Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Company Denies Its Robots Feed On the Dead

Posted by samzenpus on from the meat-is-murder dept.

Back in January we covered the Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot, or EATR. The EATR gets its energy by "engaging in biologically-inspired, organism-like energy-harvesting behavior which is the equivalent of eating. It can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment ..." So many news outlets picked up the story and ran it with titles alluding to the robot "eating flesh" or even "eating corpses" that a company spokesperson put out a press release saying, "This robot is strictly vegetarian." The statement says in part, "RTI's patent pending robotic system will be able to find, ingest and extract energy from biomass in the environment. Despite the far-reaching reports that this includes 'human bodies,' the public can be assured that the engine Cyclone has developed to power the EATR runs on fuel no scarier than twigs, grass clippings and wood chips — small, plant-based items for which RTI's robotic technology is designed to forage. Desecration of the dead is a war crime under Article 15 of the Geneva Conventions, and is certainly not something sanctioned by DARPA, Cyclone or RTI."

38 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Wording by Norsefire · · Score: 5, Funny

    Desecration of the dead is a war crime under Article 15 of the Geneva Conventions, and is certainly not something sanctioned by DARPA, Cyclone or RTI

    Doesn't say anything about dead "enemy combatants" though, does it?

    1. Re:Wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "After we got a lot of publicity, we are now telling the truth."

    2. Re:Wording by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It also doesn't say who exactly is supposed to ENFORCE the conventions if someone breaks them.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Wording by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Funny

      The machines will enforce the conventions.

      Vote for ED-209!

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    4. Re:Wording by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those laws only apply to the Human Species.. not to our new robot overlord species. The creators are assuming they'll always be in control of what the robots choose to eat... they made a movie about that I think? heck we can't even control police dogs and they're "man's best friend". Forget robots being as smart as people.. when they get as smart as dogs we'll start having problems.

      correction:
      It also doesn't say who exactly is LEFT to ENFORCE the conventions if SOMETHING EATS them.

    5. Re:Wording by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's kind of a wussy ass war crime. What does it matter what happens to the dead, they're dead. People should be more concerned about the living.

      Uhh... that's the whole point. Few are very concerned about whether a robot cuts up a body on a battlefield, or whether a soldier does it on his way past to check his gun hasn't jammed, or because he didn't like the expression on the dead guy's face.

      The point is that, if people start creating robots like this, it will have a living, evolving impact on our society, and everyone in it. It's more a concern about humans becoming cannibals-by-proxy, than about robots being uncivilised.

    6. Re:Wording by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's the difference between having a robot eat the guy, and leaving the guy to be eaten by the crows, coyotes, vultures, or whatever other detrivores are common place wherever you are.

      Go read some philosophy and/or spirituality if you really want an answer to that (or just debate on it). It's WAY out of scope for this discussion, and frankly, it's something I expect civilised people to have already studied somewhat.

    7. Re:Wording by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really don't understand this trashing of the Geneva Conventions that started under Bush/Cheney. The rationale seems to be that "bad guys" are going to do stuff anyways, so we might as well be one of them. (If you can restate your rationale better, please do so). But the fact is the Geneva Conventions have helped a lot of prisoners over the years. Moreover, we have gained nothing by violating them. Abu-Ghraib and Gitmo have created a lot of global cynicism that has impaired our cause far more than whatever we got out of humiliating and torturing people.

    8. Re:Wording by Mr2cents · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can certainly see the appeal here.. Surely our flesh-eating robot overlords would have a vested interest in making sure that we are all healthy and nutritious. Disease and famine would become a thing of the past! Not to mention the forced breeding programs!

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    9. Re:Wording by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because, desecration of the dead isn't about the dead - it's about psychology and the survivors.

      It's against the Geneva Conventions because of it's impact on the living.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    10. Re:Wording by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So this "spirituality" thing (whatever is it supposed to be) allows only for stationary cremation ovens but not for cremation ovens with wheels?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Wording by E++99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Bush administration seemed to be the only ones interested in what the Geneva Conventions actually say. The distinction of lawful and unlawful enemy combatants is made in article 4, part 1 of the third Geneva Convention, which defines who qualifies for the protections described in the convention. The interpretation of this by the Bush administration was in no way novel. It is no different from the interpretation of the International Red Cross. I honestly can't understand the rationale of those who suggest that enemy combatants -- lawful or unlawful -- must be charged with a crime or else released while hostilities are ongoing. It is an absurd position that no country in recorded history has ever practiced. The whole point of the third Geneva Convention is the assumption that enemy combatants are NOT released until hostilities cease. Enemy combatants are not held because they committed a crime. They are held because they are enemy combatants in ongoing hostilities. If they committed a crime, that is a separate issue.

      The question under US law of the proper jurisdiction for combatant status reviews and trials for war crimes is a much less straightforward one. The Constitution does not address the issue directly, because when it was written there were no treaties codifying the law of war, and so issues arising under it were naturally under the purview of the commander-in-chief. However now that there are treaties codifying it, it can be argued that jurisdiction for any cases arising under those treaties now fall under the power of the judiciary under article III. The Supreme Court decided (surprise, surprise) (in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) that that power belonged to the judiciary. Therefore Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, establishing the military tribunals as inferior court with original jurisdiction, as article III empowers them, given it should be treated as a case arising under a treaty. However this makes it all the more complicated, as military tribunals don't operate under all the same constitutional constraints as civil and criminal federal courts. This is an open invitation for the Supreme Court to decide to arbitrarily determine which constitutional constraints should apply to the military tribunals and which should not, which would be (clearly, to me) overstepping its power. That would put the president in the position of either acquiescing to the usurping of power by the Supreme Court, or maintaining his authority under the law and the constitution, resulting in a so-called "constitutional crisis". This is a vital ambiguity in the constitution separation of powers, and so there is only one legitimate solution, which is for the congress and the state legislatures to agree on a reasonable balance of power in the form of a constitutional amendment. The congress is frankly negligent for not pursuing this.

      As for Abu-Ghraib, it was a case of criminal abuse by US soldiers, US civilian interrogators, and Iraqi informants and interpreters that the Army Criminal Investigation Command began investigating very shortly after the abuses began, and long before the information was illegally and detrimentally made public. The 12 soldiers charged were tried, convicted, and sentenced in military court. Unfortunately, there were other guilty parties who went unpunished, or inadequately punished, including civilian interrogators and Iraqi informants and interpreters. If the abuse photos had not been publicized, creating a vastly increased atmosphere of shame for the victims and panic for the participants, it is very possible that the investigation could have gathered the evidence necessary to bring justice to more of the guilty parties. However, what I find reprehensible in the aftermath, is the propaganda used by some to politicize these crimes by equating them to the policy of the Bush administration of using interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation.

  2. what if it's desperate? by martas · · Score: 2, Funny

    this robot wouldn't be the first one to succumb to man-eating under extreme circumstances. the only way to be sure is to starve it, and lock it in a room with McCain.

    --
    weinersmith
  3. This is too bad by ls671 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Company Denies Its Robots Feed On the Dead

    Too bad, there could be use for such a robot in an epidemic scenario or on a battlefield where the many corpses laying around could cause a health hazard to the survivors ;-))))

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:This is too bad by Krneki · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe he can be allowed to eat the dead only for recreational purpose. :)

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    2. Re:This is too bad by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm impressed they admit the robot is vegetarian. Isn't that unamerican or something? I'd expect public outrage if it didn't eat hamburgers and deep fried chicken.

  4. Article 15... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2, Funny

    As such the robot will seek out enemy combatants who are not *quite* dead yet and feed on them...

  5. soooo what you are saying... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is that I can still get the patent for corpse-eating robot?

    --
    THL phish sticks
  6. Clarification by Peregr1n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What he's essentially saying is that it DOESN'T eat human bodies. However, that doesn't mean it COULDN'T.

    1. Re:Clarification by cthulu_mt · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what I tried to tell the police.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    2. Re:Clarification by pluther · · Score: 2, Informative

      Convenient that this thing carries a wood chipper with it, then.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  7. What a waist of time... by mcfatboy93 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I spent all my time working on my emergency Zombie plan but now what i need is an Emergency robot plan.

    --
    Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
    1. Re:What a waist of time... by jdgeorge · · Score: 4, Funny

      I made a belt buckle out of a wristwatch so I could waist time.

    2. Re:What a waist of time... by prockcore · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe the creators of this robot have perfected their emergency zombie plan...

  8. Food preference = Fatties over Skinnies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fat generates more heat, which means more energy. The time to lose weight is now!

  9. Desecrating the dead... by vigmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Desecrating the dead may be a crime, but aren't humans the only ones who can be help responsible for war crimes? If I carpet bomb an enemy military installation, can I be held responsible for a war crime if that installation had any dead bodies that get vaporized? Similarly, if I set loose this robot in a war one and program it to eat the dead (maybe only dead enemies), would I be held responsible for the actions of the robot? As someone above asked, who enforces this anyway? Can't they just make 'killing people' and 'destroying stuff' war crimes?

    Cheers!

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
  10. Well... by azav · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm sure we can change that.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  11. Perhaps not dead, but... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... tired and all shagged out from a long walk would be fair game.
    [My apologies to Monty Python.]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  12. Grass clippings? by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Funny

    You damn robots! Stay off my lawn!

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  13. I relieved... by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    the robot only eats vegetarians. Pfew! That was a close one.

  14. Well what's the bloody point then? by wiredog · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it can't eat them after it kills them then why bother? It'll just leave a messy battlefield behind it, won't it?

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  15. Re:Philosophy 101 by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pretty poor actually. At least learn nihilism and do it right.

  16. I do not think that means what you think it means by thegameiam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Geneva conventions apply to uniformed soldiers fighting in declared wars between states. They specifically exclude "irregular" combatants who dress as civilians or are not acting on behalf of a state.

    An argument can be made in favor of extending the protections of the Geneva conventions to cover "irregular" forces, but an argument could be made against it as well.

    --
    Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
  17. Re:Philosophy 101 by HaZardman27 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's a thought; how about we just fead EATR nihilists, since they don't feel there's any point in their existence to begin with?

    --
    Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  18. Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea by amateur6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I'll start...

    The Geneva conventions apply to uniformed soldiers fighting in declared wars between states. They specifically exclude "irregular" combatants who dress as civilians or are not acting on behalf of a state.

    Such as, say, people fighting on behalf of fellow citizens, against what they deem to be an oppressive power which attempts to dictate their actions from afar?

    So obviously there's no direct parallel for the American Revolution today, but my point is that standards of war change -- and if we continue to believe that only "proper" war combatants should be protected, we're betraying principles which most of us believe to be more important than any government.

  19. Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, but there's idealism, and then there's the actual treaty that many nations agreed to. Agreed to not because of morality, but because eachthought it would server their self interest to do so. That treaty mostly protects uniformed soldiers under government command, for good historical reasons. And the only punishment for not complying with the treaty is that it will no longer protect your side, so extending its protections to those who don't comply with it destroys the very valuable protections it does offer.

    Perhaps a new treaty would be better, and perhaps you could get the world powers to sign tht treaty, and perhaps monkeys will fly out of my butt and serve as moderators for the process.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  20. Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea by E++99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    So obviously there's no direct parallel for the American Revolution today, but my point is that standards of war change -- and if we continue to believe that only "proper" war combatants should be protected, we're betraying principles which most of us believe to be more important than any government.

    But this principle hasn't changed. In the formulation of the Geneva Conventions they gave much thought to the place of partisans or militias, who might not be uniformed. If they are under the common command of the uniformed army, if they are identifiable from a distance, and if they carry their arms openly, among other things, then they are protected. People who mix in with civilian and drop a grenade in a jeep are purposely not protected by the Geneva Conventions. These principles were identical during the American revolution. American civilians shooting guns at British authorities before the Declaration of Independence would appropriately be arrested and tried as a criminal. After the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of an army and organization of militiamen under its command, the British (if they were behaving appropriately) treated prisoners with the courtesies due from the law of war, and not as criminals. However, a spy or a sabateur would be tried and executed, just as under the Geneva Conventions.

    These are very important principles, as these are the structures that prevent wars from devolving into genocides, as such "unprotected" tactics lead to soldiers' fear of civilians, which in turn leads to the massacres of civilians. It is not hard to find examples of this phenomenon, and it is precisely the purpose of the Geneva Conventions to avoid such developments.

  21. WOW by E++99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I retract my statement in the parent post that there is ambiguity where a trial of a prisoner of war should take place, insofar as that prisoner of war is a lawful enemy combatant, and protected by the Geneva Convention. I was just reading through it and was shocked to find this (emphasis added):

    Article 84.

    A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offense alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

    In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a co~rt of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defense provided for in Article 105.

    The granting of Habeas to civil courts is a flat-out violation of the Geneva Convention. Did the Justice Department miss this?! Or has it not been brought up because it only applies to lawful enemy combatants?