Opponents view it as the loss of an essentialist sense of humanness that takes us closer to a robotic state. Advocates view modification as the enhancement of a non-essentialist sense of humanness that takes us further from animal nature. We argue that advocates and opponents of human nature modification employ distinct conceptions of humanness, and that their differing evaluations of modification make sense in light of these conceptions. We draw upon recent social psychological work on folk concepts of humanness and dehumanization to analyse the understandings of humanness that underpin the rival positions. A failure to define humanness has produced conceptual confusion in this debate. Furthermore, I argue that no matter which hypothesis you prefer - displacement or resilience - you can make a good argument for the necessity of a basic income guarantee, either as an obvious way to correct for the precarity of sex work, or as a way to disincentivise those who may be drawn to prostitution.Ī debate has emerged in the bioethics literature about the use of biotechnology to modify human nature.

Indeed, I argue that increasing levels of technological unemployment in other fields may well drive more people into the sex work industry. Although I grant the argument a degree of credibility, I argue that the opposing hypothesis - that prostitution will be resilient to technological unemployment - is also worth considering.

But are they right? In this article, I critically assess the argument that has been made in favour of this displacement hypothesis. They claim that the advent of sophisticated sexual robots will lead to the displacement of human prostitutes, just as, say, the advent of sophisticated manufacturing robots have displaced many traditional forms of factory labour. Is sex work (specifically, prostitution) vulnerable to technological unemployment? Several authors have argued that it is.

Daniel wilson robopocalypse