“But today, at this moment, we can and must design the media, design the molecules of our new water, and I believe the details of this design matter very deeply. They will be with us for a very long time, perhaps as long as man has left; perhaps if they are as good as they can be, man may buy even more time—or the open-ended future most suppose remains.” -Dream Machines (2) By Ted Nelson-
“The computer is as inhuman as we make it. The computer
is no more “cold” and “inhuman” than a toaster, bathtub or
automobile (all associated with warm human activities).” -No More Teacher’s Dirty Looks By Theodor H. Nelson-
I chose two nuggets from the Computer Lib/ Dream Machines, because even though two nuggets don’t relate to one another, these two nuggets can be associated with my research topic: long term impact of robotic use in military. As soon as I read the lines, “or the open-ended future most suppose remains”, and “computer is as inhuman as we make it”, I was reminded of a quote from my other source (Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds– By Daniel C. Dennett): “Robots are artifacts, and consciousness abhors an artifact; only something natural, born not manufactured, could exhibit genuine consciousness.” Just as Dennett states, by definition robots are inorganic, and consciousness can only exist in an organic brain. Today, we can’t create atoms from the limited elements, which means that we can’t create biochemically designed brains to robots. Possibly, robots may have the knowledge to control and overthrow original programing codes, but robots cannot replace our actually human consciousness. How can we trust the robots in military, when they don’t even have consciousness? How do we know robots will not “accidentally” kill humanity? Are people going to understand and accept robots’ “mistakes”, because they are inhuman? No!
As I have come to research, I found out that Google X facility is buying robots and is studying on creating a space elevator, teleportation, and hoverboards. I mean, back then, we could not have thought of teleportation, or even imagine an elevator that would lead us to the space! If you thought these were absurd, then imagine Google creating robots that will support U.S. military expand and gain more world power by violence. Boston Dynamics Robots are one terrifying robots. (I have wrote about Boston Dynamics Robots in Texting My Dream Post.) These robots are created not only to “search and rescue”, but Boston Dynamics is creating an animal like robot that will be able to destroy one city with self-destruct bombs. It scares me how rapidly robotic technology is advancing and how humans are using inhuman robots to destroy humanity.
The blog, SoundingBoard>, had similar out look on technology with my view point on technology. I always liked the old-fashioned communication better than social networking. And, I appreciate the older style of teaching, actually sitting in class and interacting with the teachers. There’s more love in actually communicating via sitting down and talking with the others, giving more heart to heart settings that help others feel like they are interconnected by a string towards the person sitting in front of him or her. The SoundingBoard blog’s idea of less technology integration made sense to me. And, what struck out to me was the blogger’s resolution of his idea: “Let us foster creativity and imagination, not stifle it as we are currently.”
The Zahra’s Blog blogger’s chosen quote was quite interesting: “Experts in any field rarely want people to understand what they do, and generally enjoy putting people down.” The blogger points out that knowledge is power. Her statement can be literally be as stated, knowledge IS power, or it can also, mean knowledge BRINGS power. I like the way she wrote “putting people down seems a bit extreme here and isn’t true in all situations.”; I have to agree with her, because not all experts put people down. However, when I was looking through my research paper, I saw strong opinions coming from the robotics scientists themselves, and the words they choose to use to describe their work was very masculine. In a way the scientists were implying that they were the “master mind” of their robots, and they don’t have any flaws (which is definitely not true…).
I liked the quote the blogger, treegirlblog, chose for her nugget: “Everything is interesting, until ruined for us. Nothing in the universe is intrinsically uninteresting.” This quote reflects back onto my research, because in some ways, when the robots first developed, there were many unknowns to be explored, and there were so many possibilities that could be opened by discovering how to remotely control a racing car. Now, there are too much commotions, confusions, and hidden meaning behind the actual creation of robots. Somehow, through the time, we (scientist and society in general) lost our ability to know when to stop, and somehow we are too blinded by our curiosity that we don’t even think about our consequences before taking actions.