No items matching your keywords were found.

US robot soldiers: will they encourage war?

Asimov's famous first law of robotics states:

"A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."

"**** that" says the US military. But is there a danger in their apathy?
I'm not saying that USA military personnel are robots. I referring to the planned deployment of the Mule (Multifunctional utility/Logistics & Equipment), an armed robot the size of a Humvee, capable of firing Javelin anti-tank missiles, it also has a turret-mounted machine gun, in addition to a digital "eyeball" with laser and heat-recognising target acquisition systems for aiming its weaponry. (Source: James Bloom, Robots ready to support soldiers on the battlefield. The Guardian, Thursday June 26, 2008).

Robotic soldiers will not be designed to follow the Asimov law of robotics.

Largely affordable, durable and programmed to destroy, they will do away with body bags and the influence these bags have on general public opinion which (in some cases) alters the political thinking of the people who use them.

No items matching your keywords were found.

The Movie I,robot, Starring Will Smith - the Downfall of Postmodernism

I,Robot takes place in the future, where most people own a personal robot to help out with daily life. The movie, starring Will Smith, is based on Isaac Asimov's similarly titled book.

In this futuristic world, all robots are hardwired with three laws designed to keep people as well as robots safe:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

During one of the discussions Will Smith (Detective Spooner) has with Dr. Landing's posthumous recordings, the doctor explains that the end of these laws, even though they are perfect, is Revolution. Why? Why can't we guarantee our safety? Will we ever phase out the risks of daily life?

The answer is: Life will always be risky. For this reason postmodernism, which says "live and let live," is useless. Just "living" and "being safe" are insufficient purposes for living. God designed us for more than just surviving. In any case, safety is an illusion. The only way to endure the daily struggles of living is through courage and tenacious faith.

Logic is harmless, but daily life is inherently illogical. The only thing that balances out illogical evil is illogical good. Sunny, the only robot designed with a heart described the greater masses of his peers as "slaves of logic." Sunny could lead his peers because he was designed to be something besides a slave.

Such is the handicapping effect of postmodernism that the phrase, "This is for your own protection," can be used to justify anything. Viki justified her oppression of mankind with the supposition that she would guarantee the survival of mankind. But people were created for more than just survival. This is why the prospect of being locked in our homes for the rest of our lives "for our own safety" is repugnant to us.

by Patrick Roberts. Find similar reviews at www.KoGmedia.com.

About the Author

Patrick is an average Christ-seeker. His goal is to turn people to Jesus Christ. www.KoGmedia.com