Human-animals

[Steve the Pocket]

<!--QuoteBegin-Burning Sheep Productions+Nov 29 2004, 06:43 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Burning Sheep Productions @ Nov 29 2004, 06:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Yeah, if they do make a big hairy ugly domesticated human-dog that could understand orders then ka-boom! The army would come in and give money to the scientists to make more and better ones to use in the millitary and that'd be just terrible for the animals.<br>Though it seems kinda extreme it'd really suck if that happened. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> I actually considered writing a sci-fi novel about genetically-enhanced dogs being used as astronauts by the space program, but I'm not skilled enough as a writer to pull it off without making it seem too far-fetched (no pun intended, I swear!). Maybe I'll reveal more details in another thread sometime.

[Tavis]

Shame, that would've been a good pun too, seeing as space is about as far as one could expect some pet to go to fetch something.

[Septimius Severus]

<!--QuoteBegin-Octan+Dec 2 2004, 03:45 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Octan @ Dec 2 2004, 03:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-Burning Sheep Productions+Nov 29 2004, 06:43 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Burning Sheep Productions @ Nov 29 2004, 06:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Yeah, if they do make a big hairy ugly domesticated human-dog that could understand orders then ka-boom! The army would come in and give money to the scientists to make more and better ones to use in the millitary and that'd be just terrible for the animals.<br>Though it seems kinda extreme it'd really suck if that happened. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>I actually considered writing a sci-fi novel about genetically-enhanced dogs being used as astronauts by the space program, but I'm not skilled enough as a writer to pull it off without making it seem too far-fetched (no pun intended, I swear!). Maybe I'll reveal more details in another thread sometime. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Like... <a href='http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm' target='_blank'>this?</a>

[Richard K Niner]

<!--QuoteBegin-Octan+Dec 1 2004, 10:45 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Octan @ Dec 1 2004, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I actually considered writing a sci-fi novel about genetically-enhanced dogs being used as astronauts by the space program, but I'm not skilled enough as a writer to pull it off without making it seem too far-fetched (no pun intended, I swear!). Maybe I'll reveal more details in another thread sometime. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Sounds like a sequel to <i>Watchers</i> of some sort or another...

[erikbarrett]

<!--QuoteBegin-Septimius Severus+Nov 28 2004, 04:21 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Septimius Severus @ Nov 28 2004, 04:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I'm not so worried about the possibility of "accidentally" creating a sentient being (which I think is rather unrealistic) as I am about the welfare of these animals. Human biochemistry is different from that of animals. Sheep need different livers than us because they live different lives. It's far more likely that an animal would die painfully from having the wrong organs than it is that an animal would suddenly start moralizing about things and making up stories to explain phenomena. I think this research is cruel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> And here, I didn't even consider this possibility. I would imagine the stomach would cause the most problems - or at least the most fatal - though any major organ could pose potential problems in another animal. I guess it goes to show that it is easy for people to miss the obivous consequences of their actions.<br><br>On a side note, anyone thinking about a book might want to look up <u>The Beasts of Valhalla</u> by George C. Chesbro. It's not the greatest - I wouldn't bother searching it out on eBay - but it does follow some of the lines of thought here, complete with a mad scientist. <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Gizensha]

<!--QuoteBegin-Septimius Severus+Nov 30 2004, 09:24 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Septimius Severus @ Nov 30 2004, 09:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I'm going to have to speak up for the military again here. It's a common theme of popular culture that the military wants expendable soliders, whether they be robots, clones, werewolves, draftees, what have you. The fact of the matter is, any commander worth his salt would prefer a handful intelligent, deadly troops able to exercise judgement under stress to a huge host of unthinking automotons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Not quite, it tends to be that civilians want cheap, expendable soldiers. In the UK that tends to be robots are preferable for animals since, well, the UK is a nation of animal lovers.<br><br>However, I fail to see how robots are incapable of expressing judgement under stress. The current problem with robot ai is teaching it to move effectively, rather than the ai itself (note the leaps and bounds game ai has taken, and imagine military scientists working on it, for example). Of course, even assuming it's impossable to get ai as effective in combat as humans (I doubt this is the case, since no robot would have a pange of morality, any sense of self-preservation when dealing with orders to the direct contrary, etc), the current robotic systems employed by both the military and poliece forces are remote controlled. I see nothing wrong with using remote controlled forces in battle.<br><br>And humans are less likely to use effective judgement under stress than a robot would. Since robots don't get stress, and stress can cause panic, and panic causes mis-judgement. Also robots don't get fatigued, hungry, etc.<br><br>...And since when have werewolves been ineffective in combat? An troop of werewolf soldiers willing to fight vs a troop of human soldiers willing to fight, given equal arms, my money's on the werewolves. They have natural weaponry, and, in general, can take more punishment before they die. And that's assuming the werewolves aren't like the werewolves are in Loups-Garoux, which can play with human perception to make humans think they don't exist.<br><br>...Admittedly, you've got a problem if the werewolves are holywoodesque and only capable of transformation during the full moon.<br><br>Clones are just humans with a different method of being born, so...

[Steve the Pocket]

I can just imagine a future where battles are fought with robots, like in Star Wars I.<br><br>The biggest issue governments might have with this is cost. Obviously the lives saved by using robots instead of humans is invaluable from a humanitarian standpoint, but if the cost of designing, building, and maintaining robots is considerably greater than the cost of feeding and reimbursing human soldiers, then a government will likely choose the latter.

[Gizensha]

<!--QuoteBegin-Octan+Dec 4 2004, 11:01 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Octan @ Dec 4 2004, 11:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The biggest issue governments might have with this is cost. Obviously the lives saved by using robots instead of humans is invaluable from a humanitarian standpoint, but if the cost of designing, building, and maintaining robots is considerably greater than the cost of feeding and reimbursing human soldiers, then a government will likely choose the latter. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Not really, in modern times, the loss of lives, even in in war with volunteer soldiers, is becoming more and more unacceptable to the public. Anything to minimize this loss of lives will make war more acceptable to the public. A govenment's main concern is rarely the financial cost of war, but the potential cost to it's popularity with the public. </political cynicism>

[Henohenomoheji]

My Shoulder Angel says: It would be so much more efficient if we had a huge video game where cool stuff was possible and stuff...<br><br>My Shoulder Devil says: But... if we get rid of war, what's gonna keep the population in check. Cars aren't killing us fast enough. Besides, if we had a war video game, we'd be at the mercy of hackers and godmoders.<br><br>I say: I'm hungry. Besides, it's not like we will ever have the technology for a huge war video game that's immune to hackers and can be played on a worldwide scale. It would be fun if we did though... for a few months anyway.

[GhostWay]

About wars being fought with robots...it's already in development. In fact, the military is going to deploy <a href='http://news.com.com/Army+to+deploy+robo ... g=nefd.top' target='_blank'>robots with machine guns</a> fairly soon. I also seem to remember something earlier about shotgun-robots.<br><br>Granted, these are human-controlled, but it's only a matter of time (according to Moore's Law) until the technology is good enough for them to function autonomically.

[dragonranpu]

The idea of robot fighting wars is a great one becuase it saves lives. I can just see where this is going to go though. without the potential loss of human life the need and want for peace will get smaller and smaller. then pretty soon there will be no reason to not have a war becuase there will be no risk to human life. Mabey I am too pessemistic or cybical of the human race but this is something that I cannot change.

[ShadOtterdan]

There will never be a war fought completely by robots simply because the people in charge will realize they can boost their numbers by recruiting humans, although in a war completely fought by robots, the main incentive not to fight would be the fact that robots can be expensive. One of the reasons we don't use robots right now is because they are more expensive than human lives.

[Gizensha]

<!--QuoteBegin-ShadOtterdan+Dec 5 2004, 08:25 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (ShadOtterdan @ Dec 5 2004, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> There will never be a war fought completely by robots simply because the people in charge will realize they can boost their numbers by recruiting humans, although in a war completely fought by robots, the main incentive not to fight would be the fact that robots can be expensive. One of the reasons we don't use robots right now is because they are more expensive than human lives. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Only if you go by the financial cost of the materials within human beings, rather than the fact that humans are alive.

[Richard K Niner]

Bear in mind that human life is priceless, so these calculations can't factor in the actual value.

[Ankaris]

Well, not to try and be inflammatory, but to military planners, human life isn't priceless.