Sexuality, violence and vunerability

Seamus McCauley points out the illogicality of the media's conflation of real and virtual paedophillia in their discussion of recent disturbing happenings in Second Life. He also contrasts this reaction to virtual sexual abuse with the widespread tolerance of extreme virtual violence. I recommend a reading of the post in full, too long and integrated to reproduce here.

My thoughts: Sexuality can be one of the most vunerable and emotive aspects of human identity, so it's perhaps no surprise that people often switch off their higher brains when thinking and talking about its abuses. By contrast, violence numbs and brutalises us, and it seems we find it far easier to distance ourselves emotionally from its virtual depiction.

Robotic dangers

BBC News reports:

Robot future poses hard questions

Scientists have expressed concern about the use of autonomous decision-making robots, particularly for military use.

As they become more common, these machines could also have negative impacts on areas such as surveillance and elderly care, the roboticists warn.

The researchers were speaking ahead of a public debate at the Dana Centre, part of London's Science Museum.

Discussions about the future use of robots in society had been largely ill-informed so far, they argued.

Autonomous robots are able to make decisions without human intervention. At a simple level, these can include robot vacuum cleaners that "decide" for themselves when to move from room to room or to head back to a base station to recharge.

Military forces

Increasingly, autonomous machines are being used in military applications, too.

Samsung, for example, has developed a robotic sentry to guard the border between North and South Korea.It is equipped with two cameras and a machine gun.

The development and eventual deployment of autonomous robots raised difficult questions, said Professor Alan Winfield of the University of West England.

"If an autonomous robot kills someone, whose fault is it?" said Professor Winfield.

"Right now, that's not an issue because the responsibility lies with the designer or operator of that robot; but as robots become more autonomous that line or responsibility becomes blurred."

Accountability may become a tricky issue indeed in these kind of circumstances. After all, robots will always be imperfect mirrors or conduits for our human identity...

Robotic ethics

BBC News reports on an ethical code for robots:

An ethical code to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa, is being drawn up by South Korea.

The Robot Ethics Charter will cover standards for users and manufacturers and will be released later in 2007.

...

The new guidelines could reflect the three laws of robotics* put forward by author Isaac Asimov in his short story Runaround in 1942, she said.

Key considerations would include ensuring human control over robots, protecting data acquired by robots and preventing illegal use.

So far, so sensible. Asimov really was a visionary. But read on...

Other bodies are also thinking about the robotic future. Last year a UK government study predicted that in the next 50 years robots could demand the same rights as human beings.

Now that's just silliness from the Artificial Intelligence brigade. They're just soulless, unconscious heaps of tin, for chrisakes! The robots, I mean. Let's not get lost in this hall of mirrors.

*Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (via Wikipedia):

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Seem to make pretty good sense, right? But then again, Asimov explored in "I, Robot" how these laws could lead a robot to harm an individual human in order to safeguard other people's safety. Robots are, after all, known for their lack of compassion or common sense...

Gore's ethical paradox

BBC News reports that Al Gore has been accused of "energy hypocrisy":

Former US Vice-President Al Gore has been accused of hypocrisy for apparently guzzling energy while he lectures the world on climate change.

A Tennessee-based free market think-tank said Mr Gore's home used more than 20 times the national average of gas and electricity.

An integrated personal identity requires having the humility to walk one's talk. And the biggest challenge for the global warming movement is getting each concerned individual on the planet to reduce our carbon consumption—rather than just worry about the big picture.

Then again, if Gore hadn't been jetting round the world evangelising his Inconvenient Truth these last few months, the whole climate change movement would have gathered significantly less momentum.

Sometimes, life can be paradoxical.

Green muddle

The BBC reports a new study's conclusion that "Ethical shoppers 'need more help":

"Consumers find that being green or ethical is a very hard, time consuming, and emotional experience," he said.

The greenest of all shoppers do a lot of research before buying anything - but often feel unsatisfied at their purchases as they invariably have compromised some of their values.

How to have our shopping experience effortlessly adapt to our identity—including our green concerns? This is one of the biggest questions on the planet right now, it seems to me.

[UPDATE: added missing blockquote indent!]