ForumsWEPRShould the creation of Military Robots be allowed?

79 8659
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

I really think we shouldn't make them.

Who knows? The technology can go into the wrong hands and our technology can go against us.

Does anyone have any opinions about this?

  • 79 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

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?
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,831 posts
1,120

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.
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

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.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,628 posts
20,745

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

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.
any such living thing other than a human being.
". Look up words before you chastise people for using them wrong.
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
5,600

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

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,628 posts
20,745

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?

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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
partydevil
online
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

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.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

mosquitoes are eaten by crayfish, dragonflies, frogs, bats, birds, bees and many more.


Like I said...their predators would just have to focus on their other forms of food.

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.


Well apparently we have 314d1 to help us keep their population under control haha
partydevil
online
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

Like I said...their predators would just have to focus on their other forms of food.


and you seriously think that wont have a effect on the food chains?

Well apparently we have 314d1 to help us keep their population under control haha

dunno, i didn't read him.
but if you mean humans (i think number man is human) then yea we can but we are superior anyway. i guess nature would be much better of whitout humans.

so feel free to kill humans. xD
partydevil
online
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

gotten into it.

your partly true. and so am i.

in the long run it wont do damage. (except for some fish)
but that is whit all species. eventually the gaps will be closed.
on the short run however. i does allot of damage because because the rest of the food chain expect this biomass to be there. allot of reptiles and fish will die because they are not there.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

in the long run it wont do damage. (except for some fish)
but that is whit all species. eventually the gaps will be closed.
on the short run however. i does allot of damage because because the rest of the food chain expect this biomass to be there. allot of reptiles and fish will die because they are not there.


I'm guessin you are talking about our mosquito discussion?

So in the long run we are ok...and if it means getting rid of those lil nuisances, I for one wouldn't mind the short term damages
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
5,600

And now stop thinking 314d1 actually means what he says.
Masterforger takes him seriously, and animal rights has gone too far.

p.s. According to the biologists, (or whoever), We would of wiped out the bald eagles along side the mosquitoes.
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

Animals are older than humans. We came about 700 million years after the first animal/organism!

And we are animals. That means all of us are created equally.

Everything matters to us, from a tree (which offers oxygen and paper), a pig (offers us pork), and rivers (which gives us water).

Dieing is natural, and we must let it happen. If not, Earth will lose all it's resources. If you think this will populate more humans, then you are wrong. More humans will die of famine, diseases, and lack of oxygen.

Robots should be shunned from society!

Showing 31-45 of 79