Symbiosis

• Posted on May 19, 2014
• by Clyde Lewis
• in Articles

SYMBIOSIS

In the television series ‘Mad Men’ there is a commotion about the advertising office getting a computer and there is worry about how many people it will replace. The year that ‘Mad Men’ is now set in is 1969 and little do they know that the computer isn’t going to replace workers it is going give them more work to do.
In the episode called “The Monolith”, the main character Don Draper, confronts the computer tech and says “I know you told me your name is Lloyd, but I know your real name.” This left a lot of people stunned. What was Draper saying? He knew the guys real name?
I figure it out immediately. It was found somewhere in the words of a Rolling Stones song “Please to meet you, hope you guess my name.” The deal with technology in 1969 seemed to be a deal with the devil. It was a soulless machine that when given the opportunity would enslave us, out-think us, and eventually kill us.
The visions of the doom prophets were coming true and our symbiotic relationship with the machine would bring a us cashless society and a a society of chipped drones being tracked and placed into a category that can be as inhuman as Fritz Lang’s dystopian ‘Metropolis‘.
As the Sydney Morning Herald just reported, we now live in times where, “Thousands of technology enthusiasts use…the ultimate app, enabling them to lock and unlock their homes, cars, computers and mobile phones with a simple wave of a hand.”
And this is only the first step in the plan. The next step is the human microchip.
The Sydney Morning Herald continues:
“The idea may seem weird, and painful, but human microchipping appears to appeal not only to amateurs, who call themselves biohackers, but also to governments, police forces, medical authorities and security companies.
It involves using a hypodermic needle to inject an RFID (radio-frequency identification) microchip, the size of a grain of rice, usually into the person’s hand or wrist. The same kind of chip is used for tracking lost pets.
The implants send a unique ID number that can be used to activate devices such as phones and locks, and can link to databases containing limitless information, including personal details such as names, addresses and health records.”
The writers of ‘Mad Men’ knew a little something about the loss of humanity even to the point of having a main character lose his mind, believing that frequencies were entering into him through his chest and in a strange act (that could be compared to van Gogh) severed a body part that he felt had some sort of device imbedded in it.
I am sure that back in 1969 there was a lot of concerned banter about the computer and there was really no real talk about home computer, only hints of a chipped society and our loss of humanity. Now here we are in the 21st century, wondering what is going to happen with the home computer, the Internet and the plans for the military to introduce robot soldiers and programmable drones.
In the meantime, technology now has given rise to a new form of entertainment and that is hologram concerts where deceased singers can literally make a comeback performance from the dead because of hologram technology.
Michael Jackson made posthumous performance at the Billboard Music Awards. After a year of planning and choreography, a hologram was created using what appeared to be a Michael Jackson look-alike.
While you will hear in the mainstream media that there were teary eyes and that the audience was all bending over backwards to cheer on the holographic resurrection, there were many that disapproved of the performance.
Some critics tweeted that it was confusing and uncomfortable to watch. Some had said it was scary and weird, the equivalent of digital formaldehyde, animating a corpse using technology.
As CNN reported: “Though the Jackson hologram was new, the debate over whether or not deceased celebs should be brought back is not. The Billboard “performance” also resurrected the discussion on whether fans even want to see their favorite artists as holograms.
In 2012 a hologram of the late rapper Tupac Shakur stunned audiences at the Coachella music festival. Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley have also been reanimated…” There’s also the threat of a Marilyn Monroe hologram for a Broadway show.
Is technology preserving the memory of the artist by using it in a live performance – or does it exploit the memory of an artist?
Michael Jackson was not there to sign-off on that performance – a performance that was not supposed to happen, a performance that the courts tried to rule against and a performance that most fans say was sub-par and could never live up to the real Michael Jackson.
Think about what we can do with this technology: It can go beyond that of mere performing. We could create a hologram of John F. Kennedy supporting Hillary Clinton for president, or even Dr. Martin Luther King on stage supporting Obama, would that be ethical and prudent? Or would this be unfair and unwise to do?
As BreitBart.com reported back in April, “During his visit to Tokyo, President Obama had a chance to meet ASIMO, a Japanese humanoid robot. ASIMO, an acronym for Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility, exchanged bows with the president before demonstrating that it could kick a soccer ball.”
The AP said: “Obama also witnessed demonstrations by other robots, including one designed by Japanese technicians and partially financed by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that was developed to help with disaster response. “I have to say the robots were a little scary,” he said afterward. “They were too life-like.””
Another group that is afraid of the potential of life-like killer robots is the United Nations.
As RT.com reported last week:
“The first multinational discussions on the rising specter of ‘autonomous killer robots’ is being hosted by the United Nations to consider whether the global community should ban the new technology – before it’s too late.
Acting Director-General of the UN Office in Geneva Michael Møller said the time to take action against killer robots is now.
“All too often international law only responds to atrocities and suffering once it has happened,” he said. “You have the opportunity to take pre-emptive action and ensure that the ultimate decision to end life remains firmly under human control.”
The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, an international coalition of non-governmental organizations, successfully petitioned the UN to consider the question of ‘autonomous weapons systems’ in a Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) meeting.
One of the founders of the NGO, Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams, is urging a ban on “autonomous robots,” which the US Pentagon defines as weapons that “once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator.””
The Department of Defense will tell you that the reason they want these killer robots is to save lives of young men who go out and fight wars. The real reason they want these killing machines is because they do not question orders. There is a movement afoot where soldiers are now questioning the totalitarian movements of the United States and so the Department of Defense is well-aware that a robot soldier would not defect or question orders.
Humanity is facing the extermination of its liberty. Now there is a way to enforce the tyranny and take out those who rebel.
OpposingViews.com writes:
“Retired military generals warn that U.S. kids need to slim down and shape up or we won’t have enough young people to fight in years to come. More than three-fourths of Americans ages 17 to 24 aren’t eligible to join the military because they are overweight or don’t meet other basic requirements, like literacy or a high school diploma.”
Health and educating should start as early as pre-kindergarten, according to military officials. Otherwise, I am sure that these robotic soldiers would be an alternative if things do not change.
Of course, there will be killer robots and “kinder, gentler” robots that will be programmed to carry out actions with moral decisions built in, as well.
ExtremeTech.com notes:
“The US Department of Defense, working with top computer scientists, philosophers, and roboticists from a number of US universities, has finally begun a project that will tackle the tricky topic of moral and ethical robots. This multidisciplinary project will first try to pin down exactly what human morality is, and then try to devise computer algorithms that will imbue autonomous robots with moral competence — the ability to choose right from wrong. As we move steadily towards a military force that is populated by autonomous robots — mules, foot soldiers, drones — it is becoming increasingly important that we give these machines — these artificial intelligences — the ability to make the right decision.”
The question is: What kind of morality will be taught to robots? Is there a military morality, instead of the morality of the common person?
After all, the US and Israel are developing drone insects that are able to inject poison in humans. Poisoned people creates infertility on wide population ranges. The question here is how moral is it to depopulate one region with drones than can secretly inject a disease into people to make them infertile?
Military brass is suggesting that the moral decisions are to be based on several criteria.
For example, let’s look at the moral dilemma for a tech soldier. Should the robot help the wounded soldier, or should it continue with its primary mission of delivering vital ammo and supplies to the frontline where other soldiers are at risk?
I ask you to look into the eyes of congressmen when they are presented with the idea of killer robots and robots with ethics. It would be similar to looking into the eyes of cows as they are presented with a Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary for perusal.
Almost all Congressmen are of the mindset that the best armies are those that consist of high school dropouts and poor minorities.
Just bring up automation and they have this stupefied look and, without flinching, they most certainly do not want to wind up looking unhip or not aware of the technology available to turn an enemy into a cloud of warm pink mist.
Many of them presented with the term ‘ethics’ will dance around a party line wondering if a tech soldier can be given the ethics of a Republican or a Democrat.
Is it gay or is it straight? Is it pro-life or pro-choice?
Does it handle policy like John Kerry or John McCain?
One thing is for sure, the Department of Defense will have to study Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, the first of which is: “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.”
Keeping this in mind as it is one of the chief reasons not to let robots on the battlefield at all – and if they are – only in the capacity of servitor and not warrior.