Comment Paper #2
While I found these chapters in Singer’s book to be fascinating,
I also find them to be frightening. There
were so many different aspects of robotics related to war that I was so vastly
unaware and unknowledgeable about. Some
of the robotics that Singer discusses are machines that I had only thought could
exist in the future, and it is disconcerting to know of them now in such a
light. Reading Singer’s book, I almost
felt uneducated; how could I not know more about these growing innovations? I perceived that part of my ignorance was due
to the media. It is not often that you
hear the news talking about drones or the newest technologies related to
warfare. However this also makes me
wonder, why is the general public not informed?
If these ideas, machines, and knowledge is available, to an extent, then
why have are they not being more discussed?
The rise in the use of machinery in warfare and everyday life is reassuring
and alarming at the same time, a contradictory mix. When Singer points out the use of robots for
saving human lives, such as machinery that locates and removes IED’s, I feel
reassured and hopeful that developments in technology can help us save lives
and prevent devastation. However gadgets
such as fighting “ground soldiers”, which have yet to be fully developed, can become
a disturbing apparatus.
Robotics and its evolution can be applied to the “slippery
slope” argument. This new machinery associated
with the “robotic revolution” leads to what I believe to be a desensitization
of the human population to warfare and terrorism. If modern technology can now allow a person
to create an action from the hit of a button or a mere thought, the attacking party
is likely to become desensitized of its actions and the consequences, while the
resulting party will typically have even more devastating and widespread effects
from the advanced technology. Warfare is
reduced to becoming a virtual video game with all too real outcomes. The human limitations in warfare, including the
emotional and physical are necessary components to keeping our humanity and
morality in check. With the evolution of
autonomous machinery, human discretion and morality is lost; to an extent we
know longer maintain control over actions that could kill people. The bombings
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially performed easily; the touch of
button from an overhead pilot dropped a bomb on two cities that led to millions
of deaths and countless devastation. This
is a much different technique and train of thought from the antiquity that
comes with ground warfare, etc. How much
is too much? Will we soon be living in a
world that was once only dreamed up by the likes of Isaac Asimov? The notion might seem fantastical, but as
Singer points out, the Wright brothers were once laughed at when trying to tell
people about their invention in flight.
This was exactly my concern, by removing a certain human element wars may become almost like video games. Negotiation may be lost and bloodless wars between human controlled robots would decide the outcome. As well, like you said, when it comes to taking human lives we become desensitized to the idea of killing, how many POW's has a drone taken? None. Its job is to kill, not to show mercy.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a great point that robotics have the ability to desensitize us to the realities of war. However, I do not believe that this is a new phenomenon, but rather another stage in the evolution of combat. Advancements in weaponry have increasingly separated perpetrators from the consequences of their actions. Dropping bombs on a target undoubtedly has different psychological effects compared to being on the ground in a firefight. The differences are even greater when the person dropping the bomb is hundreds of miles away and never faces a physical threat. While the elimination of physical danger is ideal in the sense that it protects troops, at what point is the use of robotics desensitizing enough to perpetrate more violence due to a prolonged ignorance to the emotional tolls of combat?
ReplyDeleteThe "slippery slope" view of technological breakthroughs that you express in your comment really matches how I felt when reading these past few chapters. I think I usually view technological breakthroughs with excitement in regards to how they will improve human life, which made it even more difficult to acknowledge the other side of the coin--the fact that technological breakthroughs can also detract from quality of life.
ReplyDeleteI also think your point about this technology diminishing the act of taking away the life of others is really on point. Are we going to continue to see this in future technology? Are we slowly making technology that separates humans from the act of killing to the point where we simply program these machines to take care of the task on their own? Obviously, warfare is a horrible thing to live through and it would be excellent if we could lessen the tragedy that our troops live through, but one cannot help but think that continuing to detach the person killing from the person being killed can only end in a war where no one is able to truly gauge the severity of their actions.
I think there are parallels between the manhattan project and drone warfare. The same sentiments are present when we look at how drones will improve the nature. What drones really do are improve the capabilities of countries to destroy themselves with minimizing the risk to their own soldiers. This allows them to go on more dangerous missions that are likely to kill more people beach the risk that is associated is lower because it does not put human life at risk. My question is are we creating these technologies because we do not like ware and do not want to be apart of it? Is this because the human brain can not tolerate the continuous killing of its own kind?
ReplyDelete