In an interesting brief survey of the state of the robotic art, Alan Boyle asks if there are robosexuals in our future.
Michael Jennings has a nice photo essay about the new viaduct in France:
The materials from which this bridge has been built are vastly stronger than anything that existed even 20 years ago. I have said this before, but this is in my mind the defining characteristic of modern post materials revolution structural engineering. Structures are then, flimsy. They almost look like spider webs. The defining characteristic of industrial age engineering was bulk. But now we are in this virtuous circle of stronger and lighter materials allowing a much thinner deck, allowing the other parts of the bridge to be lighter and less substantial too, allowing still more economies elsewhere, and a rapidly dropping cost of projects like this.
That will be a characteristic of a space elevator as well, if it’s built.
Virginia Postrel usefully points out (once again) the bifurcation of the anti-cloning activists’ agenda.
Phil Bowermaster has some interesting thoughts about making mice smart.
A first book by Ramez Naam (a software developer who claims to be one of those responsible for Internet Explorer, though I won’t hold that against him), it’s a highly readable survey of the current and projected state of the art in various life-extending and life-enhancing technologies, including life extension, cloning, prosthetics and neural implants, most of which are already here, but in their infancy. These are subjects about which he’s both enthusiastic and optimistic.
Many critics of these technologies, particularly Kassians and other worshipers of ultimate death, will find them quite disquieting. Regardless, whichever camp one is in, as Naam points out (and as I pointed out last week), these technologies are going to happen, because that’s the history of such technologies. They are being developed to solve real human problems that are causing real human suffering, and once they become available, there’s no sufficiently bright, unambiguous line between their uses for therapy and their uses for what some, like Dr. Kass or Frank Fukuyama, will consider unnecessary enhancement, to a state beyond that which they currently (and subjectively, and arbitrarily) define as human.
It’s not a new problem. To take a mundane example, a plastic surgeon can do reconstructive surgery on a mastectomy patient, to restore her shattered sense of womanhood at the loss of one of the features that biology and society have defined as a key component of that state. Few argue that there is anything wrong with this. But the same surgery can also change a 32B to a 36D. And some women are naturally unendowed, and would like an artificial solution to what they view as nature’s mistake. Who is going to be the arbiter of which are allowed such surgeries?
Naam leads off each chapter with similar examples, of radical new therapies currently in work, that have natural potential for non-therapeutic use. Beyond that, the military is developing some of these deliberately for the purpose of enhancing troop performance. Imagine the possibilities of a pilot able to fly an aircraft, and sense hostile activity, directly with her mind, with no need for intermediary appendages. Imagine in particular the utility of such a system in which this can be done remotely.
One particular insight from the book that hadn’t struck me before is the disingenuousness of the Godwinized argument that many use against proponents of cloning, or life extension, or body enhancement, by accusing them of attempting to revive the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century, offshoots of which were indeed adopted by the Nazis.
But such comparisons are ludicrous. It wasn’t the goal of the eugenics movement that was necessarily odious (they were, after all, only seeking an improvement of humanity)–it was the means by which they wanted (indeed would have had to employ and, in Germany, in fact did) to achieve it. They could only achieve their goals through government coercion and ultimately totalitarianism. The irony is that proponents of these technologies are seeking them for use by the free choice of individuals, while this time it’s the opponents, those who (by their spurious association of them with the eugenicists) wish to implement government policies to prevent the use of such technologies. In Virginia Postrel’s formulation, the dynamists are those who want to allow individuals to decide, and the stasists are the King Canutes who want to hold back the tide through the force of government (though, unlike Canute, they don’t seem to recognize that the tide won’t be held back).
Naam’s ultimate message is that these technologies are coming, ready or not. If we can’t accommodate our definition of humanity to them, then the future will indeed be post human, but I suspect that it will be a future much more free of suffering and pain than the present, with much more opportunity for growth of those things–art, science, love and laughter–that make being human so precious.
A four-year-old Michigan boy drove his mother’s car to the video store and back. It was closed, unfortunately:
Osga then discovered the boy, whose mother told police her son tried to drive the car earlier after she let him steer the vehicle from her lap.
“He’s 4 years old, his mom didn’t even know he was up,” Heugel told The Grand Rapids Press for a Sunday story. “I don’t think he even realizes what he did.”
No charges will be filed against the boy or his mother, Heugel said.
It was the third time in six weeks that a west Michigan child was caught driving a vehicle.
Hey, when you’re one of the leading producers of the product, you want to get them started early.
Seriously, growing up in Michigan, and particularly in Flint, Michigan, which was then (and still remains largely today) a one-industry town, there was a lot of emphasis on driver’s ed. There used to be a miniature town in Kearsley Park, with little blacktop roads, stop and yield signs, one-way streets and traffic signals. It was called Safetyville, USA, sponsored by the Industrial Mutual Association (IMA) of Flint. There were small electric cars that children could drive around on the streets, but before you could get a “license” to do so, you had to go through driver’s training, and learn the road rules.
Apparently, it’s still there, but without the cars. It was a great idea, and I’m a little surprised that it didn’t survive, or spread to other communities.
Just a little rant.
I guess it’s some kind of technological advance when we can talk to robots on the telephone, but I don’t want to do it. It’s not just that the technology isn’t perfect, and you have to enunciate clearly and loudly. Did it ever occur to these morons that if I’m in the middle of a cube farm, I just may not want to speak my credit card number, or social security number, or zip code, or mother’s maiden name aloud? Or even speaking precise monosyllables, and sounding like an idiot to your cubemates?
I thought that the concept of using the digital keypad for sending commands to a remote system was great. Going to voice is, for me, a step backwards. There’s no reason that they can’t give a keypad option for each verbal one, yet many of them, once they transition to the new voice recognition systems, don’t. I prefer to pay my bills in silence, and I’ll prefer service providers that recognize that.