Company Denies Its Robots Feed On the Dead

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."

Comments

Wording

[Norsefire]

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?

Re:Wording

[cthulu_mt]

The machines will enforce the conventions.

Vote for ED-209!

Re:Wording

[CarpetShark]

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.

Re:Wording

[timeOday]

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.

Re:Wording

[ByOhTek]

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.

soooo what you are saying...

[gandhi_2]

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

Re:This is too bad

[Krneki]

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

Clarification

[Peregr1n]

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

Re:Clarification

[cthulu_mt]

That's what I tried to tell the police.

What a waist of time...

[mcfatboy93]

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

Re:What a waist of time...

[jdgeorge]

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

Re:What a waist of time...

[prockcore]

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

Grass clippings?

[Adrian Lopez]

You damn robots! Stay off my lawn!

Well what's the bloody point then?

[wiredog]

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?

I do not think that means what you think it means

[thegameiam]

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.

Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea

[amateur6]

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.

Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea

[lgw]

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.