This week's readings were fascinating, in particular the idea of the
"human factor" in robotics. Brunstetter believes that for at least the
foreseeable future drones will need humans. Whether this is as a
controller, for tactical assistance, or for decision making. While I
wholeheartedly agree with this position currently, I do believe, as is
certainly pointed out in Singer's chapters, that the military and the
world have made it their goal to remove the human factor completely.
Singer first points out the weaknesses of humans in comparison to
robots; slower reflexes, mistakes, emotions, pride, etc. and these
certainly would not be present in an obedient and efficient machine, yet
he also touches upon the point of cyborgs. This idea that machines and
humans can be linked, or that we can be jacked in to machines so as to
gain more control.
These stances are certainly interesting and a bit terrifying given that these developments could very well occur in my lifetime. But I do see one issue which neither touched upon, that is the morality of war, and especially the consequences robots might have on it. First Singer does mention that American war casualties has shrunk in numbers but have gained far more significance within the public. This first goes to show that ideas do indeed shape the technology but also reveals a deeper issue; the idea within our society that war is simply unavoidable, or maybe shouldn't be avoided, that the only negative of war is the casualties our nation sustains. This, at least from Singer's writing, seems to a be a driving motivation for the advancement of robotics and while I do think saving lives is good, might we do it some other way. I recently watched the movie Looper and in one scene Emily Blunt's character activates and unmanned crop duster. Now it seems to me things such as this are far more useful, far more constructive, and far more respectable endeavors to pursue. Yet we actually now look at drones as the key to war without morals, not necessarily immoral war, but just war in which neither side loses valuable human lives and instead simply does battle with obedient robots. It seems to me that this is a slippery slope which will lead to a complete disregard for the evils of war, almost a la 1984. So while drones and robots serve a place in society, the now over interested bureaucrats may just monopolize the technology to wage endless, bloodless wars.
These stances are certainly interesting and a bit terrifying given that these developments could very well occur in my lifetime. But I do see one issue which neither touched upon, that is the morality of war, and especially the consequences robots might have on it. First Singer does mention that American war casualties has shrunk in numbers but have gained far more significance within the public. This first goes to show that ideas do indeed shape the technology but also reveals a deeper issue; the idea within our society that war is simply unavoidable, or maybe shouldn't be avoided, that the only negative of war is the casualties our nation sustains. This, at least from Singer's writing, seems to a be a driving motivation for the advancement of robotics and while I do think saving lives is good, might we do it some other way. I recently watched the movie Looper and in one scene Emily Blunt's character activates and unmanned crop duster. Now it seems to me things such as this are far more useful, far more constructive, and far more respectable endeavors to pursue. Yet we actually now look at drones as the key to war without morals, not necessarily immoral war, but just war in which neither side loses valuable human lives and instead simply does battle with obedient robots. It seems to me that this is a slippery slope which will lead to a complete disregard for the evils of war, almost a la 1984. So while drones and robots serve a place in society, the now over interested bureaucrats may just monopolize the technology to wage endless, bloodless wars.
What exactly is the connection between less humans in war and more wars? And is more bloodless wars a good or bad thing?
ReplyDeleteMuch like what Brianna says below, due to the desensitization of humans that are involved in war and the progressing technology that could eventually eliminate humans from battle altogether we may be more inclined to use war as a diplomatic tool due to its falling political costs and ease of waging.
DeleteWhile much like Brianna I do not think that fully bloodless wars will be possible for a very long time or even ever, I do think that compared to now, wars in the future will continue to see less and less casualties, at least on one side, our side. We may however see that casualties decrease altogether due to public outcry but I think no public outcry will ever stop war.
I believe that the connection of less humans in war is a paradox because less human contact subsequently leads to more deaths. In the future humans may not physically participate in these battles, but they will certainly feel the effects. War will become something that is fought in secrecy and limited human contact will lead to its desensitization, which I talk about in my post. I do not think there can be such a thing as a "bloodless" war; even if the war is not fought with hand to hand combat, etc. there are still communities, persons, nations, that are ravaged from the effects of technological warfare, such as drone strikes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brianna, there is not such thing as a bloodless war. If there was no bloodshed than why would anyone concede. I do think that the definition of blood should be redefined. I do not think it is limited to just human blood. There is also bloodshed when economic means of production re destroyed and people's properties is destroyed. With the increase in precision that these weapons give us, bloodshed will increase although there may be less casualties, the ability for a country to destroy everything that one organization or community has increases because it is unlike that the country will be able to stop the attacks. Drone possessing countries can just keep sending drones because it one or two are destroyed it does not put an end the conflict, you just build more.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point! I also found it really interesting that we seem to only consider the risk of American human lives in our decision to initiate drone strikes. Obviously, from previous readings, it has been indicated that drone strikes might not pose a risk towards us but still pose a risk to noncombatants in the areas where we are striking. I think we desperately need to change our understanding of risk and how it affects whether we are engaging in actual warfare or not from being as one-sided as it is now.
ReplyDelete