Opening Ourselves to New Thinking

Open Code and Open Societies really gave me a completely new perspective on the world of online intellectual property. I guess I've always sort of accepted the logic of the closed system, even though it has frustrated me on many occasions when I've wanted free music or free TV shows or free movies on the Internet. That said, I do "get it." The creators of these pieces of intellectual property deserve to receive their dues, to get credit and money for their works of art. Still, is this portioning of credit preventing us from moving forward? From having the kind of freedom of property that is encoded in our old laws?

That is why the idea of LIMITED copyright is so important. The idea of copyright is

“beneficial … to authors and inventors, … [and beneficial] to the public, as it

 

will promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and admit the people at

large, after a short interval, to the full possession and enjoyment of

all writings and inventions without restraint" (Lessig 5).
This means that all can benefit from the ideas of a few. Yet, limited copyright, as explained in the article, has become less limited through the Internet (Lessig 11). The commons, the idea of public domain, has been forgotten as a way of spreading and expanding knowledge (Lessig 5). Corporations, such as Hollywood, are so concerned with holding on to their own property that they don't think about the ways that this property could be expanded or improved. Of course, there is certainly the problem of people taking credit for others' inventions and creations. But, if we remember learning about the Scientific Revolution in junior high and high school, recall that the commons is important for innovation -- only through studying the notes and observations of previous scientists were new scientists able to build off of old theories and improve them. In Wu's book also, we saw how copyright laws prevented the evolution of all sorts of technologies. Copyright allows one group to hold onto its success, but it detracts from the formation of ideas for the future.

Do I agree with Lessig's assessment of our future? I'm not sure -- do you? I guess it seems fair to ask permission to use someone else's media, but is Internet control going too far in this direction? I'm not sure that I agree that the Internet should be an open space, but at the same time I don't want to see it become fully closed off. It is hard to find a balance between what is "fair" to one and what is "fair" to all. I'm definitely still figuring this all out.

Free Speech in a Free World

Lawrence Lessig takes an interesting approach to open source software. He utilizes various support from Thomas Jefferson quote to the explanation of how copyrights on Hollywood movies work. One of his more interesting examples is that of iCraveTV. The Canadian vehicle to free TV was taken advantage of by Americans, so the US government asked them to take this down. Lessig points out that the US has no problem violating other nations' freedom of speech. However, whenever freedom of speech in the US is threatened by other nations, America becomes defensive. This sort of double standard points out a potential problem with cyberspace. Lessig contends that it will lead to zoning on the Web where local rules will make it a closed space. Given the push behind SOPA and PIPA in 2011, Lessig's claim may not be too far away.

While I was not a proponent of SOPA or PIPA, I think the government has some legitimacy to their surveillance of the Internet. And yes, I realize that it is not just for our "national security" like the government claims it to be. Here's one way to look at it: given the CIA's past, whether the government officially recognizes that they are monitoring the Internet or not, it would come as no surprise if the CIA was monitoring it anyway. At least in the model that exists now, we are well aware that our cyberspace actions are being monitored. While it may feel a bit Big Brother, part of the surveillance is for security, which I find comfort in. 

Now in regards to Lessig's claims about zoning and local rules on cyberspace, it has already occurred in China. The US could easily be the next nation to do so. Before we all panic, is this really a problem? While it may limit the free flow of information, if the government does what it did in the case against iCraveTV, its actions will be done in order to prevent illegal activity (watching TV for free in this case).  Zoning and rules do not necessarily mean that we will be limited in our search results on Google or any other radical ideas behind SOPA and PIPA. I believe that any rules set up will be more moderate and palatable to how we use the Internet currently. 

Rules are a bad thing. While some rules can come from ignorance, I believe that most rules are necessary. We need structure in order to shape our lives. Plus, given the alternative of anarchy, I think I'll stick to the law.

Why Wade is a Total Freak

     My post may have been a generalization. However as was stated in class, the sociability of an individual is an extremely subjective description. My feelings on Wade are based on if Wade were to exist in current American society. Wade spends a majority of the novel locked up in a blacked out room hooked up to the OASIS. He is completely devoid of human connection. His only "friendly" social interactions occur with Aech, Art3mis, Daito, and Shoto. However Wade eventually manages to alienate Aech and Art3mis his two "best friends" leaving him more alone than ever. Wade makes some changes throughout the course of the novel that may lead to him being a more social person. However, I feel the novel ended too abruptly for readers to be sure that this change is really permanent. Wade spent a grand total of about ten minutes talking to Art3mis in person. Although he may state that he has no desire to log on again, the addictive nature of the OASIS and the countless hours of his life that he has dedicated there will make it extremely difficult for him to pull away. For Wade, I see the OASIS as an addiction, an addiction that feeds into his antisocial behaviors and allows him to be a shut-in. Perhaps if the ending gave a brief description of Wade years later completely off the OASIS still with no desire to log-on I'd be more convinced that he'd really become a different person.

       Through the lens of my place and time I see Wade as a freak. Freak is also a subjective word. Therefore I feel that I have the ability to use it at my disposal. I feel that Wade is a freak, others may not. It would be similar to saying that I think that Mila Kunis is pretty while others may not (jokes everyone thinks Mila is pretty). Perhaps the way I posted my comment was slightly rant-like but I have little sympathy for those who hide from reality. Wade lives in a world of immersed humans so perhaps if everyone is a freak no one is? Yet the few examples that we have been given of other non-gunter characters are not as extremely distant as Wade. IOI employees come to work and then go home, it can be assumed they have some sort of real personal connection whether it be with a spouse or children. That being said, Cline barely even describes non-gunters so I have nothing to compare Wade's behavior with other than my current surroundings, in which, he would be a freak.

Rayna's Post: Technical Difficulties

 

Image source: Blatantly stolen by your prof from a defunct role-playing game of the early 90s, complete with flying car from Blade Runner and a neo-Neo with high-tech eyes and armed girlfriend. In other words, nerd-candy!

Prof's Note: I'll post this for Rayna, who is having technical difficulties. Maybe the Sixers got her!

Rayna left this for us to consider:

In Ready Player One, Cline presets many negative and positive aspects of cyberspace and online relationships. Clearly the OASIS seems better that the real world for kids like Wade who live in abusive homes and are social outcast.

The OASIS does offer some benefits, Wade is able to have a safe and engaging experience at school which he was unable to get in the real world. He also meets Aech who turns out to be a true friend even though the friendship is purely online. Despite highlighting these positives, Cline also makes it clear that living in the OASIS may not be completely healthy.

Although Wade meets his best friends and love in the OASIS, meeting them in person proves to lead to much deeper/more fulfilling relationships. Wade goes through a personal transformation throughout the novel, which is demonstrated both in and out of the game. Within the OASIS we see him act with honor and show morality. Outside of the OASIS, Wade actually begins to take care of himself. Ultimately, the true sign of his transformation comes at the very end of the book when Wade no longer has an interest in reentering the game.

Despite spending most of his life searching for Halliday's Easter eggs, when he finally wins the biggest prize of all, it no longer matters in comparison to the prize of real life and real friendship. Although set in a dystopian, cyber-punk setting, the themes throughout are relatively optimistic which I though made Cline's novel both entertaining and enjoyable.

Alone, Together. Again?

                                      The new kind of social interaction.

Is Wade antisocial?

                Now, for some of you the answer to that is a resounding yes. However, I believe the situation is more complex than that.

                                While towards the end of the book we can see that Cline is developing Wade into a more social person, we sort of get Turkle’s “Alone, Together” concept. For example, when all of the players get together at Ogden Morrow’s house, they all log on to the OASIS in separate, neighboring pods. When Wade logs in, he is suddenly highly secluded on his asteroid stronghold. What’s happening is sort of the reverse of Turkle’s idea. They are together, but alone. Only to be together again online.  When you think about it, you notice that these last scenes are the first time since the beginning of the novel Wade is physically with others, besides the times when he ventures out but does not speak with anyone.  In the beginning of the novel, we only see Wade interact with his aunt and his neighbor.  We can see that in reality, Wade isn’t actually interacting socially.

                In the beginning of the book Wade admits that he only has one friend, and at the end he finds he wants to spend more time with real people. He is not pretending to be very social, and there’s no denying his advancement.  However, I believe that as the narrator, Wade is painting a picture of himself as slightly more social than he really is.  In the opening scenes of the novel he says he is close with his neighbor, but there is only really “telling,” and very little “showing.” When the explosion occurs, Wade is only moderately upset over her death. Overall, the relationship isn’t convincing. Wade calls Aech his friend that he tells everything to. In the beginning before the two have met, Wade has no doubts about the closeness of their relationship. However, even if they are emotionally close, he still doesn’t know crucial details of her personal life.  Wade additionally often says that Artemis, Daito, and Shoto are his friends.  He hardly knows Daito and Shoto, the latter especially. He only met Shoto about twice, both times on OASIS.  In the case of Artemis, the two have undoubtedly gotten close, but their romantic feelings get in the way of them having a real friendship. I believe Wade feels a kinship with these people for being in a similar situation to him, but I think he is confusing this with a real friendship. Overall, while Wade is becoming more social, he seems to hype his relationships to more than they are.

                Cline also creates a strange dilemma in “Ready Player One.” He is making Wade find his way back to social interaction by putting him in an individual competition where in many cases it is best to isolate oneself.  Maybe Cline is trying to draw attention to the necessity of social interaction?

                So, give me your opinions.  Do you think Wade is antisocial? Why or why not?

cyber OASIS vs the Oasis of Reality

-->

            The ending of the novel Ready Player One was shocking, but also predictable at the same time. I was glad to see that near the end Parzival finally ventured outside, and got a decent taste of the real world. It’s alarming that during the majority of this book, he hadn’t left his room. Its reassuring that Cline alludes to the idea that the real world has some perks over the simulated, and that in the end, Parzival wants to remain in reality. This may be a sweeping generalization, but I feel that the real world has a certain "je ne sais quoi" that the virtual can never quite capture, no matter how much the simulation feels real, there is always a part of it that will never fulfill all the sensation that can be felt in the real world. Similar to the uncanny valley, it’s hard to be fully immersed or to fully believe the simulation is real. Like wade and the others, they sunk into the simulation and let themselves get lost in it, but they always come back. This makes me question: is there a way to become fully immersed? And fully integrated within a machine? Or will reality prevail as the medium people use to communicate with one another? This OASIS like reality is potentially possible. Would we potentially see users login to their visor units and log into their jobs and school, or will reality remain the most popular medium for people to engage with one another?

Escape to the OASIS

In the novel Ready Player One, the year is 2045 and there exists an alternate, virtual universe known as the OASIS. People choose to spend their time connected into this world while they maintain their real identities anonymous. It seems to be so much easier to live in the OASIS than in real life; you can be whoever you want to be and you have endless possibilities as to what you can do, from "traveling" around the world to creating and accomplishing things that you could not accomplish in the real world. The OASIS gives people the opportunity to live their lives as they wish, and to reach their true potential... virtually.

In the novel, people, including Wade, seen to prefer to live in a game rather than face the "real world", which seems to be a horrible place in 2045. How realistic is this depiction of the future? In my opinion, not very. I do not think it is very likely that in the future, people will succumb to technology to the point of spending most of their time immersed in it, living a fantasy life. I know that many people today are addicted to video games, online virtual worlds, social media and/or other technology-based ways of communication. However, I do not think humanity will reach a point where the virtual is ultimately preferred over the real. Sure, technology has its many advantages, but it can never truly replace the actual touchable, tangible, emotional, real human interactions.

As I mentioned in my paper for Project 1, there is something personal and intimate about face-to-face interaction that cannot be replaced by other methods of communication. Avatars only mimic human expressions and emotions, the lack of human presence makes communication a fake interaction. Feelings and emotions are what essentially make us human. In the book, Wade knows his best friend Aech through OASIS, and only interacts with him in the virtual world. How real is this friendship? Who lies behind Aech's game controller? Wade has befriended Aech's avatar, but in the end he is just a character created and controlled by a person whose personality might go beyond what his character is actually portraying. A world consisting of fake relationships does not sound like a very happy one, and I think human's need for real interaction will prevent the world from reaching a time like the one in the book, where humans escape into the virtual and avoid reality.

Living Another LIfe

The world Wade lives in is a mess. You could say it reminds me of the real world in the matrix. The difference is that while most people in the Matrix don't know the truth Wade and others like him log onto the Oasis just escape reality. The world is a disaster with people struggling to survive. In the Oasis you can be whoever you want to be. Everybody know the truth but prefer to hide in a virtual world. They have no other way of making their lives bearable. 

The whole quest for the Easter egg is collective attempt by those who participate in it to escape their real lives. The older generations lives in the 'Good old days' when everything was plentiful and life wasn't a struggle for survival. Maybe some people just wanted to live in the world that had been. Wade like the gamer Adam from Alone Together, does not want to face the reality of his situation. the Oasis then becomes a means of escape for all those who do not want to face the problems of everyday life. You could say that they are collectively taking the 'blue pill' on a daily basis. They know the truth but do not ant to deal with it.

\

There have always been ways to escape reality for those who looked for it. Books, movies and video games are all media through which people try to forget about their troubles and live in another world. The Oasis offers users a chance to be whatever want. How may people in today's world would opt to spend all their time logged on? How many already do? When does a game go from entertainment to addiction or need? One thing I believe that the book made clear was the worsening energy problems and social conditions added to the allure of the artificial world. How can we avoid this? Do we have to?

What is Really Real

Living in a computer simulation is not as unlikely as one might think. If we consider the amazing speed at which technology is advancing today, it becomes extremely likely that we will soon have the ability to create our own simulated Universe, perhaps able to create simulated life. If we reach this point it is almost ridiculous to believe that we are not someone else’s computer simulation. When thinking about life itself we are constrained to the physical laws of this Universe and the physical constraints of time. In my opinion there are multiple layers of the Universe that humanity will never be able to comprehend. Thus it seriously interests me to picture a Universe outside of ours that is the basis of creation for our possibly “simulated” Universe.

            Working outside of our physical laws in the medium of another Universe we can do literally anything. The laws of conservation of matter and energy could be inexistent allowing things to just pop out of nowhere. In this manner we have an explanation for the Big Bang. Outside of these physical constraints it could make sense for a species to formulate our Universe in a simulation with physical laws of their own choosing. My idea of course expands on the general idea of The Matrix. If our 21^st century life is nothing more than a simulation, who’s to say that our entire Universe, everything that we hold to be true and real, is nothing more than a simulation?

            Thinking too hard on this topic causes reality to cease to hold any meaning. Our precious awareness, already constrained by our animalistic senses, is now constrained by the idea of reality itself. 

Decisions Decisions....

I am would not considered myself as a "hardcore" gamer. I play once in a while Fifa and that's about it, but I can say that it get me out of my nerves when I do not win a game, am I the only one? Also I cannot avoid always blaming the computer, "I said to pass it that way" "I was pressing the A button not X""Run faster" "Oh i hate this controller", and the list is endless. But what is my point with this? Over the past few weeks we have always talked about cons and pros of technology; and I have always emphasize on one point "IT IS NOT TECHNOLOGIES FAULT, IS HOW WE USE IT".

I cannot stress enough, how much it bothers me when we blame a bad thing or bad action on technology, like Turkle does for example. This course has been sort of a "red pill" to me, it has opened my eyes and made realize until what extent we humans are able to take blame or responsibility for our actions. I realized that whenever we can take the blame from ourselves we do, like Huesca and Carr mentioned on their articles, but when it comes to success it is always thanks to us, it seems as technology only plays a  negative role in our life.

That's why I titled this post "Decisions Decisions", once again, it is our decisions of how we use technology how affects our daily life, it is our choice to use these technologies, it is our decision how we develop these innovations, because at the end everything comes down to our decisions.

Now the ball is on your court, what do you choose to open your eyes or to  keep pretending nothing is wrong, now is your turn to choose...

Ahh the Brick

-->

In my paper, I stated a Claim, and did not support it, so I was awarded with the brick. I would like to restate my claim here and support it if possible, or at least explain how I would support it. I claimed that: "Sometimes parents, whom have experienced disconnect, can teach their children the value of disconnect by taking them somewhere like camping, and taking away electronics, but that generation is dying out, and parents are taking their children camping less and less." In my first attempt to support this claim, per usual I started with Google, and typed the claim into the search bar. There were really no sources with data supporting my claim. The only websites that popped up were about how to take children camping, or tips and benefits written by bloggers, or magazine articles. This could mean that parents these days do have a general interest in taking their children camping, but once again, I cannot support this claim, because I have very little evidence, so I continued to look for more information. I then turned to more academic sources to find information like JSTOR, and Google scholar. I found several articles that talked about how parents spend time with their children and how to plan a camping trip at first. After adjusting my search terms, I found articles about organized camping that actually refuted my claim. One stated in the abstract that camping has actually increased in the twentieth century. It talked about how camping is used to sort of re-establish familiarity with one another and the outdoors and there has been an increase in camping activities for youth groups and for educational purposes, which makes sense, but when I was writing my paper I didn't consider this option. I now see the opposite of my claim is plausible, and supportable. I assumed my claim was true, but now I see it is in fact not, and I support the claim proposing the opposite. Below, I have attached some of the sources I found that support my new claim, and I understand now how important it is to support a claim, or at least to not assume it is true without first checking the facts.

Sources I found on google:
http://www.michianafamilymagazine.com/The-Family-Magazine-of-Michiana/February-2013/Camping-Tips-for-Parents/ 

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/09/08/camping-with-kids/

Sources I found on JSTOR

Organized Camping

Reynold E. Carlson

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Vol. 313, Recreation in the Age of Automation (Sep., 1957), pp. 83-86

How American Children Spend Their Time

Sandra L. Hofferth and John F. Sandberg

Journal of Marriage and Family , Vol. 63, No. 2 (May, 2001), pp. 295-308 my 

The Next Deke?

Deke was fascinated with a video game called “Fokkers&Spads,” where players
engaged in dogfights as war fighter pilots. To beat the top fighter, Deke betrayed
Nance. Unscrupulously stealing the hype from Nance, Deke won the game. Deke
imagined that all gamblers would come to celebrate, to drink, and to speak with
him after his victory. To his surprise, nobody there wanted to meet with him?
. The authors depicted the bitterly received victory of Deke, “[the audience]
radiated contempt, even hatred. For an interminably drawn-out moment, the air
trembled with potential violence… and then someone turned to the side, hawked
up phlegm, and spat on the floor. The crowd broke up, muttering, one by one
drifting into the darkness.” The powerful ending challenged me to look deeper
into the character of Deke, who made himself so ambitious that he was unable to
keep friends.

A shot of liquid in a blue plastic vial, the enhancement hype that Deke used
in Dogfight, escalated his level of concentration as well as accelerated neuron
interface. According to the utilitarian principle, no matter which methods
that Deke used to win the game, the outcome was set: Deke would win the
game. On moral grounds, the process of success is much more valuable than
the consequence of success itself. That was why, I think, the audience radiated
contempt, even hatred. As for Deke, he was left with nothing but pain from the
hype crash.

What if the only way to survive was to eat hype? Should human enhancement
drugs such as hype apply to future warfare? The onboard computers monitored
human mind and decided when to active the sluice gates and command soldiers.
Is this story a metaphor for the application of human enhancements in warfare?
Although drugs can help people win a contest or even a war, one should be
aware of the consequences. realize pathetically that nobody will be left to
accompany, to listen to his or her story.

In relation to Jamais Cascio’s Get Smarter, we had already embraced an era of
cognitive enhancement. The imagined drug, Hype might be invented given the
moving pharmacological arm races. Can real human capacity win the hype at the
end? Does Cascio's idea still hold true? This is a story that questions the morality
of future human enhancement. Will we suffer the same consequences that Deke
did？

When enough is enough

             

               

To me Dogfight is not only a foreboding of the not-so-distant future, but a reflection of today’s heavy gamers. There may be many Dekes out there today whose sole purposes in life are games. They find peace nowhere except in the virtual world. One Deke which we find in Alone Together is Adam. While reading the story, I increasingly came to associate Deke with Adam and other addicted gamers. It is addiction that reduces Deke to lonely sadist. Similarly, it is the addiction to games that forces people like Adam to lock themselves in a cocoon and isolate themselves from the world.  Nance, to me, is an embodiment of real-world social interactions. Deke’s murder of Nance for a small dosage of “hype” can be compared with heavy gamers’ slaughter of their real world social connections for a few more hours of online gaming.

Although heavy gamers might constitute only a small fraction of the overall gaming community, the tides are turning. If Singer’s exponential growth theory is correct, we can anticipate the arrival revolutionary gaming consoles. This, coupled with an increased variety of games, will induce a rise in gamer population. Therefore, number of heavy gamers is expected to increase exponentially as well. This puts us in a precarious situation. We face the same problem that Singer predicted in the book. As sophistication of weapons increases at an alarming rate, we continue to fall behind in the race to introduce rules that govern their use. Similarly, due to the augmentation of the gaming experience with every new console and game, we are lagging in our attempts to put into effect gaming laws or ethics (Although considerable efforts have been made to introduce laws for the gaming world, they have been limited to the prevention piracy). Deke, Adam or other heavy gamers did not emerge due to some genetic mutation but due to their failure to realize when enough is enough. They live in a world which does not have any norms to govern online gaming. We must questions the gaming ethics of today and develop them for tomorrow. We must know when to pull the plug!

Humans before Robots

Change is inevitable and there’s nothing we can do about it, but the “pace of all this change” should receive our full attention.  Before we even introduce more advanced robots to war we have to figure out how to use them properly and effectively because “anything that can go wrong will go wrong,” especially if we are unprepared. “We have to get it right the first time” (434). There’s very little room for human error. Essentially, in order for nothing to go wrong, we’re going to have to be perfect. However, perfection is unattainable, especially among humans.  And what if it’s not possible to get it right the first time? Will we be doomed? What happens now is what determines the future and if we screw up now, the results could be detrimental.

“Mistakes are not just in robot nature, but also in human nature” (434). We put so much trust into technology, but we forget that we are the ones who create it. If humans are prone to making errors, our robots in turn will as well. That’s why we keep fixing them, because they’re not doing what we want them to do. This then contributes to the swift change in technology.

Additionally, if people decide to remain ignorant and “fear what they don’t know,” how will they be able to adjust to this rapid change in technology? They are avoiding the challenges that they must face.

Ignorance, lack of preparation, and fast paced change don’t create a pleasant mix when going into war, but unfortunately these three components are what war has been comprised of for a long time. We need to work on improving ourselves before we begin to improve technology. We’re not doing ourselves a favor by not learning from our mistakes and could possibly be left behind if we don’t address the problems that human nature burdens us with.

Yes, we have had these same conflicts in the past and still succeeded, but as science fiction is becoming more realistic than ever we need to consider how our flaws and innate desire to acquire more than what we already have will hurt us even more in the future. Will we be able to handle these mutating conflicts like we did in the past?

There’s also the issue of whether we should focus more on creating better technology for war or maintaining “society’s collective intellect, energy, drive, and resources” (436). Robots aren’t inexpensive and require an abundance of input from the people in this country. If technology continues to move this quickly, we will eventually be drained and stripped of our freedom because humans are wired for war.                                                        

Is War That Good?

In chapter 16, Singer talks about the importance of public opinion when dealing with war. Singer mentions his discussion with Josiah Bunting on how Americans have lost interest in wars. The side effects of this loss is that Americans also lose "any sense of unity for a nation" and "the likelihood of bad policy, and more lost wars" increases (319). Singer and Bunting are portraying war as a positive aspect of American society and I cannot bring myself to agree. Yes, the country did unite during WW1 and WW2.  Yes, they did care what happened overseas. Unity and participation are both good aspects of the American public but is war really the only way we can attain these two qualities? Do we really want to go back to the days of WW1 where we had to ration our goods necessary for survival? Do we really want to connect to one another over the fears of a foreign attack? Whether we're focusing on killing others or the men dying for our country, do we really want death to be one of the most important parts of American culture? 

I can understand where Bunting is coming from. Americans aren't exactly unified at the moment and it must be frustrating for an army general to know that the war is losing attention. Robotics would take away everything Bunting knows about war and aggravate the divide between the public and war, but is this a bad thing? After a century full of war, Americans are tired. Americans are tired of fighting, they're tired of fearing, and they're tired of losing men they cherish. Robotics is the easy answer to this. Of course, with robotic weapons comes it's  own list of problems but those are new problems, not the ones we've been consistently beaten down with over the past few decades. And who knows, robotics might bring new life to American interest. It might fascinate people to the point where Americans begin to rally around robotic weapons, effectively unifying the country around war once again. The thing with robotics is that we don't know. The future is uncertain and it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

The Power of the Human Mind

Robots can do a lot of things that humans can do. Oftentimes, robots can do things that far surpass human abilities. While the power of robots may be immense, though, no amount of machinery can replace the human mind.

In a previous post, we discussed the idea that robots are more well-equipped for warfare than humans. Perhaps this is true. Singer calls humans the "weakest link" in military combat, discussing the ways in which humans are inferior to robots on the battlefield (62). Humans get hungry, thirsty, tired, dirty, fearful, etc., "problems" that can all be solved by replacing them with robots. Robots can just fight without rest, for they do not possess any of these biological needs or inhibitions. But what is being missed here in the significance, and maybe even the--is it possible?--advantage of actually having a brain. No amount of wiring can stand in for human emotion.

Later on in Wired for War, Singer brings up Cohen's discussion of the psychology of the human versus robot dilemma in a light that makes readers reconsider the importance of having real, live people on the battlefield. As Cohen believes, "human motivation has usually been the key to victory or defeat" (297-298). Defeat? Not so great. But if human motivation is a key to victory, maybe a brain isn't such a bad thing to have around. From Cohen's argument, I take the idea that human motivation is an essential driving force behind battle and behind success. Without motivation, what are we fighting for? What is the point of war? (Not as if there is usually, in my opinion, a whole lot of point to begin with). War is already an empty shell of an activity, but it becomes so much more so without a living, caring will to carry it forward.

Then again, in a counterargument also brought to light by Cohen, robots can play an essential role for the winning side for just the same reason. Though motivation can push an army to victory, lack of motivation can ensure its defeat. Psychologically speaking, going up against a robot in war, a creation with none of the human flaws mentioned below, renders fighters "dispirit[ed]" and "helpless" (298). Opposing a robot kills motivation because they are not human, and therefore they are much less of an equal match. In this case, the human mind is a weakness. Robots do not perceive humans as terrifying because they do not have emotions, but humans may fear robots and allow their morale to weaken through this fear.

So, is human determination a benefit? Is human emotion a weakness? And, more importantly, what does war become if it loses the one element that makes it human? Us.

Can Robots Die?

“When a robot dies, you don’t have to write a letter to its mother” – this is the silver lining of losing a robot soldier according to a military chief. I think many would agree with this sentiment. One of the biggest upsides of war robots is that they aren’t human. This means that when they “die”, nobody grieves. But it also means a lot more than that. These robotic fighters also lack many of the limitations human soldiers contend with. As outlined in Singer’s book, some land robots can maintain a 4-minute mile pace for hours, they can travel underwater, “see” through smog and take several rounds un-phased. They also have perfect accuracy; SWORDS do not miss its target. Additionally, drones can fly for 24-hour stints and collect an incredible amount of data all without risking human life. These machines also lack human emotion. They act as “rescuers that are unaffected by the carnage, dust and smoke that envelop the remains…they are immune to the fatigue and heartbreak that hangs in the air”. Immune to pain, fatigue and emotion with incredible speed and strength, robots seem to be the logical if not inevitable next step in warfare. However, all of the previously described attributes, while exciting on the one hand, are equally terrifying. Consider I, Robot, the book from which the robotics company took its name. It is a cautionary tale of what can go wrong if and when robots begin to act of their own accord and violate the 3 laws, the primary law being that robots cannot harm a human. No such laws exist in our world and yet we are hurtling toward a future filled with robotics. I’m not suggesting that your Roomba is about to turn on you, but to say that robots which are ‘wired for war’ might harm humans is not a prediction but a fact. In addition to killing enemy soldiers, robots such as the CRAM have accidentally fired on U.S. troops. Of course, it could be argued that friendly fire is less likely with robots than with humans. Nonetheless, we are heading down a slippery slope. As Singer argues in the author’s note, war is inherently emotional. It is a major component of the human experience and the inspiration for masterful works of art and literature. So what happens when we remove the human element from a historically human experience? As Singer explains, the rate at which robots are entering the battlefield is increasing rapidly. From having zero robots/drones at the beginning of the Iraq war we have gone to thousands. How many is too many and what ramifications will this gigantic shift in the way we do war have on the world?