Before I add my thoughts to the theoretical discussion about real dogs vs. realistic robotic dogs, let me weigh in with the opinion that we'll never achieve what we're positing here, that a robotic dog can be created that simulates a real dog convincingly. I know, never say never. But I agree with what someone else said -- we are so hard-wired to recognize life (or at least life forms sufficiently like ourselves) that we're not even conscious of all the little tells we perceive. I think that we're in the middle of a huge leap in technology that will enable us to get pretty close to an indistinguishable simulation of an animal -- but close, in this case, is still a world away. I think that, at best, we'll reach a point where we have robotic dogs that are close enough to real dogs that we can't identify what the differences are, and yet people in general will *still* be able to tell the difference somehow. Researchers will have to conduct formal, protracted studies to figure out what people are picking up on to discern the difference, and maybe these studies will eventually yield some pointers on how to tweak our robots, but I'm doubtful that technology will be able to catch up to our own innate abilities to recognize life. Ok, maybe robots will get good enough to fool people for a minute or an hour or even a day, but not once we start talking about people nurturing relationships with these robots over the long term.

But ok, let's just suppose we *can* get a robot to look and behave identically to a real dog, except for the "bad parts" like needing to be fed, cleaned up after, trained not to bite, etc.

I've got two reasons why this still won't be an adequate replacement for a real dog.

It's important not to underestimate the effect of life-like qualities in an inanimate object. Nobody'd really give a second thought to taking an axe and chopping up a printer or a toaster oven. But take a robotic dog that whimpers and flinches and yelps and turns those sad eyes on you and even bleeds when injured, and even the most confident in its lack of sentience would have to steel themselves before taking an axe to it. Many would not be able to bring themselves to do it at all.

On the other hand, it's also important not to *overestimate* the effect here. It is doubtful that even those who cannot bring themselves to chop up a robotic dog would find it *immoral* to do so, whereas most people would have a problem with people that go around chopping up actual dogs. Obviously no matter how realistic a robot dog is, and no matter how much the realism of a robot dog affects our emotional response to it, there still IS a difference in the way real and simulated life impact us, emotionally and morally.

That leads me to my first reason why a robotic dog can't replace a real dog. Knowledge of consciousness is possibly the biggest reason why a relationship between a person and a dog can be so rewarding. With a real dog, you know, in every core of your being, that if that dog is expressing joy, there is a consciousness that truly feels that joy. Same with anger, excitement, nervousness, hurt, and love. The mere knowledge that these outward signs are experienced by an actual consciousness vs. simulated by a machine is something that strikes us down deep. Nurture a machine and get it to simulate gratitude and -- well, don't get me wrong, that's pretty cool, but it's a whole different thing from nurturing a living creature in the knowledge that there exists a consciousness that benefits from your care. This touches on something hard-wired in what we are. It relates to the "love potion" question -- would you find a romantic relationship as fulfilling if it were started by a magic love potion that forced the other person to love you? Probably not. This *is* a very different question, but illustrates that what we find fulfilling in relationships extends beyond outward behavior and well into our perception of internal concepts like consciousness and free will.

So the only way to get a robot dog to be an adequate replacement for a real dog is if the owner didn't realize the robot was a robot. But he'd have to be pretty dim not to catch on pretty quickly, since it's not eating or making messes, and every few days it drops what it's doing and runs off to plug itself into the wall.

And that still leaves reason #2. "The bad things" are an integral part of it all. If the dog never exacts upon you the need to be fed, bathed, groomed, exercised, cleaned up after, and so on, this spares the owner the irritation of these chores at the expense of the greater satisfaction one derives from caring for a creature that needs (or at least benefits from) our care. These irritations are half the satisfaction of pet ownership! The only "bad thing" I can think of that could be safely removed is the danger of aggression, something not all real dogs are prone to anyway.

In any case, does the removal of irritations get you anywhere? The way we derive satisfaction in life is not by the amount of "good" or "bad" things in our lives but by the *change* in the amount of "good" and "bad" things. Two guys walk down the street. One of the guys was in an accident, was told he'd never walk again, but went to physical therapy, worked at it, and finally he can walk again. He spent a long time wishing he could do it and thinking he never would, but now here he is, walking down the street, and he's pleased as punch about it. The second guy is a marathon runner -- he just loves to run -- but he twisted his ankle the other day, not badly, just enough to require him to walk carefully. He's pretty unhappy that he can't just book it down the street. Two people, doing the same thing -- one's happy about it, the other isn't, and it's all because of the *change* to their lives, not the inherent goodness or badness of "walking down the street."

Back to those dogs. A robotic dog that never makes messes is going to be a neat novelty at first, but afterward, is the owner really going to continue to derive any extra pleasure over not having to clean up messes? Maybe in an intellectual sense, whenever he stops to think about how it would be otherwise, but otherwise no. "No messes" has become the norm, and satisfaction or discontentment come with *changes* to the norm. The nurturing of relationships (with God, other people, pets, or whoever) is continually fulfilling for us because those are always changing. Static relationships are dead. This is also why people who have lots of money still want more money, and people who have lots of power still want more power. And owners of robotic dogs that don't need feeding and don't make messes will only be happy about this in a real emotional sense for a short time, and then there will be some *other* "bad thing" to fix, like barking, or always managing to be standing right where people are trying to walk. There will always be *something*. And the more of these things that get eliminated from the robot's behavior, the less dog-like and life-like it becomes, and, consequently, the less satisfying it becomes as a replacement for a real dog.

I do think the article is successful at establishing a need for robotic dogs. Nursing homes, where dogs aren't allowed but dog-like things would serve a need, are perfect places for "realistic" robot dogs. Robotic dogs could also be great for people who are allergic to the real thing. They could also suffice for people who are more interested in robots than dogs in the first place.

But the question is, can they *replace* a real dog? A resounding no from me.