Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘technology’ Category

Science ever changes its boundaries and it brings in technology as well. In applying science to real time and for practical solutions it cannot do without technology. It is not man for science but science for man. Shape of technology unlike science shall consequently depend very much on man. When we hear a buzzword like technology transfer in a global context, does it not imply politics of power? How futile it is to keep arsenal of technology to any specific group we can understand from the Manhattan Project of Los Alamos in the early 40s. At the time US and allies were intent to bring WWII to a speedy conclusion. But as the goals were being met the ideological split between Capitalism and Communism became alarmingly wider. In 1945 the Allies were most seized upon technology behind nuclear warheads from falling into the hands of the Soviet Union. Soviet Union no longer exists and instead it is North Korea who is rattling a nuclear holocaust against the world. Mind you this nation was not even formed at the time.

From the above example what shall we conclude? Now you know science and technology do not speak the same language. Even so you cannot have technology without science. How does science shape up in a changing society and now globalization becoming irreversible march is a serious issue. In whichever case  its outcome shall depend very much on man’s moral sense. If man voids Cosmos of moral imperative one might well visualize science upon command jumping through the hoops of technology instead.

If thinking of man is merely to cut and dice his natural world so he may convert natural resources into dollars and cents a discipline like science has failed to do its job. Is this not what we see in our times? The earth can provide for teeming billions but not their greed as well. We may as well require two and half earths to sustain the ever increasing spiralling consumerism. Technology is the crooked shadow of science where man also casts shadow.

benny

Read Full Post »

If a self-driving car causes an accident or a surgical robot kills a patient, whose fault is it? These are some of the questions a recent report funded by the European Union sought to answer.

Science fiction writer Isaac Asimov famously wrote about the “three laws of robotics.” Essentially, the laws state that a robot may not injure a human being, that it must obey orders given by humans and that it must protect its own existence when this doesn’t conflict with the first two laws.

Making robots answerable to malpractice  is a vain exercise. A Gynaecologist who advertises he is a plastic surgeon and makes hideous mistakes his license to practice can be revoked. But a robot?

Think of all the bad surgery performed by Great Britain on her former colonies? Partition of India was one such. it was more like the Great Bungler having had run of the House it did not possess either in spirit or by common consent, just decamped when the house was all but finished. The present crisis of Syria was also another mess. Is UK or France called to account for their ineptness?

With men and nations laws must work; so must Law call to account those who set a robot to solve their problems. As soon as robots can think for themselves and change procedures to save the wear and tear of their own parts the fun really begins.

benny

Read Full Post »