A washing machine for human beings, from 1970
A 1970s Japanese “human washing machine” prototype—essentially a car wash–style bath that sprays, ultrasonically cleans, rinses, and blow-dries a person in a 15‑minute cycle—prompts debate over whether such a device could or should exist today. Commenters question its water and energy use, hygiene and ultrasound safety, and awkward form factor, while noting it might be adapted to help people with limited mobility if redesigned. The thread also becomes a springboard for broader reflections on changing attitudes toward technological optimism, resource use (especially water), and the often-forgotten social context of past “futuristic” inventions.
Water Use and Environmental Impact
- Debate over whether the machine would use “hundreds of gallons” vs being like a water‑efficient dishwasher.
- Some argue reusing a small volume of water would be unsanitary; others note dishwashers already do this safely.
- Discussion shifts to what’s really “wasteful”:
- One side: water itself is abundant; the main waste is energy for heating and treatment.
- Others counter with local water stress, aquifer depletion, and infrastructure costs; abundance at global scale doesn’t help regions with shortages.
- Several note household use is minor compared to agriculture, but still see moral value in conservation.
Hygiene, Ultrasound, and Safety
- Ultrasonic cleaning is effective on hard objects; unclear benefit on skin.
- Some recall being warned not to put hands in ultrasonic cleaners; others suspect it was mostly to prevent misuse.
- Comments note ultrasound at certain intensities can irritate or harm tissue, but the actual parameters for this device are unknown.
- Added UV/IR for “germ killing” is seen as overkill or even hazardous (especially UVC).
Use Cases: Convenience vs Accessibility
- For able‑bodied people, many see it as a fun gimmick that takes longer than a normal shower and doesn’t wash hair.
- Others think it could be valuable for people with limited mobility, restoring some independence.
- Counterpoint: the 1970 form factor (tall pedestal, water up to the neck) looks risky and hard to access; later/healthcare versions seem more plausible.
Experience, Time, and Hair Washing
- Several note that 15 minutes is longer than most showers, and the device omits hair washing, which is often the slowest part.
- Hair‑care routines vary widely; commenters push back on gender stereotypes about hair‑washing time.
1970s Futurism and Design Culture
- Many are charmed by the optimistic, “space‑age” 1970s vision of automated personal care.
- Some argue we still push human‑machine boundaries, just in different domains (AI wearables, brain interfaces) rather than appliance futurism.
Gender, Models, and Pronoun Choice
- Discussion about why the article used gender‑neutral pronouns for clearly female models.
- One side: neutral pronouns keep focus on the machine; model gender is incidental.
- Other side: omitting that they were women erases historical context about marketing, sexism, and “booth babe” culture.
Maintenance and Practicality
- Concerns that such a device would be a nightmare to clean, similar to jetted tubs.
- Question of whether people would trust or enjoy being “washed like a car,” though some admit it might feel great at first.
Related Ideas: Self‑Cleaning and Automated Sanitation
- Tangent on why we don’t have self‑cleaning public bathrooms everywhere.
- Some note self‑cleaning units do exist, but businesses often find human cleaners cheaper and see restrooms as cost centers, not investment targets.