2. In the last part of this chapter, the author discusses on the robots and Rodney Allen Brooks's views of the issue. Brooks says "We will become a merger between flesh and machines. ......We won't have to worry about them taking over"(p126,127). On the basis of his expectations mentioned in the text, do you think that it is possible for us to have complete control over both the pure robots and the robot-people ourselves to make full use of the technologies, if they were to come true?
3. Kurzweil predicts the future of 2009 (plentiful of his predictions in the middle of page 98), 2019("...Computers are largely invisible. They are embedded everywhere - in your walls, tables desks, clothing, and body"(99).), 2029(A $1,000 computer has the ability of 1,000 human brains (101).), and 2099("software-based humans"(104). Despite the fact that it is slightly off already, do you think it is accurate to imagine the future based on his predictions? State your opinion with concrete examples.
Group Leaders
Ayaka Tanaka
Yuga Yamaguchi
Yuji Terada
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete3. It seems pretty logical to imagine what will happen in the future based on Kurzweil's predictions, but about when it's not accurate, I guess. That is because what technologies create is largely influenced by people's desires and technologies usually develops step-by-step.
ReplyDeleteAs for the first reason, SF is a good example. SF always introduces a lot of things which we will probably see in the future. Most of the technologies we use today have been described in SF works.
I'm not sure whether SF has an influence over the technological creation or SF just illustrates what will probably be created by technologies or both is true.
But I know for sure that lots of what SF predicted are actually out there today.
For example, cell phones and robots are common things described in SF and you can see them today. Even memory transportation is considered possible these days.
So it's not so difficult to predict what will happen.
About the second reason, the developments of technologies do not happen aots.
I think most of them can be divided into following three types: just improving performance, putting together different things and creating totally new things. And the first two occupy almost all. So it's not so difficult to predict what will appear in the near future because they are not really new. Some developments even occur according to a certain law.
For instance, look at Moore's Law. The law is described in RE, but as a reminder I'll present you its detail.
(Shantonu let me know the law is on the book...OK, I haven't read the assignment yet, but I will! So PLEASE FORGIVE ME! )
“Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on anintegrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.[1] The trend has continued for more than half a century and is not expected to stop until 2015 or later.[2] “(Wikipedia)
The number of transistors has increased according to Moore's Law for more than half a century. That shows some developments happen in the way a law predicts.(Perhaps Moore's Law is actually a prediction after all. If so, maybe this example is not appropriate, but I hope you got what I wanted to say.)
So considering the above argument, you can see Kurzweil's predictions are none like mythical fortune-telling and thereby based on logical reasoning. Therefore, it is not surprising to think his predictions have a certain level of reality. Yet the second reason also implies that when predictions will come true is not easy to predict because prediction methods does not apply universally as the trend based on Moore's Law is generally expected to finish in the near future.
However, please note that what he predicts does not represent all that is going to happen in the future. His predictions are just part of them. Probably truly significant futures are impossible to predict.
2. i think that human nature forces us to keep control, because that seems to be what we crave.
ReplyDeletethe GRIN technologies promise world peace, universal prosperity, evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment. Good luck dealing with the invincible human ego created by the society in which we live!
Maybe the robots will tire of us and create a society of their own, but ultimately disappear because... theyre perfect!
why would a perfect being want to exist?!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I would not want to apply this technology to my child for two reasons. First of all, there's no way of knowing if the child really wants to have that inplanted in their bodies. Even if it allows the option of switching it off or on, the fact that there would be something unnatural and manmande in one's body sounds ethically wrong. I guess I'm following a deontological view here that people shouldn't fiddle around with Mother Nature. My second reason is that our family ties will loosen with the progression of each generation if, as mentioned on p.117, parents discard their old chromosomes and input totally different chromosomes every time. It will make each generation more distinctive than the one before, making it seem like we're not that close to each other even if we're a part of one family. Updating something for the better makes sense when it is computer software or something like that, but Evolution shouldn't be fast-forwarded by human hands. Could it be possible that the other 46 chromosomes will not be able to "catch up" with the new and improved chromosomes? This might cause some inbalance in the body.... for example, a child might have superman-like sports ability but everything else may be normal and therefore, this supernatural skill would cast a shadow on everything else. He or she would struggle trying to adjust this super ability, internalize it, and accept it as one's identity.
ReplyDelete1. I would not apply this technology to my child because even if it is considered as the safest way to modify humans, I cannot agree with it. As Kaya said, to insert something artificial inside humans is ethically wrong action and I just do not like the idea of having something artificial inside the body. Even if it is said that it is safe, we never know what might happen in the future. Maybe there would be some side effects after a looong period of time. That is why I say that humans must keep human nature. If I apply this technology to my child and if there were some side effects, the one that suffers because of what I have done will be my child. The safest way is not to modify humans and stay as how we are.
ReplyDeleteBut what if the technology is proven safe and it would be actually useful. I still do not want to apply the technology into my child because I think humans would loose control of using technology someday as a consequence. It says that we can have an off switch that we can use if we wanted to stop whatever we'd started, however, do you think it is possible for you to stop the special characteristics that you once already had? For example, the new technology is applied to the TV and the image quality is becoming clearer and nicer. Would you want to give it up and use the older version which do not have as nicer image quality as the new one? Humans get used to what is accepted once, so I think humans would not give up the improvement in our characteristics even if we had the off switch. Off switch would be just useless. Instead, humans would then be seeking newer technology to apply on them. Children who have received auxiliary chromosomes may not only want to give their own child the same advantage, but also want to give them newer and better advantages. Then that would continue until we cannot control ourselves. We might be just the same as robots.
So, as these consequences might follow, I would not want to support the idea of applying technology into humans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I would never apply such technology to my child.
ReplyDeleteFirst, there is a danger that parents start to take control over all about their child when they apply the technology. Children will become kind of "Barbie doll"(easily custermoized) without rights to make their own decision. This is because when the technology becomes available, people might be happy to use it and expect their child to grow up into exactly the "ideal form" of a child. However, all about the child will be built up by not only genes but also by the environment or education. We cannot know how they will grow up even if we did something to their genes. If children cannot live up to the expectation of parents inspite of gene control, parents might feel disappointed very much. To make matters worse, they might think they don't need or love such a child. Here is a good exmple. An american women who was extremely rich and intelligent, did not want to get married. However, she wanted to produce her own intellifent offspring, and used a cryobank(seishi-bank), took what they call decent sperm and gave birth. Despite her expectation, however, the child could not do well in school. His mother got really disappointed and started to blame him. Finally he was crushed by expectation and got ill. The gene-control technology problem reminded me of the boy's disaster. Again, we cannot get perfect result however the technology is great because it is about human beings. Growth of children is full of mystery and beyond expectation. We should not try to mess up the growth with uncertain way of technology.
Secondly, as Kaya and Yumi said, to embed some artificial things into the body sounds insecure. I wonder whether it is the safest way. Especially, there must be confusion and problems in the process of reproduction when the children(super) give birth to the next generation. The number of chromosome is the most important in the process. If the child got additional one of miss one, they will be partly handicapped;it is the conventional fact. Reduction division is especially likely to have chromosome troubles. The gene control technology might produce some unknown problems.
For these reasons, I disagree with Stock's idea.
1. I disagree on any use of genetic modification which aims at enhancing human capability. I definitely do not want to apply the technology to my child. In my opinion, there is no value to something one has achieved if that is the outcome of genetic engineering. Like the book says on page 116, the possibilities for human beings can be endless if a new chromosome pair was injected to the embryo. Maybe a “ perfect mankind” can be produced. But what’s so special for the perfect man to do everything perfect, if that is the ways he/she was manipulated? We respect others because they are capable of something original people cannot do, for example, Ichiro for his great play in baseball and Mao Asada for her elegant skate performances. People respect those big names because they are making enormous . effort to pursue their dreams and to challenge their possibilities. However, once the artificial chromosomes are applied to human, one needs not to try hard because a success is insured, which I think will cause some sort of corruption of mankind. I guess superhumans will lead boring lives without any respects from others, if those future technologies mentioned in the book become common in the society.
ReplyDeleteHi Tomoaki,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply! Yes, as you said I agree that technology will keep on developing. From the statements you have made in your comment, I assume that you agree to the predictions Kurzweil has made. If not, where do you think it will trail off. Please notify me if I am wrong. The statement about developing new features was really interesting. Yes, I do agree that most of the technology is an add-on or a mix to what is already made. The predictions are all a mix of a human being and a computer. For example, embedding chips/computers in the human body. Hence, I agree to your statement, and Kurweil's predictions are pretty logical. Another reason I believe in his predictions is because of the accelerated development in computers. Intel released it's 32nanometer CPU, Nehalem Mircroarchitecture, in 2008. Now, they are about to launch the same level CPU, Sandy Bridge Microachitecture, next year, but with a much more faster calculation ability. Sandy Bridge was able to finish an encoding task in 2 seconds which it took Nehalem 4 minutes. Wow! Moreover, Intel states that it is going to release a same power CPU as Sandy Bridge, but built on a 22nm base called Ivy Bridge by 2013. 4 minutes to 2 seconds. 32nm to 22nm. Today it doesn't mean that the smaller the number of nanometer equals to a smaller CPU, but it will in the future. Here is a source that shows the development of CPUs in a time line.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/360/173/html/01.jpg.html
1. this question is quite similar to the survey i took last term as all of you know.
ReplyDeletei asked if you would like to know what your good/bad at by checking the genes. and would you do it on your child when they are born.
out of 20, 18 said "NO". many said it is UNNATURAL and it prohibits children from doing what they REALLY want
to say the truth i dont know if i would apply it on my child
if this technology is already spread and so common that most people do it then it would become natural wouldnt it?
mans curiosity is unstoppable
therefore "adding new chromosome pari (numbers 47 and 48) to the embryo, the posibilities are endless" and what humans dreams will eventually become real no longer being a dream.
And one thing i thought when reading peoples comment on #1, they said that it is ethically wrong to put things unnatural and artificial, but think about things that people put inside them today, like the band to shrink their stomach in order for them to go on a diet aritificially
is this off track? lol
well i thought its same putting something unnatural in ones body. this putting unnatural things in is same, said by doctors, and i think it will be the same with this embryo engineering
it may be opposed by saying its medical and those are needed but still the result is same
well the consequence that follows is that there will be many people with enhanced abilities
and eventually they will be larger than those without enhanced powers
i think most people say NO because there arent any enhanced in the society yet
if im wrong im sorry!
and again im sorry for the last post
1. I think that i would want to apply the technology to my child. I think that in generations to come, the focus will be more on future-proofing than on retention of human characteristics, and therefore i think that it would be a good gift for the child to have the ability to make use of advances in human tech.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it sounds too simplistic to say that a part of a living body( genes) can be turned of at will... what about cancers?
So, though i don't find any problems with adopting the new technology, i doubt that it will go as well as Gregory Stock claims.
1.Like Kaya and Yumi are saying, I would not use this technology to my children neither because I think enhancing human ability fixing and changing some parts of our body using technology is wrong no matter what.I'm totally against with the idea of doing this because it is ethically wrong and humans should acquire their mental and physical skill only by growing up and from genetic inheritance. It is also often argued whether nature or nurture is important.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is that nature and nurture are both important. Here, I assume that nature is what you get from the very start, when you were born, from your parents. Nurture means that you receive them after you were born. Using the technology and fixing the chromosome would negatively affect both the nature and the nurture. How would you feel when you thought that you were talented at math because of your father's blood that's in your body, but afterward some one tells you that the reason why you are good at calculating and thinking logically is because a doctor fixed your chromosomes when you weren't even born yet? I definitely think that many people would doubt their relationship between their parents. As a consequence, that person would be skeptical to his/her ability that perhaps all of their skills are deliberately created and not spontaneous. This would be the negative effects on nurture.
Therefore, I totally disagree with the idea of using this technology to enhance the human before they're born.
1)Like Yusuke and Shantonu, I also feel positive about applying the technology to my child.
ReplyDeleteWhen I imagine myself being a parent, I am sure that I would not want my child to feel inferior to others. I would not want them to be bullied. I want them to be confident in themselves. If that meant being a Natural was to be inferior, and to have the technology applied was necessary, I would probably take that option. I would probably work hard to be able afford it.
Some of the people are saying that applying this technology to children is in a way, forcing the parents' ideals to them. I partly agree with this but I think that not applying it would also mean the same thing; forcing the parents' values, which could be old-fashion by then, to the children.
The important thing for me is that I want my children to be confident in themselves and have the ability to achieve their goals. If the procedures were necessary, I would do it.
Sorry again for the late post.
ReplyDelete2.I have been trying to find out an answer for this question, but actually I do not have any strong claims about whether or not we would be able to have complete control over the pure robots.
However, there must be ethical issues of creating robots which have compatible abiltity with "human goals, awareness, and personality."
As mentioned in this chapter, it would help us a lot to use robots which "do search and rescue, disarm bombs" and these kind of things people do not want to. Besides this example, we have benefitted much from robots; such as artificial legs and wheel chairs. However, while we are now investing robots for the purpose of wars and stuff, we cannot be too optimistic about making robots. Moreover, in the first place, Brooks's idea of taking advantages on robots is ethically wrong.
And lastly, there is a possibility to depend on robots in order to work out the issues we have caused so far. In the book, Moravec says that robots "will vanquish the losers and winners" but what we should do is not expecting robots to solve OUR problems; this idea seems like escaping from facing current issues. We have to improve our attitudes so that we can resolve problems with our own hands.
2.I do not think that it is possible for us to take control over both pure robots and robot-people. I am going to use my own image of future to answer this question. Well, it is obvious that the pure robots in the future would be superior to human beings. Take the new computer program of Japanese chess for example. It was on news that the computer had won and the top player, a human being, had lost. People are all proud of its success and cheered for the new progress in technology. However, this actually proves that computers are getting smarter and stronger than us human. When it comes to robot-human, I think the problems get more complex. Although robots may have greater power than humans, we still have a hope that they might have pure hearts (or machines). On the other hand, robot-human will most likely be the people who had reasons on become stronger. One could plan to abuse the newly gained power and could even try to take over the world. Ha what I want to say is that, powerful robots are real headache but what trouble us is those people with evil mind gaining power. What a chaos. In such a world no one will be taking control (unless robots take over control of both robot-people and human, maybe) .
ReplyDelete1. If it really is the case that this kind of technology is proven safe, totally, I would like to have my child free from whatever the problem he/she will otherwise encounter. When we talked about the issue on abortion the question was whether we want a child with down syndrome. This question seems similar to that question. One of the oppositions mentioned included an idea that children with the down syndrome themselves will reasonably happy life even though people in general might pity them or hold sympathy for them. But if i were a parent of those children I do not think I can bear the pain. Not only about the financial problem caused from medical care that I'm talking about here but the idea of what kind of life the children or the family could have had without the down syndrome would constantly come up to my mind. Well, these are only my guess. Applying these points to this question, it is easier to make a decision because it's not a choice between live or death. It might not make the child's life easier but certainly does for the parents. And the choice is up to them.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the useless comment. I right now have so much to do (as you all might do, though) and was even so late. Anyways, see you all tomorrow!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late submit again, but I'd like to comment on question #1.
ReplyDelete1.My overall answer to the question is that I would apply the technology to my child. Consequences to support this idea all comes from actually the opposite opinion, being against applying the technology.
For the first reason, I first thought that adopting those technologies was not natural. After considering, however, I came to the conclusion that current medical treatments are all product of developed technologies, and applying those to children is nothing different. I couldn't see the division of unnaturalness in current medicine and the child-enhancing technology. Like Tomoya mentioned, there are abilities people should acquire through nurture, but in my opinion, those opportunities to acquire certain capability is greatly influenced by economic conditions of each child/family. Nowadays, if you want your child to be able to swim, then you would pay the tuition fee. Similarly, in the case of applying the new technology, you would pay for as much money as it costs. The child would use the time left, which was not necessary for acquiring the ability to swim, for some other experience.
My second reason is the counter argument of the opinion that with too many technologies, humans would be like robots and lose humanness. I agree with this opinion, yet I think that there are plenty of ways not to lose humanness such as utilizing the time for other activity, which also can lead to enhancing humannness.
To summarize, I have no doubt in making the best use of new technologies when they are available, even in the case of applying to my children.
Thank you all for answering Q1!! :)
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry for the late response...
Thank you again especially Yusuke, Shantonu, Saori, Sayako, Izumi. You all agreed on applying the technology to your children. I am against the idea, so your opinions and reasons were all new to me.
You looked at the enhancement as a gift and an opportunity. I thought that it is a very nice way to look at the technology.
In the future, job requirements might say "enhanced only". Enhanced children would have more job opportunities.
You guys might be right. When you think about babies' bright future far ahead of them, it would be better to apply this new technology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thank you very much Kaya, Yumi, Kaori, Miki, Tomoya!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't apply the new technology either, so I was happy to see there are some people with the same opinion.
In order to get something, you have to pay for it. Application of the technology lets us have additional abilities, but you are losing something instead.
There sure ain't no right or wrong. Guess the most important and neat thing is that we all answered the question regarding what is BEST for the future generation.
Sorry for the late reply:p
ReplyDeleteI'm not even sure if anyone is going to see my comment lol
1.I would apply the technology to my child if I knew that my child would have some disabilities without it. Even if that sounds shocking at present, I think these kind of human enhancing will be normal, just like applying contact lens. People in the past would have been frightened and startled to the idea of putting lens in your eyes. This case is much the same. I feel it is not wrong to enhance my child to be able to live without difficulties. However I am opposed to the idea of enhancing children to become superior than others, for example by making them artificially smarter. I don't think it can be justified because it would only cause neglect. Smartness and also things like good body shape is something you can gain by trying. I feel it is sort of like cheating to have them without effort.
Sorry for answering the question now.
ReplyDelete2. I think the answer to this question would be no. I think innovating robots as much as the heaven scenario would make it impossible to completely control the robots. If the robots are so intelligent and they realize that they are superior than human then they might take us in control. Since we human tend to make hierarchy like we learned earlier in class, there is a possibility that the robots will do that too, which would promote the take over by robots. Another concern is about the unawareness of the people. Natsuko gave us an example of the people who just cheered for the intelligent robot. It would be a problem if they just do that in the future without thinking. As in the book, some scientists are just inventing things from their curiosity and are not thinking much about the effect in the future society, which makes me concern that we human wouldn't be able to control the robots. In the Heaven scenario, I think the human would not be able to control the robots.
2. I think we can have control over pure robots but not robot-people. Pure robots are made and programmed by humans and moreover they don't have the ability to think. Pure robots do not have imagination and creativity which we humans have and they cannot solve problems by themselves. On the other hand, robot-people or enhanced people have the ability to think, compared to pure robots. This is a big difference between them. If they have both the ability to think and the super power enabled by the technology, I think they might have control of us, natural and non-enhanced people.
ReplyDelete