Future Thoughts

Topic of war is a sticky subject, because of the devastating depth of cruelty, bloody-murderous results of war, and the merciless, criminal acts occurring without the punishment justification.  If we carefully observe the history of war, it’s saddening to know that there have never been a period without war.  There’s always a constant rage against one another whether in forms of catastrophe, homicide, or even genocide.  As for the future, we will never know what the future holds for us, but one thing is for sure; there will never be a period without war.  And, as dark and depressing this might sound, there will never be a period of peace.  But we hope someday that the word of peace may arise within us, and may peace wash away the fatal war.

As an optimist, I am writing this research paper to, someday find peace, and a world without war and violence.  At this rate of technology advancement, war will never be the same as it has been a decade ago.  And, in a decade later, we will find war as something casual and mundane.  There will be no celebration for winning the war, or time for mourning, for a new war will inevitably creep us back into inhuman war.  War will change the way we think about violence, and technology.  In a next decade or so, drones will replace soldiers, and soldiers will no longer need to put their life on the line for our freedom.  Nor will the “new” soldiers, also known as drones, will replace the concept of death.  Eventually, the concept of war in connection with casualty will decrease; only death we would find are machine malfunction, and in the end, supply and demand would take over.  If we need more drones and robots, because they were damaged in a war, they will create more robots to meet the demands.  In the end, war becomes a game, and a video game fantasy turning into reality.


One thing for sure, I definitely want to show the dark effects of robotic technology on U.S. soldiers by comparing past and present military operations and how they have used soldiers in wars.  Even though robotic technology advancement is proven to improve efficiency and proficiency of military operations, the rate at which technology is advancing, is in reality, a catalyst in producing human robot soldiers.

Through my research paper, I wish to make a statement to the audience (to inform my audience), that not all technology advancement will benefit humanity, especially in focus with military technology advancement.  My argument will lean towards the diagnosis of the problem, and emphasizing the wrong path military technology is changing the concept and definition of an individual soldier.  Diagnosis:  how much technology advancement has changed American soldiers, and how in the future, it will impact soldier’s emotions, empathy, and their will to serve our country.  And, to prove my argumentative points, I will be approaching and tackling my research topic question with evidence and proof to back up my claim: technology will eventually create soldiers, who will act and move like robots.

As for the use of drone, I want to compare drone versus soldiers, to define what it means to be an American soldier.  And, use this part as a back-up statement evidence that someday United States soldiers will eventually become robots themselves due to military’s heavily use of technology and gadgets.  Due to military technology advancement, soldiers will be too heavily dependent on gadgets and machines.  This will inevitably lead soldiers to become the puppets of military operations, and the machines would control humanity without our knowledge.

Interior Design

The warfare revolution birthed technology advancement, promoted growth of automation, and the booming years of industrial science.  War can put an enormous amount of demand upon a nation’s resources.   These resources include anything from proving efficient weapons and materials to protect the military personnel, to actually hiring physical men to do the labor (soldiers).  Even though war is said to be a burden upon a nation, there are beneficial effects on economy and technological development.  Wars tend to accelerate technology progression.  It is not by coincidence that the computers we are using today were first created as a military tool.  Colossus, a world’s first electronic digital computer programmed to decrypt high-level, encrypted German army’s messages during World War II (1944), evolved into a non-military devices we have access to everyday, called computers.   Fast forward to present, the rapid technology revolution that started from our very first programmed computer, had branched off into a new category of science: military technology.

Now, we are not just creating machines that will perform calculations and computations faster and more accurately than any team of humans, without ever getting tired, but now, we are procreating humans as robots.  Our technology has advanced too far and too deep into scientific fantasies and creativities for us to loose the fine line between realities versus imaginations.  Materials created from the evolution of human’s ideas and discoveries have been impacting us in many different ways.

Driven by the excitement of new discoveries and designs that over shadows our fears, we have created more greed for better and much more surpassing technology transformations.  As if military technology now is not good enough to protect our country, the government spends more than half billion dollars of money in creating machines that will destroy human’s intellectual possibilities of right or wrong moral compass.  As much as more possibilities open up with newer technological advancements, an equal amount of consequences follow each success of scientific theories.  Our contemporary scientific military technology has advanced to help the soldiers create more efficient warfare methods and smarter ways to go around wars, but in reality, these machines, gadgets, and instruments depresses one’s potentiality and their likeliness to think for themselves.  In a way, technology advancement had an effect in creating robots in human beings.  Although military technology is meant to improve warfare efficiency and proficiency of military operations, in reality, the technology is a catalyst in producing human robot soldiers.

Nugget Post: Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg, “Personal Dynamic Media”

“For educators, the Dynabook could be a new world limited
only by their imagination and ingenuity. They could use it to
show complex historical inter-relationships in ways not
possible with static linear books. Mathematics could become
a living language in which children could cause exciting
things to happen. Laboratory experiments and simulations
too expensive or difficult to prepare could easily be
demonstrated. The production of stylish prose and poetry
could be greatly aided by being able to easily edit and file
one’s own compositions”   -Personal Dynamic Media By Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg-

Alan Kay’s and Adele Goldberg’s Personal Dynamic Media reading was just as the title stated.  They have created a personal dynamic media machine that was fitted for each individual personal with talents and creativity.  If you were a musician, you could personal write and record your music on the Dynabook, and the system could keep the notes memorized as long as you want it to.  If you were a doctor, you could have an access to patient’s information and appointment schedules, at the palm of your hand.  It’s really surprising how Kay and Goldberg have thought of these innovation in 1977, and to see that they were true!  We, now, have smaller gadgets than Dynabook that holds much more information than the 1977’s big computer screen.   I have chose a nugget about education, because I believe that education is what drove people to freely express their creativity and create robots to take in place of soldiers.

I liked how Kay and Goldberg wrote that classrooms will be “limited only by their imagination and their ingenuity”.  From linear textbook teaching style of learning, to now, a computer integrated classes, technology advancement had promoted greater educational freedom.  In a way, technology advancements, like upgrading computer models and softwares, had off-springed the scientists and engineers that creates military robots now.  The robotic scientist/ engineers had to have received their inspiration of creating military robots from learning electrical and performance engineering classes.  What amazes me is that technology drove education to go to places of unknown.  And what’s more fascinating is the fact that we will never know the limits of our society’s education (our future generation’s potential/ brain capacity), because we will never know the extent to which technology will effect innovation and creation.


The blogger, lukeschultheis, wrote a reflection that I thought was profound.  “These technological changes were not modifications or tweaks but radical, serious, life and world changers. I hope the students in this course work hard enough to make substantive changes in their fields of study, to benefit all of us.”  It was a reflection of how I have interpreted the Personal Dynamic Media reading.  I, too, had the same opinion as the blogger, lukeschultheis.  I was amazed at the rate of technology discoveries made, and how it is exciting, at the same time, to see these changes happening around me.  And, reading this blogger’s comment about how I am going to be part of the “substantive changes” that will “benefit all of us” struck me.  

It was interesting to see how our UNIV assigned reading was on point with my fellow classmates’ research topics.  For example, yusr4 and ewingjm2, both, were talking about the benefits of having computers and iPads in the medical settings.  For me, Personal Dynamic Media reading was loosely connected to my research topic, but as for yusr4 and ewingim2 bloggers, the whole concept of personalized media within their systems to revolutionize how hospital systems work was beneficial in connecting their research topic ideas to the readings.  They, both, emphasized greater patient care, and the need for health care policy/ system change.

Project: Prospectus

Main topic of my research: redefining today’s soldiers by comparing the “new” soldiers versus the “past” soldiers, mainly focusing on the effect of advancement in robotic technology in warfare.

It took me a good week to figure out where I was heading with my research topic. Not only was I dissatisfied with my research topic, and not to mention my discontentment with the topic of war, I was struggling to narrow my research topic down. Originally, I was planning to see the effect of robotic technology as a whole, in a society and how it would effect military and medical advancement. I thought about the prosthesis part of veterans’ rehabilitation, and how robots can be incorporated into after-war stages of life. At the same time, I wanted to explain the causes of veterans’ injures, which were mostly caused by the deadly weapons used in war tactics (advancement in military weapons). However, the more I dug into my research, there were many informations that I did not agree with.  (A lot of dark, destructive materials that were too emotional for me to handle.)  I could not write a research paper on topics that I disagreed with… I just couldn’t. So, instead of pursuing the topic of weapons used in warfare, I decided to take a different route and chose to study the soldiers now versus then.

Redefining Today’s Soldiers

What I mean by “new” soldiers versus “past” soldiers is: the difference robotic technology (or should I say, technology advancement) bought in the new concept of defining veterans.  Back then (World War II (WWII) era: 1929-1945), technology was just about to boom, or to better say, the creation of radar technology was the newest “Ah-Ha” technology moment.  Compared to today’s technology advancement and the rate of technology evolvement, the earlier 1900’s technology did not evolve as fast. (At least, not fast enough for the people at war.) Due to lack of technology advancement and lack of knowledge in weapons, there were not many weapons that could be as destructive as today’s weapons.  In this case, we are going to take nuclear bombs and nuclear reactions out of the our equation, because WWII was the starting point of nuclear weapons.  In the past, injuries consisted of gun shot wounds, grenades wounds, or poison gas intoxication ( to name only few that caused major deaths in WWII).  Most of the soldiers were wounded by enemies’ bullets and mustard gas.  And, only 4 out of 100 soldiers were expected to survive.  Yet, look at us now, with technology advancement and many advancement in history, the rate at which people survive from war injury is now up to 93%.

What does these statistics and data tell us about the “soldiers” it self?  And, what does this tell us about the effect of technology advancement?

Technology has redefined soldiers.  Now, robots will take in place of human beings in the battle fields.  The soldiers are no longer injured due to inflictions done by other human beings, but instead by robotic weapons created by human beings.

Before, war heroes were placed on pedestals.  The soldiers were welcomed home with big celebrations/ parties, and they were much appreciated for protecting our country.  However, now, war has changed it’s route; war has become a fight of struggles for who have better weapons, and who have more people to spare for war.  Now, creation of robots as soldiers from scientific advancement has changed the view of war.  Now, war has shifted their casualty talk into creating better and smarter robots to take in place of these soldiers.  The definition of caring for the wounded soldiers have changed to trying to save the machine (robot), or trashing the “soldier”, and replacing the soldiers (machines) with the newest model.

There’s no attachment for the loss of soldiers or losing one’s life to war.  Death in war, or heroism in warfare became meaningless.  It has been replaced by mere robots, who don’t have feelings, emotions, or consciousness that of humans.  My rationale for my study is to find the trend in where the definition of soldiers is heading, and to see how far robotic technology will change the war itself.    I, also, want to explore how the whole new concept of robotic soldiers will have impact on future warfare.  I believe that it is important to distinguish the appreciation for the military servicemen, at the same time, define what is a real soldier compared to that of robots.  Ultimately, through my research, I hope to find the main cause that shifted the use of robots as soldiers.  And through my investigation, I hope to portray the shift of change in the past to present day soldiers.

Nugget Curation

I have organized my nuggets into a web graph, where I divided each readings into 4 total sub-categories:

1.  Vannevar Bush – “As We May Think”

2.  Ted Nelson – “Computer Lib/ Dream Machines” (excerpts)

3.  J.C.R. Licklider – “Man-Computer Symbiosis”

4.  Doug Engelbart – “Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework”

From these four separate writings and readings, I have divided my TAGS along the web graph.  My tags were consisted of: #technology, #computer, #robots, #internet, #google, #productivity, #automation, #production, #intelligence, and #military.

**Some of the tags were very loosely connected with the main four readings above.  However, many of the tag topics were related or intertwined with my topic of study – shown via debategraph.

Click DEBATEGRAPH for my nugget curation. For some reason, WordPress would not allow debategraph to be embedded.

Panning for Nuggets 2

In one section of my research, I am going to define the actual consciousness of machines vs humans, and make the border that differentiates robots from us.  I believed that I could not write a paper without defining the different standards and the different interactions between robots and humans.  If there is no comparison between two innate objects or nouns that I want to explore, than there is no argument, and there is no purpose in writing a research paper.  Here, I found three nuggets, exploring the artificial intellects, and what draws the line between human’s consciousness versus robots.  Initial question: What actually differentiates humans vs. robots?  (I am asking this question, because a lot of robotic engineers are creating robots that will think and act just like human beings.  What actually differentiates us from robots, if we are creating robots that will think just like us?)

“Robots are artifacts, and consciousness abhors an artifact; only something natural, born not manufactured, could exhibit genuine consciousness.”   -Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds By Daniel C. Dennett-

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 humans?  However, the quote below this paragraph disagrees with Dennett’s view point in machines’ consciousness.   Haikonen believes in creating robots entailed with cognition and consciousness exactly like the humans: “the ultimate goal of machine cognition research is to develop… robots and systems that know and understand what they are doing, and are able to plan, adjust and optimize their behavior”.

“The ultimate goal of machine cognition research is to develop autonomous machines, robots and systems that know and understand what they are doing, and are able to plan, adjust and optimize their behaviour in relation to their given tasks in changing environments. A system that succeeds here will most probably appear as a conscious entity. Here the issues of the apparent properties of the human consciousness and those of the proposed machines are discussed.”  –Robot Brains: Circuits and Systems for Conscious Machines By Pentti O. Haikonen-

Haikonen’s statement of having artificial soldiers (robots) with actual brain capacity changes the view of robots.  Now, the author suggests new topic of robots: self-controlled robots.  In this case, we are assuming that the robots have consciousness that can determine and judge whether their actions are wrong or right.  In this case, these robots will be smart enough to out run a human brain’s capacity.  The argument shifts from “robots are inhuman, so they can’t have consciousness” to “robots have different concept of consciousness”.

“While artificial intelligence of this sort is far from a reality, robots do play a crucial role in our everyday lives. The engineering definition of a robot is “an electromechanical intelligent agent that can perform tasks either autonomously or semiautonomously.  In contemporary society, there are two main types of robots. The first is the preprogrammed robot, which performs a task or series of tasks again and again, exactly same way each time. These robots have replaced human hands with the precise and tireless movements of machines on most assembly lines. The next type of robot, far less common, is based on a command-control platform. Rather than being preprogrammed to perform a defined function, these robots are remotely controlled, in real time, by human beings.”  -Telemicrosurgery Robot Assisted Microsurgery By Philippe A. Liverneaux-

In Liverneaux’s argument, now he defines the different concept of consciousness: robots are electromechanical intelligent agent that can perform task either autonomously or semiautonomously.   Liverneaux defines robots as machines, and can disagree with Haikonen’s argument that it is impossible to create a robot with human’s morals and human’s consciousness.  Robots are either preprogrammed or remotely controlled by a command-control platform approach.  In a sense, Liverneaux is approaching that there could not be any thoughts in machines, because they are like drones, acting what the controllers wants to display.

Most of the military used robots are preprogrammed or is approached in command-control method; however, we can’t say that not all of the robots are created by computer codings and programmers.  In this case, the argument of robotic use in military is shifted into another section of robotic research: what defines robots as conscious, and where is the line we draw to differentiate robots vs. humans.  In my research, I will have robots and human’s border on whether or not the robots or humans can function by themselves without the main controller.  For example, the robots that are preprogrammed to finish a certain task will not be a conscious robot, but can be called a drone.  In a case with robots with their own minds and their thoughts to perform an action, can be said to have consciousness of a human (just like how humans have mind of their own to perform out their own tasks).

Portable Engelbart

“Increasing the effectiveness of the individual’s use of his basic capabilities is a problem in redesigning the changeable parts of a system. The system is actively engaged in the continuous processes (among others) of developing comprehension within the individual and of solving problems; both processes are subject to human motivation, purpose, and will.”  –AUGMENTING HUMAN INTELLECT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK  By Douglas C. Engelbart-

Paraphrase: Expanding the adequacy of the singular’s utilization of his essential competencies is an issue in updating the alterable parts of a framework. The framework is energetically occupied with the persistent methods (among others) of creating and understanding the inside of an individual and taking care of the issues; both methodologies are liable to human inspiration, reason, and will.

“First any possibility for improving the effective utilization of the intellectual power of society’s problem solvers warrants the most serious consideration. This is because man’s problem-solving capability represents possibly the most important resource possessed by a society.”  –AUGMENTING HUMAN INTELLECT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK  By Douglas C. Engelbart-

Paraphrase: To start with any probability for enhancing the compelling usage of the scholarly force, the public opinion’s issue solvers need to warrant the most genuine attention. This is on the grounds that man’s critical thinking competence speaks conceivably the most paramount asset controlled by a society.

Engelbart’s quote about a “man’s problem-solving capability represents… the most important resource possessed by a society”, resonated with me.  My research topic of robotic use in military can be portrayed in multiple ways.  I can talk about the benefits of robotic technology in war, because there are many robots used for therapeutic or treatment for the military personnels.  At the same time, I am learning more about how destructive robots can be when they are created for solely battles, and warfare.  In a way, the quote fits into my research topic, because a man’s knowledge and their intellect, can impact the pathway a robotic technology can lead into.  For instance, the robotic engineers that created the battlefield robots, in first place, had a purpose and goal in mind when they were building the robots.  But, I wonder if they have thought about the true consequences of destructive robots, and how the robots will be exactly used for.  For example, one company creates robots for the sole purpose of heavy duty lifting and clearing materials to make a way, but what if other takes the same robotic idea, and use the robots for weapons to use against us?Screen Shot 2014-07-06 at 11.08.34 PM


The quote resonated with me, because due to my research topic on robots and how they can impact our society as a whole in a positive and in a negative way, I truly believe that a one’s mind and thoughts will be the most valuable asset to one’s society.  The knowledge and the power of one’s brain can be the “deciding” factor of where robotic technology advancement and innovation will lead us.



Concept Experience Pt. 3: Twitter!!

I have a confession to make.  I am a newbie at tweeting. justsmile

What is so great about tweeting?  I still don’t get it.  As much as I want to appreciate 140 characters limit on tweeting, I still had some trouble explaining my research in 140 characters.  Plus, don’t forget that extra #thoughtvector and #tv005 tags taking your already-reserved-precious 20 characters!   For one tweet post, I had multiple repeat of this: toomanythoughts

And a lot of this:delete

And a lot of these:omg

At last, when I got the hang of Twitter, I was doing my victory dance:dancevictory

Of course, my victory dance didn’t last, because I had a hard time trying to keep up with all the tweets that were “tweeting” around.

Even though the whole new-to-Twitter approach didn’t help me at all, I was glad to find classmates and fellow students who were investigating almost similar research topics as me.  (I say almost, because we, (students) all had different categories of research topics, but somehow all of our research topics were related in some ways either tied by the topic of technology, or by the impact of innovation.

Even though I am more focused on the robotic technology side of my studies, Ansari’s study of biotechnology is incorporated into my research due to inter-related studies of biotechnology and robotic science.  There have been studies of blending cell biology, genetics, and molecular biology with robotic technology.  Especially, biorobotic studies focuses on robots generated for genetics engineering studies.  I thought it would be better to be more informed on  biorobotics than to not know any information of biological side of robots as robotic technology impacts our society.

Gerell Malazarte’s twitter caught my eyes.  As it is stated below on his Twitter, he was looking to study the integration of medicine with technology.

I was, also, looking at the effects of how robots were used for prosthetic legs and arms.  At the same time, I was studying how robots will affect our advancement in medicine, but geared more towards the side effects of military damages created by robots with robotic solutions to the damages affected by warfare.

Symone Allen’s topic of national privacy and security with new government legislation and projects are not very similar to my robotics research topic, but I thought it would be helpful to look at her Diigo web pages, since military and warfare is intertwined with government legislation.   And especially with robot creations, there are a lot of national privacy and security involved.  It wouldn’t hurt to explore more on how U.S. government handled robotic use in war, and how the legislation will be affected with robots in charge of the front line offense. Twitter is definitely a great way to communicate.  There’s no point in denying this truth.  However, as a student, who likes to ramble on, it was hard for me to like Twitter.   I felt that Twitter didn’t have enough space for all of my thoughts and comments.  It was frustrating to find the words marked in red, because I couldn’t fit my thoughts into 140 characters count.  I would rather use the comment boxes on our blogs, and use the comment boxes as our main communicator.

As for the future use of Twitter, I may use Twitter to tweet out to other professionals who are tweeting about their latest robotic technology.  I was surprised to find robotic professionals asking away their questions on Twitter.

And, I ran into a Good Samaritan, who helped me further my robotics research (even though it was Wikipedia, it was helpful – the sites and resources at the bottom of Wikipedia page)!

Computer Lib / Dream Machines Nugget

“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.

Screen Shot 2014-06-30 at 11.19.49 PM


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.


Panning for Nuggets

“Although there’s little debate that computer technology complements—and often enhances—the human mind in the quest to store information and process an ever-growing tangle of bits and bytes, there’s increasing concern that the same technology is changing the way we approach complex problems and conundrums, and making it more difficult to really think.”  -Samuel Greengard-

Samuel Greengard suggests that we (humans) are losing the ability to think and store information due to the advancement of technology in Are We Losing Our Ability to Think Critically? article.  He compares thinkers from the past that defined and redefined our society, like Sir Isaac Newton discovering gravity, or Albert Einstein redefining the view of the universe.  But in the age of computers, video games, and the Internet, there’s a question of how the technology is changing people’s critical thinking skills, and redefining the thinking process.  In a way, there are much more “auto-pilot” mode on our brains.  This can be exemplified in military warfare; there are so many creation of robots and machines that people don’t have to think anymore to operate these monstrous machines.  Now, in our new era, soldiers don’t have to be actually in the battle field.    Robots like Schaft, can successfully drive a car (as shown in the linked video) without a help of human brain.  What’s more fascinating is that due to our advancement in technology and the creation of robots, we are heading towards a world with a mushy swamp somewhere between perception and reality; measurable and incomprehensible.

“The trend suggests that the pace of productivity growth has decelerated since the first half of the 2000s and this begs an important question.  There’s considerable speculation that the pace at which machines are displacing workers has accelerated.  I keep hearing about “the end of work” based on the assumption that the pace of labor-saving technology—robots, AI—has accelerated.”  -Jared Bernstein-

One main focus I want to take out from Bernstein’s quote is “machines are displacing workers has accelerated”.  In some similar ways, Bernstein’s argument supports and connects to Greengard’s argument on our deterioration of critically thinking skills.  Bernstein’s point of view on the robots replacing labor work can be a cause of our decelerating critically thinking skills, as mentioned by Greengard.  In some ways, the more we advance in robotic technology, the more we will loose the definition of reality, because we would be heavily dependent on robots of our every mundane tasks.  This can be implied to my research topic: military.  Now, with known coordinates, nuclear bombs can be launched with one button.  Without giving a second thought or even using our brain, people can press one button and create a mass destruction and devastation to half of our world.  Are we manually driven by our brain or are we on “auto-pilot” due to technology advancement?  Will robots actually help us destroy this planet, or will robots help us for the better?



NOTE for my research:

(As I was reading and researching, I thought I wanted to post this case up, so I won’t forget it in my research paper.  KEEP! – This has nothing to do with Panning for Nuggets…  just my trail of thought.)

Since war is bringing more injured soldiers home with disabilities, there are greater advancement in robots replacing humans missing arms or legs.  In these cases, the brain becomes numb and useless in controlling what was there before, but now gone missing limbs.  [Major Advances in Robotic Prosthetics]  In a way, people are benefiting from robotic prosthetics, but in reality, there are going to be more amputees, and more injured soldiers coming back from war.  [Describing the lost – Question to Ask: What is the cause of robotic technology advancement?]