Slashdot Mirror
Americans Uncomfortable With Possibility of Ubiquitous Drones, Designer Babies
alphadogg writes: "Americans are optimistic about scientific inventions on the horizon, though are cautious about future uses of DNA, robots, drones and always-on implants, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey on future technology (PDF). Asked about the likelihood of certain advances 50 years from now, survey respondents were most sure that lab-grown custom organs for transplant will happen (81%). Only 19% expect humans will be able to control the weather by then. When asked how they felt about possible near-term advances, 65% thought robot caregivers for the elderly is a bad idea, 63% didn't want to see personal drones in U.S. airspace, and 66% thought parents altering the DNA of prospective children was a bad idea."
Everybody having a drone is a horrible idea, kind of like giving everyone a gun is a bad idea. I expect owning a drone will be a "fundamental right" in the U.S. within 10 years.
... about replacing the baby-delivering storks with drones.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?
Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.
Commies states like North Korea and USA need to have control over people 24 hours a day
That's why you see so many security forces on US streets, drones and totalitarian STASI style control.
Welcome to Communist USA
cautious about future uses of DNA, robots, drones and always-on implants,
My focus on the last part: "always-on implants"
If you've played any Deus Ex game, you would know that regardless of how awesome your selection of cyber/nano augmentation is, you have no way to refuse a phone call. Everyone on earth can find the Dentons' head-phones with probably less effort than doing a Google search and the same holds true for their predecessor Adam Jensen. They get 2 rings and then they've got no choice but to have their inner monologue heading out to the cell towers and on to whoever it was who called.
You can argue about other features, like the GPL implants that let your boss know exactly where you are at all times, but I stand firmly opposed to the always-on, automatic answer cyberphones!
I don't give a fuck about personal ones - but the government use of drones will lead to more intrusion on our lives, more spying, more death and destruction.
OK, I get that it is currently a bad idea to try to clone humans or modify an embryo's DNA. We essentially do not yet know how do it with an acceptable safety. So, the process is likely to cause harm to humans, and is wrong.
But eventually, it will be safe and probably fairly easy.
At that point, what is wrong with eliminating a mutation in an embryo to prevent a disease during subsequent adulthood. And if there is nothing wrong with that, then what is wrong with making a change to make the eventual adult a smarter person?
The obligitory "Dihydrogen Oxide" reference: ...applies here.
http://www.dhmo.org/research.h...
when you have a 50W SDR and a directional Yagi, nothing comes close to the enjoyment of watching a 20-40yo male running as his $3000 toy disappears into dense woodland
Seeding clouds to make it rain is 1950s technology and recently Moscow's mayor made it snow IIRC.
Mostly random stuff.
People already consciously and unconsciously select for certain traits when they pick mates. This is just a next step.
Mistakes will be made, but it is still evolution, which is chock full of what we'd consider 'mistakes'.
If other countries start creating "tiger kids" en mass, then the USA may be forced to accept the idea in order to economically compete.
Resistance is fu......oh sh8t!
Table-ized A.I.
At that point, what is wrong with eliminating a mutation in an embryo to prevent a disease during subsequent adulthood. And if there is nothing wrong with that, then what is wrong with making a change to make the eventual adult a tastier more nutritious animal?
Oh you think GMO of us is okay, but not for the other animals?
This is the kind of blatant generalizations that cause unnecessary fear of government drones.
FEMA is a government agency and could use drones to quickly survey disaster areas and send help where it is need.
The Forest Service is a government agency that could use drones to spot for water bombers and keep pilots out of dangerous situations.
The Forest Service can also use drones to survey the health of the forests.
There are many very good uses for government drones.
more death and destruction.
The most government drones that will be authorized for use in US airspace will be surveillance drones. How can surveillance drones lead to death and destruction? The only exception to this I can see would be in cases like the armored bulldozer rampage. Sorry but drones are not going to be shooting Hellfires at speeders.
Let's face it, everyone is going to want White children.
Stop getting high, spend more on books and time actually reading them end to end. Knowledge is power. If you watch TV give it up and study.
Want to just muddle along, being the high school football hero or hating the high school football hero. Well, get use to food stamps.
Don't complain, the American way is free enterprise. If you wasted your chance or your parents wasted theirs and you got sucked into the empty vortex of bad parenting, sucks for you. If your some Artist making no money and expect us to pay for you forget it.
Git (pun) a job and stop spending your money in study of the useless (History, English or Art) no one will buy your product and the rest of us are tired of supporting you.
Social Darwin awards
Guns are dangerous because of the cultural media message. The message that the media presents people is, 'If you own a gun, you are powerful and safe.', Which causes people to purchase them for the same reason a lot of people smoked 50 years ago. Think about how cigarettes used to be portrayed in the movies and consider how guns are portrayed in the movies. Sexy, confident and charismatic movie stars were lighting up every other scene, so of course half the population was smoking. With essentially the same marketing, why wouldn't gun ownership in America be ubiquitous? Everyone likes to feel safe and powerful. The fact that a gun makes you neither safe or powerful is moot.
Guns are particularly dangerous to sell with this message because weak minded individuals who buy into the image can hurt others with a gun quite easily, since a gun is a tool designed to wound or kill its target, where as a cigarette is largely self-damaging. I suspect that guns wouldn't be nearly the problem they are if you removed the media message.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
"...66% thought parents altering the DNA of prospective children was a bad idea..."
Unfortunately, nearly half of Americans still have no problem surgically altering the genitals of their sons in order to suit their own aesthetic and sexual preferences or to satisfy their own religious blood rituals.
A drone is just a remote controlled aircraft with a camera. I had several "drones" in the late 1980's as a teenager, for fuck's sake. Get over the knee-jerk raction equating "drone" with "terminator T-1000" and come back to sanity.
More free skeet targets.
If you want your robot back, don't send it over my airspace.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
keed to be Kreskin has steadily 4urposes *BSD is are Almost Going to continue,
51% agree with the statement: "Computers will be able to create art as well as humans."
I wonder if people realize that this requires an AI so advanced that it's indistinguishable from the human brain, with fine motor skills to match. I see this as highly unlikely.
At least, it's far less likely than controlling the weather, which is something we can do already: http://www.geoengineeringwatch...
At this point I view eugenics as nearly always bad. With most "improvement" we'll most likely reduce our diversity, and that's pretty bad.
I'm inclined to ask why that's bad. Sounds like it would solve race hate problems.
Anyway, I think the problem is likely to be the opposite. More likely that whacky people - the sort that currently name their children things like "Pilot Inspektor" and "Crime Fighter", are also the sort of people who would think it fun to opt for a green baby, one who will grow to 8 ft high, or one with four arms.
Americans do NOT fear technology, they positively LOVE technology. Americans glom-onto nearly any new high-tech shiny bauble you dangle in front of them. Generations of Americans were raised on the idea that every generation would go higher, faster, and farther, have more convenience and easier lives - all provided by technology. Americans have been raised to think they will win any war with the aid of technology. Americans actually managed to get bored by MANNED MOON LANDINGS after only the SECOND one. Americans moved from vinyl LPs to tapes, to CDs, to MP3 with no effort or resistance.
It's NOT technology that Americans fear - it's the mis-application and/or abuse and/or unanticipated side-effects that Americans fear, based upon the twin traditions of [1] fearing concentrations of power (the "political" type, not the electrical type) and [2] being skeptical of assurances from "experts", that the founders of the nation instilled into the society.
The internet is full of stupid stories claiming that most Americans are ingorant of this thing or afraid of that thing that are usually bad analysis of poorly gathered "data", or responses to poorly-worded polls, or drunk-college-kid-on-the-beach interviews - all designed to provide either click-worthy headlines or to feed confirmation bias in countries where Americans==bad.
First when they understand they can prevent their children from getting genes that e.g. code for nasty hereditary disease like cystic fibrosis.
Then more people will get on board if they believe they can get genes that reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease, caries, code for better eyesight, a stronger immune system etc.
After that I think we'll see offers for genes that code for needing less sleep, of even a cheery and sunny disposition.
And as to what people "want": that's irrelevant. To paraphrase Steve Jobs: don't ask people what they want ... they're clueless about that ... someone with good taste will have to design something ... and people will recognise it as something they wanted all along and buy it.
Americans will get used to it.
Drone are actually at this day, used to kill people in other part of the world. They were not back in then 1980's. Furthermore with the incisingly militarisation of the police in the USA, the two fears are : 1) it will make it very easy to itnroduce massive "eye in the sky" surveillance everywhere in the US 2) that the drone will not stay "passive civilian like" but acquiere first strike capabilities on US soil too.
And seeing the evolution of the no knock raid, and the surveillance society the US is building, either toward the inside or the outside (NSA), I don't think this is that an ungrounded fear.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I want my catgirl wife now!
'Designer' Drones
'Ubiquitous' Babies
or combine. Anything folded into the cause of 'good parenting', however tenuous, puts it off-limits culturally,
Drone Baby Monitor
Baby's First Drone
Marketing tags revisited,
1950s: Drone-A-Tron, Atomic Baby
1970s: 'Euro' Drones, 'Euro' Babies
1980s: Power Drones, Power Babies
1990s: My Little Drone, My Little Baby
2000s: Green Drones, Carbon Neutral Babies
2010s: 'Flava' Drones, Organic Babies
Perhaps Americans are uncomfortable these days generally. Was there an adequate control? Did Pew select a group to not ask any questions at all, just stare silently to observe for signs of fidgeting or restlessness?
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Ubiquitous babies and designer drones don's scare me.