I
would argue that, in fact, military robots are a clear product of the
enlightenment school of thought. I’ll begin with my interpretation of the two
beliefs. The technocratic notion is the simple belief that improved technology,
science, and engineering alone is a goal worth pursuing for its own sake.
Technocratic progress sees discovery and invention as an achievement in its own
right, and that benefits from these advancements will naturally filter down
through society to improve the human race. In my opinion, truly technocratic
work almost needs to happen in a vacuum, isolated from corporate, political,
and other influences. The enlightenment viewpoint, in contrast, sees careful,
calculated advances in technical fields as a means of benefiting society. The
enlightenment notion requires a clear goal to be defined in advance of
scientific or technological developments, so that they can be used in a way
that minimizes unforeseen consequences and maximizes the chances of achieving
the goal (hopefully, one beneficial to humanity). Unfortunately, the decision
of what most benefits humanity is made by humans, and therefore cannot be
perfect.
This is where I see the
first indications of the enlightenment notion in the development of militarized
robotics. These robots were created with a specific purpose in mind. From the viewpoints
of their creators and purchasers, these robots are most likely seen to serve
the good of the public. They eliminate threats without danger to the attacker,
and establish dominance over individuals seen as enemies to the attacking
party’s beliefs, nation, or cause. In essence, these robots were the calculated
product of a predefined goal. Furthermore, the technology to create these
advanced robots was not generated through a singular scientific breakthrough or
feat of engineering. The individual pieces of technology needed to create
military robots have existed for some time, yet it only recently became cost
effective to research and produce such machines. In other words, they did not
spring into existence. They were not the development of a pure scientific or
engineering endeavor. The decision to produce military robots was one more of business
and economics than technical feasibility.
It is also important to
consider the ways in which military robots are used, and the various types of
machines in use. The most infamous and ubiquitous example has to be the predator
drone. With exceptional range and medium high altitude, this flying robot often
acts as a symbol of unmanned warfare. It is frequently used in both
observational and offensive roles (interestingly, the predator also contributes
to society in a number of civilian applications). Yet, the predator does not
make life or death decisions on its own. While onboard computers and avionics
may guide its flight plan, control surfaces, and cameras, it is a human that
remotely oversees all of these activities and has their hand on the virtual
trigger. This comes back to the old phrase “It is not guns that kill people, it
is people that kill people”. The
technocrat sees people killing people merely with a different gun. The enlightenment
follower sees the gun killing people, yet depending on their views of the
rightfulness of the shooting, either sees this as positive or negative
progress. This is a point that will certainly require more consideration if and
when robots are given the power to make these crucial decisions on their own.
Defining these robots
in the broad interpretation of “progress” used by both technocratic and
enlightenment notions is difficult, because reality tends to fall between the
clear-cut boundaries of the extremes. As with any field, robotics is a combination
of the unintentional discoveries of science and the careful application of
corporate or governmental research. Additionally, the opinion of one with an
enlightened point of view is just that: an opinion. The very definition of
enlightenment requires some judgment of the correct and incorrect courses of
action, and the judgment of whether militarized robots benefit humanity is one
that does not have a clear answer (although many may have strong opinions). While
a pure technocrat might believe that all technology represents some form of
progress, the development of combat robots would likely not historically be
seen as a great advance technically (although it represents a huge development in
the application of robots). The piece
in question certainly seems to favor the enlightenment view, although it spends
more time describing the technocratic era of history. Its focus tends to follow
the path of history, from early enlightenment thinking to technocratic
industrializing America to a time slightly before today (where the opinion of
the public may not be quite so clear). Yet, it strongly emphasizes the
contrasts between the two with a particular focus on the shortsightedness of the
technocratic point of view. It is my opinion that the author (who I would
assume would hold the enlightened view) would most likely reject the notion
that robot combat is beneficial to society, and not see it as a form of
progress.
