, and perhaps even be "abused" by, its human "partner". Evan asserts, in fact, that "what is absolutely crucial to the sentiment of love, is the belief that the love is
neither unconditional nor eternal" [emphasis mine.] He thinks that a robot designed with the free-thinking ability to reject its human would probably be more fulfilling, at least as long as it stuck around, but for obvious reasons "would be a very difficult robot to sell."
When you put things like this, aren't there some implications for human-human love? Even if "unconditional", "eternal" love were to exist (I'm dubious, in case you can't read my tone), would we all be better off to stop trying so hard to pin it down and get us some?