Rebecca Roache Philosophy Professor Calls for Men to Be Placed in Artificial Hells for Thousands of Years

Rebecca Roache, a philosophy professor at the University of Oxford, has discussed with the Daily Mail – that noted institution of social justice and progress – her hope that transhumanism and biotechnology will soon allow criminals to be locked up and tormented in artificial hells that last for thousands of years.

‘Of course, there is a widely held view that any amount of tinkering with a person’s brain is unacceptably invasive,’ she said. ‘But you might not need to interfere with the brain directly.’

Time distortion, for instance, is already a technique used in interrogation, where people are exposed to constant light, or unusual light changes, so that they can’t tell what time of day it is.

Another scenario being explored by the group is uploading the criminal’s mind to a digital realm to speed up the 1,000 year sentence.

‘As the technology required to scan and map human brain processes improves, some believe it will one day be possible to upload human minds on to computers,’ Dr Roache said.

This means that with sufficient computer power, it would be possible to speed up the rate at which an uploaded mind runs.

Similarly, uploading the mind of a convicted criminal and running it a million times faster than normal would enable the uploaded criminal to serve a 1,000 year sentence in eight-and-a-half hours.

‘This would, obviously, be much cheaper for the taxpayer than extending criminals’ lifespans to enable them to serve 1,000 years in real time,’ said Dr Roache.

Despite being a professor of philosophy at Oxford University, Rebecca Roache doesn’t appear able to see that some of the most basic and obvious requirements of justice would be lacking in such a scheme. For example, a falsely convicted prisoner experiencing a subjective hell of 1,000 years in an objective 8 and 1/2 hours would not have the basic hope of appealing and having his conviction overturned during the sentence, or indeed of making any appeal over the length and severity of his punishment. A punishment lasting a thousand years or more (subjectively) would be completed without any possibility of a wrongful conviction being corrected before its completion. In the real world, social mores change from generation to generation. Perhaps if they had had this proposed technology in 1952, Alan Turing wouldn’t have been simply ‘castrated’ but sentenced to a 100 years of subjective torment. He would still have died long before society came to the conclusion that his conviction was a stain upon humanity.

But none of this may be of any concern to her, because it appears that Rebecca Roache doesn’t seem to take issues of false accusations and the possibility of wrongful convictions very seriously at all. This is a tweet she made on January 16th, when Bill Roache (presumably no relation to her) and Dave Lee Travis were still going through their personal hells facing their (false) accusers in court :

33 thoughts on “Rebecca Roache Philosophy Professor Calls for Men to Be Placed in Artificial Hells for Thousands of Years”

  1. Remember that these college professors are more “evolved”, “enlightened”, and “open minded” than you.

    That is why they always want to go medieval on people!

  2. It’s often said that Liberals want to ‘play God’—we should have guessed that the first thing they’d do with that power is create a Hell to send their enemies to. Maybe that’s why so many Liberals are atheists: they think that God sends the wrong people to Hell! lol

    Joking aside however, I can’t believe that technology would work. To speed up brain processes to such a highly artificial level would probably cause severe brain damage or death. At the least, it would cause psychological problems.

  3. More blatant paedocrisy from the British and American governments:

    While I don’t endorse the femiservative tone of the article, it’s interesting that while the British and American paedocrites are pushing for higher AOC laws at home and jihading against phony ‘sex-trafficking’ and imposing their will on other countries—in the ‘name of cultural sensitivity’ their puppets in Iraq have been allowed to lower the AOC to 9—apparently with the full approval of British and American leaders there.

    Lest any of us get ideas about vacationing in Iraq, however, this law seems only to apply to fundamentalist Moslems, and of course, rich American and British contractors who are already enjoying all the teen sex they can handle in Dubai, while denying the same to us under threats of stake burning.

  4. Joking aside however, I can’t believe that technology would work. To speed up brain processes to such a highly artificial level would probably cause severe brain damage or death. At the least,

    I think they are talking about ‘uploading minds’ to computers. This is a very controversial topic and only really taken seriously by the transhumanist community, full as they are of people with aspergers syndrome. Aspies see the world as one big computer algorithm, and see other minds similarly as nothing more than algorithms that could potentially be uploaded and run on computers. What they are dreaming about is literally creating an aspie hell.

    Fortunately, most philosophers who have thought about the issues of personal identity involved see the idea as ridiculous, even those who do see the human brain as essentially being some kind of biological computer. However, it doesn’t alter the fact that we should be disturbed that feminist transhumanists like Rebecca Roache are dreaming of using new technology to inflict these kinds of inhuman punishments on men.

  5. Antifeminist:
    I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that a feminist aspie’s first thoughts would be how use technology to torture men.

    An interesting idea, though about uploading brains on computers: although I agree with the Philosophers that the idea is ridiculous. What the aspie transhumanists don’t take into account is that the human brain is extremely adaptable. When you consider the course of human evolution and the human brain’s ability to compensate for man’s physical inferiority to other animals, it’s more logical to believe that the brain would compensate again, and defeat the computers by simple evolutionary process.

  6. Nietzsche said the day would come when we would pay dearly for having been Christians, and by god, he called it. Liberal politically-correct feminists are the resentment-filled tyrants left-over from our Christian heritage. This woman and her kind should be banished from the human race, before its too late.

  7. @antifeminist: Congrats for being on the manosphere feed!!! 😉

    Just wanted to make an addendum about this Roache woman:

    I hope people will be taking her research and pronouncements seriously.

    What she is proposing is so evil, so heinous, so perverted and vile, that there are scarcely words to express adequately the repugnance one feels.

    Mankind is supposed to be getting over this type of medieval torture mindset. Had she proposed a pill which makes one feel that one has molested a thousand children, she would not have done worse.

    Prisons are to become more humane and sentences shorter, if they are not phased out altogether. Most criminals of the kind she describes were severely damaged in childhood. It is evil beyond all words to want to increase this human suffering, and does nothing to help the victims or make the world a better place.

    Roache has revealed herself to be a Hannibal Lecter. If I were in one of her philosophy courses, I would leave in fear. Who knows what sick practices this woman is in to? Perhaps she can create a pill which makes people feel their eyeballs are on fire for eternity? Let’s banish her and her perverted idea , and send such gutter ideology back to hell where it belongs.

  8. Thanks Smkovalinsky.

    Yes, I agree that people should be taking this Roache woman seriously, and also taking the wider transhumanism community seriously too.

    It’s tempting for some to dismiss these people as crackpots, but the future is going to happen, and these people potentially are going to have a lot of influence on it.

    Take for example Ray Kurzweil who was recently appointed head of artificial intelligence at Google. The owners of Google are all transhumanists, as are other very significant high-tech entrepaneurs such as Elon Musk (founder of PayPal and now owner of Tesla and SpaceX).

    I’m a transhumanist myself- I see it as the only possible way that the current madness of humanity is going to be overcome in my lifetime. Transhumanism is one of the very few things that keeps me going. Rebecca Roache makes me realise that it is all a vain deluded hope, and that the future is likely to be worse than our darkest nightmares.

    Sometimes I compare things to the lead up to the Nazi holocaust, but I think things could end up far worse than anything that has ever previously occurred in human history.

  9. I’m also back in the feed, btw. Perhaps it was just a technical problem.

  10. Hi, you say that artificial hells are wrong because innoncents could go there, but I think that NO ONE deserves to go there. I’m sorry but I think even Hitler doesn’t deserve to suffer for that long. Can you imagine what it must feel like? This gives me nightmares.

  11. I agree – I was pointing out the manifest injustice involved in her ‘time delation’ idea, where prisoners could supposedly serve 1,000 years sentences in 8 and a 1/2 hours. Even if such a sentence wasn’t a ‘hell’, it would still be injust (apart from the grotesque length) because the prisoner would not have the normal hope of appealing during the sentence or having a wrongful conviction quashed before completion of the sentence.

  12. Btw, this article is close to the first page of Google for ‘Rebecca Roache’, and it’s on the first page of Google results for ‘Rebecca Roache Philosophy’.

  13. Rick & Antifeminist:
    Not to go too far off into theology; but some of the more enlightened religious teachers like Emmanuel Swedenborg taught that, even though Hell was eternal, it was a creation of man’s own desire for evil; a punishment that men made for themselves by rejecting goodness. To draw a mundane parallel, it’s like a man who starts out well, but turns to vice and crime and ends up in ghettoes, jails, and Skid Row but never thinks of reforming. That’s what’s meant by the eternity of hell—they simply won’t improve and don’t want to, but progressively get worse.

    The point though is, even for people who reject religion as primitive, it shows that the femihags are even more barbaric and primitive than even the most unsophisticated religionists. They don’t even want to leave punishment up to a capricious god, they want to exact even more tortures on the innocent who violate their own caprices.

  14. Antifeminist:
    That’s a uniquely British liberal approach: dumbing-down the prisons. I have an unsettling feeling though that policy is a precursor to ‘re-education’ for prisoners instead.

  15. This is the most woefully inept hatchet job of my views yet. Who would have imagined that the people who run a website called ‘The Anti Feminist’ would be so hilariously unintelligent?

    I definitely did not talk to the Daily Fail. The original interview is here:

    And I posted a clarification of my views here:

    Thanks for the promotion to professor, guys. Happy whining!

  16. @Rebecca Roache – I accept that the Daily Mail may have been misleading in creating the impression that you are actively plotting to develop these punishments, but I’m still concerned that you are even discussing them. They are not just punishments – they are clearly inhumane tortures. What next? A purely disinterested philosophical discussion of how technology could be used to make slavery more efficient and cost effective?

    Given that men constitute the vast majority of prisoners* (increasingly convicted under explicitly feminist laws), and given that you did make a quite reprehensible tweet expressing flippantly presumed guilt of Dave Lee Travis and Bill Roache (‘joke’ or not), and that you appear to have identified yourself as a feminist through other tweets, then your article is still a valid subject of criticism for an anti-feminist site such as this.

    A ‘James Campbell’ left a comment on your ‘clarification’ article which seems to me to be quite valid :

    “To be fair, the context in which you introduced these future technology punishment methods was the Daniel Pelka case, where you called life imprisonment for his guardians “laughably inadequate” and “like a walk in the park.” Even if you weren’t endorsing these punishments, you were certainly propagating the view that punishment could purposefully be made more severe, to fit severe crimes, and seemed, tacitly to be advocating this view, through your use of emotive language and the desire to ensure that “that those who commit crimes of this magnitude are sufficiently punished.” Even if this is not your view now, your initial blog post certainly seemed written from an angle, rather than objectively, and took as a premise that certain prisoners (what you call, “the worst”), deserve more severe forms of punishment, and technology might provide this.”

    BTW, given that the suggested means used to carry out these 1,000 year sentences are ‘time dilation pills’ or ‘mind uploading’ then I presume that the prisoners will have to effectively serve these already inhumanely long terms under conditions of ‘solitary confinement’.

    *Note also that prisoners subjected to extreme sentences or to capital punishment are almost invariably men. For example, no woman has been executed in Texas since the American Civil War.

  17. @theantifeminist
    And her defense is even more pathetic. About the only thing she says that’s true is it does appear she is indeed only a mere Doctor, not a Professor. However, the article IS in the Daily Mail (regardless of whether she spoke to them or not) and the article definitely quotes her and her views, so if anyone did a hatchet job on her views it was the very newspaper she claims she ‘definitely did not talk to’. Oh hang on… Maybe she’s right: She insists that she definitely did not talk to the Daily Fail. The article you refer to and even quoted from is in the Daily Mail.

    Can’t wait for your reply to this one.

  18. @theantifeminist
    Something just occurred to me after re-reading her views (that she definitely did not talk to the Daily Fail about, but the ones that they published with, or perhaps without, her approval): Why does she suggest that a 1000 year prison term could be served in just ‘eight-and-a-half hours’? Why not suggest a whole number like 8 or 9 – it’s almost ‘creepy’ that she (or the semi-literate Daily Fail newspaper, perhaps misquoting her views), specifies an exact number of eight hours 30 minutes.
    In either case, the whole concept is bizarre anyway, but this only makes it all the more preposterous!

    BTW: that was a good retort, hope she comes back for more.

  19. Rebecca:
    To me the idea is a throwback to the Dark Ages, however much technology you want to put into it. Back in the 17th Century, the term ‘penitentiary’ was coined by English Puritans who sought to reform the prison system and make it one of rehabilitation and reformation and not punishment. It’s distressing to think that public attitudes on crime and punishment have sunk below 17th Century ideals, when you seek to elevate torture to justice instead of turning criminals into respectable citizens.

    What you advocate is really no different than the architects of the SS Death Camps, who thought they were less barbaric because they used state-of-the-art crematoria to execute Jews en masse, instead of stake-burnings like their ancestors.

  20. Why does she suggest that a 1000 year prison term could be served in just ‘eight-and-a-half hours’? Why not suggest a whole number like 8 or 9

    I thought that was odd too, but I think i’s another invention of the Daily Fail. That whole piece makes her look almost retarded, which to be fair, she obviously isn’t. Which is all the more dangerous really when the truth is that she is misguided at best, if not downright evil.


    She does actually quote the 8 and 1/2 hours thing in her original article –

    It doesn’t actually come from her though, but from Nick Bostrum, another transhumanist philosopher, who admittedly is a super intelligent man. The figure appears to come from dividing 1,000 years by 1 million – Bostrum believes that if minds could be uploaded onto computers (or turned into computers) then mental processing could be speeded up by a million times. Nick Bostrum uses the idea to speculate that we might be able to write novels in 5 minutes or cure cancer in a day, but Rebecca Roache dreams of the possibilities for creating eternal hell.

    Nick Bostrum is also a close colleague of David Pearce (they are both the founders of the World Transhumanist Society). You may remember him as the transhumanist who campaigns for women only governments : (and Hank Pellissier called for men to be genetically abolished).

  21. Note also that in her comment her Rebecca Roache did not link to her original article (but an interview with Aoen magazine) and claimed that the Daily Fail took THAT interview as their own.

    In fact, the 8 and 1/2 hours quote only appears in Roache’s original article, so the Daily Fail must have been looking at that as well – and in that article it is clear that she is in favour of these tortures (and has been forced to admit that).

    Quote from the original essay :

    We might turn to technology for ways to increase the severity of Luczak and Krezolek’s punishment without making drastic changes to the current UK legal system. Here are some possibilities.

  22. This whole mess about who said what is pathetic, although it provides further proof that the feminazis do this all the time as part of their grand scheme: claim that there is an apparent confusion in the publication of ideas or statements to enhance their deception of the general population.

  23. What a sick bitch. Why can’t we have nutcases like this arrested for hate speech? Oh, I forgot, it’s not just legal but required to hate men in society these days.

  24. Wow, this is like listening to Andrew Daly talk about genetic engineering on Crossballs. I don’t even know where to start. It’s just wild fantasy, it’s not saying anything real.

    For one, if we could “make a mind run 1,000 times faster”, wouldn’t we want to put all our minds on computers?

    Second, what does that even mean “make a mind run faster.” Making it undergo changes in state faster? What if I experience 1,000 years of the same exact agony? Does that only count as a single instant because there was no change?

    Third, this totally oversteps the whole contentious issue of what the mind/self/soul consciousness actually is, whether your mind could truly be “scanned” somewhere else at all. There’s a famous thought experiment about a teleporter that destroys you and then creates a copy somewhere else. But one day it fails to destroy you the original you but still creates the copy and-

    Screw it. This lady is in way over her head. I can believe she’s teaching philosophy. It’s like lecturing about genetic engineering and talking about how great it would be to have potatoes that unearth themselves and a pig that spins a continuous stream of bacon.

Comments are closed.