When it comes to man’s best friend there’s no arguments that dogs rule the roost, but new research has predicted that it could be “totally normal” for us to replace our pets with robotic animals.

It might sound controversial, but that’s the view of University of Melbourne researcher Jean-Loup Rault who says that the very definition of a pet might change in the coming decades.

“It might sound surreal for us to have robotic or virtual pets, but it could be totally normal for the next generation,” Rault said, as his research was published in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

He said that the advancing capabilities of robotic technology and artificial intelligence combined with the overpopulation of our cities could mean that we come to think of robopets, or even those we keep in virtual reality, as a social norm.

“It’s not a question of centuries from now. If 10 billion human beings live on the planet in 2050 as predicted, it’s likely to occur sooner than we think,” Rault explained.

“If you’d described Facebook to someone 20 years ago, they’d think you were crazy. But we are already seeing people form strong emotional bonds with robot dogs in Japan.”

Last year, in Japan, there was a mass funeral for a number of Aibo dogs which were made by Sony. The company started producing the robotic dog in 1999 before they were discontinued in 2006 and then finally stopped making parts for repairs in 2014.

The Aibo was an early form of robotic pet, but proved popular with customers who were said to have developed a deep attachment to the animals.

The growth of this type of technology may mean we even have to question what a pet is, Rault said. In the paper he wrote that we could be forced to “update the definition of pets as an animal or an artificial device kept for pleasure”.

Rault continued to say that the current technologies (any former Aibo readers may not want to continue reading) are not sophisticated enough to fully replace pets.

“The pace of artificial pet development, and underlying research, remains in its infancy with much to be discovered,” he said.

“At present, artificial pets can be described as mediocre substitutes for live counterparts. Yet, quick technological progress is to be expected, and this phenomenon raises many ethical questions.

Despite work being needed to move robotic pets on, Rault believes that it could provide a lucrative market. Technology within the pet-care sector is becoming increasingly common, as manufacturers try to cash in on the market.

For example, wearable technology for cows has been developed and there’s also remote dog walkers and tracking devices for pets.

One reason for a possibly large market for robotic pets is that they will also need less care and space than living animals, but provide the same emotional outlet as those that are alive.

“Of course we care about live animals, but if we become used to a robotic companion that doesn’t need food, water or exercise, perhaps it will change how humans care about other living beings,” Rault said.

“When engineers work on robotic dogs, they work on social intelligence, they address what people need from their dogs: companionship, love, obedience, dependence,” he said.