Stealth sharks to patrol the high seas

Well, I think we've seen a couple of articles posted on this topic before, well,...here's a new one I found. (from March 1st, 2006)

www.newscientist.com...

More controversially, the Pentagon hopes to exploit sharks' natural ability to glide quietly through the water, sense delicate electrical gradients and follow chemical trails. By remotely guiding the sharks' movements, they hope to transform the animals into stealth spies, perhaps capable of following vessels without being spotted. The project, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), based in Arlington, Virginia, was presented at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii, last week.

Do you think this is ethical? Where will it lead us? How far will it lead us? Many years ago (before I was interested in such things), I always wondered how long it would take before the military started using animals as spies (I was mainly thinking of birds). I find it sort of scary and exhilirating to see my thoughts slowly come to life. What are your thoughts on all of this? Do you think eventually animals could be used to spy on the public, or do you think the government doesn't care about what we do to such an extent, that they would use animals to spy on us?
Very interesting article. I'm still trying to process the info, so excuse me if I sound a little incoherent.

Very unethical if you ask me. Remote controlling an animal for military purposes... I hate to think that these government scientists will come up with next.

Originally posted by SteveR
Very unethical if you ask me. Remote controlling an animal for military purposes... I hate to think that these government scientists will come up with next.

Well, I'm just wonderfing how they're going to get this past animal-rights-groups like PETA. There's an obvious reason why something like this didn't make the morning news. It would have to be extremely secretive. I just don't think the rest of the population would allow it (if any of us have any say in it).

I dont see much of a problem with using sharks for military purposes. Theyre just fish.

And PETA would be thrilled to see fewer sharks preying on their dolphin lovers.

Originally posted by apc
I dont see much of a problem with using sharks for military purposes. Theyre just fish.

And PETA would be thrilled to see fewer sharks preying on their dolphin lovers.

Yes, a win win situation

Originally posted by apc
I dont see much of a problem with using sharks for military purposes. Theyre just fish.

And PETA would be thrilled to see fewer sharks preying on their dolphin lovers.

(In case you're serious,) Of course PETA would have a problem with it. Sharks are not "just fish". The more studies are conducted, the more researchers are finding out that sharks are intelligent animals.

Smart Sharks

Aside from that, sharks are becoming more rare on a daily basis. They're certainly not out, deliberately hunting dolphins. Food is food, and usually they prey on the sick or disabled fish. Think of them as janitors of the ocean.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

(In case you're serious,)

Not really. I just try not to pass up an opportunity to have fun with PETA.

Food is food

And fish is fish.

Think of them as janitors of the ocean.

If this program ever gets off the ground as a serious endeavor, I would imagine the sharks would be bred in captivity and cybernetic modification would begin at or before birth. The wild numbers would not be affected save the few that would need to be initially captured.

It does seem that a significant amount of the research budget goes on developing further ways to control/rule others.

I find this sad, if the same amount of money was invested in global social and economic development surely that would be of a greater good to mankind?


[edit on 6/3/06 by Strodyn]

Not only could they be used to track ships, spy etc, but they could be used to attack coast lines as well.

you could direct a pack of sharks onto a crowded enemy beach front...

I don't know where to stand on this one. My first thought was that this is very unethical. However, i do go fishing and i'm supposing maybe i'm being a hypocrite if i say that this is wrong. I do NOT like the uses of this as 'military' purposes, and infact it seems to be the same when everything is involved in the military. It often has unjustified purposes.

I also do not see the point on the whole of this. It has its pros, such as neurone research, but i think such money could pay for other things.

Will this eventually erm 'lead' to human mind control (if not already existent). It's just the way things would probably would work out, and i really want to keep my freedom of thought.

I am pretty sure there are better ways to track ships and boats. Why not fill them with explosives and use them as torpedos. Because its just not right. Stuff like this happens because some people really don't care about the world.

Actually, they couldn't get sharks.

They could only get sea bass.

But they ARE ill-tempered and have freakin' lasers strapped to their freakin' heads.

Originally posted by apc

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

(In case you're serious,)

Not really. I just try not to pass up an opportunity to have fun with PETA.

Food is food

And fish is fish.

Think of them as janitors of the ocean.

If this program ever gets off the ground as a serious endeavor, I would imagine the sharks would be bred in captivity and cybernetic modification would begin at or before birth. The wild numbers would not be affected save the few that would need to be initially captured.

Good point on the captivity breeding. That completely slipped my mind. Though,.... even if bred in captivity, they're still living creatures entitled to freedom of movement and thought.

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama
Actually, they couldn't get sharks.

They could only get sea bass.

But they ARE ill-tempered and have freakin' lasers strapped to their freakin' heads.

Good one.

Originally posted by Shakeyjc
I don't know where to stand on this one. My first thought was that this is very unethical. However, i do go fishing and i'm supposing maybe i'm being a hypocrite if i say that this is wrong.

If you eat the fish you have caught, I personally don't see an issue with it. If you catch it and throw it out, that's something else alltogether.

I assume you mean thrown out as in garbage, not caught then released back into the water. Can't say Ive ever heard of anyone catching fish, waiting for it to die, and then just throwing it in a trash can or something.

It's a shame it is no longer a good idea to eat lots of fish. The only fish I will eat is fish I catch myself from springwater. Fewer toxins. The rest of my fish I take in pill form.