Slashdot Log In
Company Denies Its Robots Feed On the Dead
Posted by
samzenpus
on Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:55 AM
from the meat-is-murder dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Smart Robot Capable of Hunting For Its Own "Food" 191 comments
coondoggie writes "Ok, maybe this is getting a little too close to bringing Terminator-like robots to life. For starters, eco-friendly engine builder Cyclone Power this week inked a contract from Robotic Technologies, Inc. (RTI) to develop what it calls a beta biomass engine system that will be the heart of RTI's Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR). The purpose of EATR is to develop and demonstrate an autonomous robotic platform able to perform long-range, long-endurance missions without the need for manual or conventional re-fueling — in other words it needs to 'eat.' According to researchers, the EATR system gets its energy by foraging, or what the firms describe as '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 as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable.'"
We can only hope they don't team up with the Multi-Robot Pursuit System project to "search for and detect a non-cooperative human."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wording (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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wording (Score:5, Funny)
Vote for ED-209!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wording (Score:4, 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!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Wording (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
I do not think that means what you think it means (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea (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.
Parent
Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Re:Wording (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Wording (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Wording (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty poor actually. At least learn nihilism and do it right.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Maybe, we should collect our enemy's dead, and hire dr. death to plasticize them for display in a "fallen enemies" museum? (http://images.google.com/images?q=dr.%20death%20body%20art&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi) Besides, who the hell wants to sleep next to the guy that cuts the ears off of the people he kills?
Re:Wording (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Not to mention civilians. But don't worry, you can protect your family. [hulu.com]
what if it's desperate? (Score:2, Funny)
This is too bad (Score:3, 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 ;-))))
Re:This is too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea. Also... maybe the robot could stop in front of the body, play a dirge to give it a proper funeral, and then start dissecrting it into bits small enough to fit into its energ... portable cremation unit!
No disrepect of the dead at all, each and every one gets an honorable robotic funeral, and a proper cremation.
course, I doubt it would actually be a great power source, the freshly dead still have a lot of water in them and, I would think, would need to be dessicated well. Plant matter has the
Besides... (Score:2)
...the flesh eating module is a premium upgrade. Only Cyberdyne Systems is experimenting with that at the present.
Article 15... (Score:2, Funny)
Typo (Score:2)
I think there's a little typo. When they wrote Cyclone they actually meant Cylon.
soooo what you are saying... (Score:5, Funny)
Only on slashdot (Score:2, Informative)
would that be modded "interesting".
Too bad. That ship has sailed... (Score:2)
I for one welcome our flesh eatin robot overlords. (Score:2)
Never thought I'd see a post where that lame meme was apropo...
10 Modern Plagues? (Score:2)
Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In much the same sense that a cow could, in principle, eat you. It's just not terribly likely to happen outside of some contrived wood-chipper accident.
Re:Clarification (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Convenient that this thing carries a wood chipper with it, then.
"Company Denies Its Robots Feed On The Dead" (Score:2)
-- Insert Microsoft Employees Joke Here --
What a waist of time... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:4, Funny)
I made a belt buckle out of a wristwatch so I could waist time.
Parent
Re:What a waist of time... (Score:5, Funny)
I believe the creators of this robot have perfected their emergency zombie plan...
Parent
Second Variety (Score:2)
Wait til they come out with the second variety of these and they start replicating themselves.
Food preference = Fatties over Skinnies (Score:2, Funny)
Fat generates more heat, which means more energy. The time to lose weight is now!
Desecrating the dead... (Score:4, 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!
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooor should that be "digesting the dead"?
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure we can change that.
Lame (Score:2)
This thing SHOULD eat corpses. You know how much land is wasted in cemeteries and such? And how much cash in embalming and other funereal preparations? This could have saved thousands of acres and millions of dollars. Oh well, there's still a chance Japan will come through for it.
Perhaps not dead, but... (Score:3, Funny)
[My apologies to Monty Python.]
Grass clippings? (Score:5, Funny)
You damn robots! Stay off my lawn!
I relieved... (Score:3, Funny)
Well what's the bloody point then? (Score:5, 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?