Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Should the creation of Military Robots be allowed?

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 9:12pm

shock457

shock457

470 posts

You are actually being cruel. Why would people need to die, exactly? Especially if we had advanced in technology enough for all our wars to be fought be robots, there are plenty alternatives to murder.

Do you want the Earth's natural resources to deplete? Having such number would cause massive deforestation and it can lead to the extinction of multiple species. We need to keep our biosphere in balance or else all of us die instead of some.

Just think of the consequences of this... It is more reasonable to kill than to produce.

 

Posted Sep 10, '12 at 10:36pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Do you want the Earth's natural resources to deplete?

If it means even one more human will live, then yes.

Having such number would cause massive deforestation and it can lead to the extinction of multiple species

I would cut down the whole forest and shoot all the animals myself, if we could get more humans to live from it. Human life is worth far more then the lives of forests.

We need to keep our biosphere in balance or else all of us die instead of some.

And why would all of us die, if we had the food and such that allowed for all of us to live? If robots are fighting our wars, then we probably don't need forests any more. Or is human life worth a worthless "environment"?

Just think of the consequences of this... It is more reasonable to kill than to produce.

I would personally destroy everything you consider to be the environment, I would burn the oceans and smog the skies, slaughter the creatures and deforest everything with a hearing, if it meant that more humans would live. Why wouldn't we?

 

Posted Sep 11, '12 at 1:34am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

I would cut down the whole forest and shoot all the animals myself, if we could get more humans to live from it. Human life is worth far more then the lives of forests.

Rain forests provide 20% of the oxygen in the world. Also, in my opinion, I would value the lives of hundreds of species compared to some stupid humans. We've managed to cut down at least 50% of the world's species, and we have practically destroyed parts of our own planet. The animals? Nope. Unless introduced, animals are not wasteful. They are in balance.
Despite the fact they are incapable of higher thought, I believe the animals are, in some way, smarter then humans.
http://www.newsgd.com/pictures/gallery3/homepageright/200704240028_75626.jpg
Only a thousand left in the wild. I trust you are aware?
http://blairszabo.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/beaver-rat-1.jpg
Not many of these left either.

 

Posted Sep 11, '12 at 1:45am

shock457

shock457

470 posts

This debate gives me an idea!

314d1, are you ignorant or you just don't know any science? If you say you don't know science, I have nothing to say. If you are ignorant then you killed us all.

 

Posted Sep 11, '12 at 5:10am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,086 posts

Knight

They discover that the Machines have generalized the First Law to mean "No machine may harm humanity; or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

From the wiki article on the evitable conflict.

I could basically re-copy what I already said... again, if a machine would  "interpret" or "generalize" a law in such way, that means the programmer has built in the capacity to do so, or overseen a badly defined function. If you define human being as 'individual', and make sure that in case of conflicting laws, the machine rather chooses to harm no one (even if that means that people will die) rather than harm some to save more; if you do that, I don't see any problem. And a machine that is simply made to follow strict instructions cannot "ponder" about an instruction and choose the way it will do so.

But anyway superdark hit the nail; we won't have independent robots capable of such prowesses anytime soon, much rather remote-controlled machines as we already have now, or smaller independent robots with a very small array of actions for specific situations.

 

Posted Sep 11, '12 at 6:03pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Rain forests provide 20% of the oxygen in the world. Also, in my opinion, I would value the lives of hundreds of species compared to some stupid humans. We've managed to cut down at least 50% of the world's species, and we have practically destroyed parts of our own planet. The animals? Nope. Unless introduced, animals are not wasteful. They are in balance.

Are you still high ("Sick" as you call it)? While the rainforests are currently quit useful for humans, assuming that we managed to replace all human armies with robots (A technological feat that is far more impressive then simply replacing oxygen), they would become obsolete.

And that would be stupid, putting animal life ahead of human life is stupid in all cases. If killing the animals would allow humans to live, why would we not kill the animals? The lowliest human's life is worth more then the highest beast's.

Only a thousand left in the wild. I trust you are aware?

Sure. They are cute. Baby animals are cute. So logically they are worth more then human lives?

Not many of these left either.

And easy target, if it had threatened the lives of humans even by it's very existence, I would be the first to shoot it.

This debate gives me an idea!

314d1, are you ignorant or you just don't know any science? If you say you don't know science, I have nothing to say. If you are ignorant then you killed us all.

If you are referring to the fact I used the word "Animal", I am not referring to the kingdom "Animilia" but dictionary definition "2.rnany such living thing other than a human being.". Look up words before you chastise people for using them wrong.

 

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 11:37am

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,287 posts

I agree with 314d, no animal is more important than a person, and that includes all the animals that are supposedly "people" (apes, dolphins, and whatever else.)

p.s. No matter what you say, I still think that the animal rights people are somewhat crazy. (considering PETA dressed up as fish to protest dead fish being thrown during the serving process.)

Little image.
http://www.vanceoutdoors.com/prodimages/12397-DEFAULT-l.jpg

 

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 11:58am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,086 posts

Knight

PETA is not to be considered an animal rights organisation as they currently hardly save any, instead they kill thousands. Because apparently death is better than being a loved pet.

And now stop thinking 314d1 actually means what he says. He knows that humanity couldn't survive without a stable ecosystem, he's not that stupid. I mean, merely the disappearance of bees would mean a disaster to humanity, so, eh..

Are we done talking about that now?

 

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 4:13pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,715 posts

I mean, merely the disappearance of bees would mean a disaster to humanity, so, eh..

Just goin to throw this lil fun fact out there...Mosquitoes are a species we can afford to lose. Their death, basically, wouldn't cause much change in the ecosystem (their predators would just have to focus on their other forms of food). So feel free to murder those lil nuisances

 

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 6:56pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

Mosquitoes are a species we can afford to lose. Their death, basically, wouldn't cause much change in the ecosystem (their predators would just have to focus on their other forms of food).

mosquitoes are eaten by crayfish, dragonflies, frogs, bats, birds, bees and many more.
removing such imported animal from the food chain sure will disrupt  these food chains.

also do mosquitoes help keep ecosystems balanced by transmitting diseases. diseased animals are easier for carnivores to capture and disease keeps the numbers of certain animals from getting too large for the food supply.

 
Reply to Should the creation of Military Robots be allowed?

You must be logged in to post a reply!