Robotic engineering proves dangerous


The film I, Robot, released in 2004, told the story of a futuristic society dependent on robots in the year 2035. In the film, humans rely on their robot servants, until it is suggested that it might be possible for robots to override their human superiors and, tentatively, take over the world.

Almost 10 years have passed since the movie’s release. It is the year 2013, and, thanks to the rapidly advancing technology that grows more and more powerful each day, this fictional world might not actually be too far off.

But instead of man creating robots to serve him as their servants, what if man infused himself with technology to become his own robot? This is the dream of Tim Cannon, a software developer and self-proclaimed “biohacker” from Pittsburgh who implanted a large computer chip under his skin. According to a report by Fox News, the chip is about the size of a deck of cards and, because no certified surgeon would agree to the procedure, was inserted by a piercing and tattoo specialist without any form of anesthesia.

The chip connects wirelessly to Cannon’s Android device and records his body temperature throughout the day, transmitting the information to his cellphone through a Bluetooth connection. The big chip doesn’t do a whole lot, but it’s a start to something much bigger: biohacking.

Cannon is a developer at Grindhouse Wetware, a company whose top priority “augmenting humanity using safe, affordable, open source technology,” according to Grindhouse’s website. The firm’s main goal is basically to begin the trend of “biohacking,” or further integrating the worlds of technology and biology. After all, Cannon himself has told interviewers that his dream has always been to become a robot.

Now, I must say, Cannon’s lifelong dream is a little worrisome to me. In every science-fiction film, novel, television series and elsewhere, robots are portrayed to be the very antithesis of humans: cold, unfeeling, uniform and emotionless. Humans are unique, full of emotion and creativity—the  very opposite of unfeeling. When you begin to infuse our bodies with unfamiliar and tainting technology, the very qualities that make us “human” are at risk.

Humanity is a beautiful concept, and Cannon has made it his main purpose in life to irreversibly taint others lives’ with technology. To say that you want to be a robot is basically saying that you want to give up your individuality, your ability to really feel things. And though Cannon’s dream sounds insane and somewhat idiotic, I have to say that at this point, it doesn’t seem all that unrealistic.

At the rate technology is advancing today, humans are becoming increasingly dependent on their technological gadgets. Not only are people constantly attached to their mobile devices, but new technological advances might make gadgets an even more permanent part of our lives. With the introduction of wearable devices such as Google Glass and the Samsung Galaxy Gear smartwatch, it seems inevitable that humans will one day become one with technology.

This is quite a daunting, but ultimately realistic, possibility. Though I’m sure there will be many positive benefits to the integration of biology and technology, we must be sure to recognize that our humanity is very separate from these man-made creations and remember to preserve the aspects of humanity that make human life so unique and precious.

 

Cecilia Callas is a junior majoring in print and digital journalism. Her column “Tech Talk” runs Wednesdays.

Follow Cecilia on Twitter @ceciliacallas

3 replies
  1. sam
    sam says:

    Using abstract concepts of “humanity” and “individuality” to argue against robotic engineering is an appeal to emotion that doesn’t really focus on the facts at hand. While robots may be portrayed to be “cold, unfeeling, uniform, and emotionless” in sci-fi films, that doesn’t reflect on the actual potential uses of robotic engineering. In addition, robotic engineering could be used to save, enhance, and lengthen lives. While there definitely are potential moral and ethical questions that arise from robotic engineering, I believe it is best to adopt a veiwpoint based on the science behind the engineering, rather than one stemming from emotion.

  2. M.Mathews
    M.Mathews says:

    Interesting article. Read “Rossum’s Universal Robots” written in 1920. This book was required reading in my high school class over 40 years ago.

Comments are closed.