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.
The idea of robots fighting wars for us scares me. As you mention, robots do not have the emotions humans have during the battles; for them, war is simply a matter of aim and shoot. The psychological effects of war are many a time the ones that keep war from getting too out of control. A war fought without the guidance and intervention of human feelings is one that has no reason to stop, no life sparing decisions to make, no pity.
ReplyDeleteYes, human emotion is a weakness in battle; it is an obstacle for victory. However, the emotions faced during battle are essential for understanding the very real consequences of war. If we let war be fought by emotionless robots, humans will no longer feel the pain that comes from taking a life. If wars do not come with the consequences of human fear, sympathy, sadness and other emotions, then we have no reason to not fight them. Do we really want more war in the future? Do we not want to achieve peace?
I think you missed the point in Cohen’s argument. Determination and motivation is a key ingredient in a war of humans. These factors provide the necessary push to a demoralized army, which is at its breaking point, to charge against an overwhelming opponent. With the humans out of the picture, there will be no need for determination or motivation because a robot has no feelings. Therefore, the emotions fear and disheartenment, which kick in when victory is not in sight, are a human weakness.
ReplyDeleteThis does bring up another question. In the world of the silicon warrior which is operated remotely by humans, will war or soldier, be downgraded to an 8 hour minimum wage job?
I understand the frustration. Having robots fight our battles may take the human emotion associated with war out of the picture and the lack of emotion may in turn lead to an endless war. But, it is my fear that we are already consumed with never ending war. take a look at what is happening in the middle east, some parts of Africa and south America. These battles are claiming a lot of lives and introducing robots to the battlefield might just be the solution.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that robots solve the problem of war. Like Singer says, very often the use of robots does not frighten an enemy but makes them think that only cowards would use robots. This leads to the prolongement of conflict.Sometimes the psychological effect of fighting a determined force of humans is far greater than a force of robots controlled by a bunch of cubicle warriors. What will happen when terrorists get access to the same technology being used by the US military?
ReplyDeleteHadi predicts what William Gibson does in the short story "Dogfight" we will read after the break. "Tiny," the veteran character in the tale, has been discarded like a low-wage worker whose services are no longer needed.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of Gibson's finest stories. I'll get everyone a copy before break.
I agree with Elana stating that human motivation is the key to a victory. I believe that if one man saw another solider fighting for his country it would make the man want to fight even harder as well. However I aslo agree with Divij stating that robots do not solve the issues of war. In a previous discussion in class we talked of how robots oftenhave a deeper meaning involving money and how much either side has to produce more robots than actually using the robots to solve a conflict or even come to a truce. But I think that the nation would be more inclined to introduce robots fighting our battles for us than human beings. Having robots pick up the slack for us humans would reduce the casualties in war.
ReplyDelete