Meeting only Physical Demands

What if there was a machine that took care of all a child’s physical needs? Diaper changing, feeding, so on. Would it fulfill all obligations, even without the influence of human touch, or interaction? Some theories, the nativist included, would suggest that infants don’t require a human influence, but I, along with the mechanist and interactionalist theories, believe that human influence and the environment is necessary for full development.
         According to Freud’s theories of development, a child would not necessarily need human interaction, at least not until they feel the need to procreate. The oral stage, where infants center on the mouth, would probably be produced in any infant, without a mother being there. Also in the anal stage, there would be no real need for social interaction. But contrary to these, are the phallic, latency, and genital stages. All of these include the necessity of another person. With the phallic stage, the child would need a parent to focus their pleasure on. Although the definition of the stage is that pleasure is centered on the genitals. The latency stage focuses on the development of social and intellectual skills. Social, meaning society. Therefore needing people. Notice the heavy use of sarcasm. This is completely different from Erick Erickson’s developmental psychosocial theories.
         Even the name spells out the need for people. I won’t go into the social society thing again. I feel once is enough. The first section, Trust vs. Mistrust, all hinges on the basic care giving of a caring parent. That means more than just feeding, changing, and so on. It means the loving care that only one individual to another. This continues throughout all the different sections in Erickson’s theory. He shows two dramatic differences in the development of a child’s character and personality. A child either trust, or mistrusts. Even the names of the sections of his theories state the how the effect of the people and family in his life change the outcome of his outlook. The entire versus thing. The good side of the spectrum and the bad side. Sometimes even the nativist theorists agree that you need an environment to develop completely.
         Jean Piaget with his cognitive development theory, specifies that you need an environment and people to develop fully. In the sensory motor stage, an infant constructs their understanding of the world by matching sensory experiences with physical actions. Yet how can a child accomplish this without being able to see what they are doing, and having no sensory experiences whatsoever? Also, in the preoperational stage the child begins to represent the world with images. But in this machine, a child would see no pictures or images at all. Without light inside the machine, the child will have never even seen his feet. He would have no idea what words are, having never heard them spoken, and even without that problem, he wouldn’t know what to put the words with, having no idea what you are describing, and not seeing any such thing. This continues throughout the other stages, which couldn’t be reached; do to the fact that the child would never pass the first stage. Therefore, the other stages are null and void.
         Another theory that needs people and sight is the Social Cognitive Theory. It states that behavior, environment, and person/cognition are all important factors in development. I must say that I agree. Without all of these factors, there is no way to fully develop, and no way to reach maturity. Without even one of these factors, a person would be found lacking a fundamental step in growth, both mental and social.
         I must say that my conclusion, after going over all my notes and thinking it through thoroughly, is that full developmental growth cannot be accomplished inside a machine that only fulfills the physical requirements of a child. I child needs to use his eyes, or else they will not be of use later in life. With nothing to stimulate his mind, what would be his reason to use it. Without someone to talk to, why learn to speak? The child would not even be able to develop language, as he would have nothing to use language to represent. We use language to show images and to represent our actions. But inside the machine, there would be no images, and no actions to represent. And as language is how we think, cognitive development would be very difficult. And without thought, any kind of forward momentum isn’t possible. So for the conclusion: it is not possible to develop fully in a machine. You need human interaction and visual stimulus.