It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Invasion Of The Robots! Is It Ethical?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:40 PM
After reading up on an Infowars article about robots that can travel at speeds above 28mph on their feet, I came across additional information that the Pentagon in 2008 had requested that a company build humanoid robots for the use of quelling dissent from "Non-Compliant" humans.

This brings to mind the ethics behind using such "killing machines" in order to invade another country or to kill violent protesters in our own country here in America. Is this Ethical? It would save lives. But in return, your litterally running human beings through a meat grinder. Not much unlike the Pink Floyd video, The Wall. Which just seems wrong and disgusting to me. As well as cowardly.

Here's the article, please read it in full. I would love to know your thoughts in either support or against concerning the ethics of using autonomous machines to kill people.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:43 PM

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:44 PM
I'm not gonna lie for some reason that thing scares the crap out of me. It's unnerving. The noise too.

As I said in the other less complete thread, I don't really think that it's any more unethical than any other instrument of war.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:50 PM
reply to post by Domo1

I agree with you that there's many unethical weapons out there. But using robots like a "Terminator" just seems to be extremely unethical to me. More so than other weapons. I don't know why I feel that way. You feel the same way?

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:07 PM
I was watching this a couple of hours ago on my dumbphone and - to be honest - I was a little disappointed.

I would like to see someone apply Theo Jansen's design into a similar design.

The concept....

Article on Jansen's strandbeasts.

It would be a complex design but totally possible.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by foodstamp

I don't really feel the same way. I guess it could be said that removing actual people from a conflict on one side is sort of unethical. No risk, just destruction. Then again what makes that anymore unethical than an armored vehicle? I actually think you raised a good questions and am going to spend a few more minutes thinking about it. As it stands right now, no I do not believe it is unethical. It's still just a tool for killing.

Let's set parameters for what kind of robot we're talking about here. Is it controlled like a drone by a person? Is it making it's own choices? Those may change my opinion.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:20 PM
The question has a fault. You're asking one question while implying another, and you don't realize it.

Is it ethical? I don't know. Is it ethical for one man to use superior technology against another in battle? Was it ethical for nations with legions of archers to attack those who only utilized spears as projectiles? Is it ethical for there to be a technological imbalance in any conflict? That's the surface question you're asking. However, that's not the real question.

The truth of the matter is this: Is it ethical for a nation/country/state to utilize automatons to wage battle in place of human soldiers in order to preserve the life of their kinsmen while creating a starkly imbalanced k/d ratio when compared against the enemy.

Simply: Is it ethical for the opponents to lose human capital while human capital is not wasted on our end?

It's not ethical for a man to die for the cause of another in the first place. Point moot.


Let Darpa operate. Your children's future may be "unlimited" and "unshackled" because of it...that's my future too, and I won't let anything hinder the coming revolution of mankind's evolution. Fear of technology will not be dealt with kindly. Not by me and those like me...and we're gunning for those shadowed positions that you don't even know exist. Be kind, and support the future. Advance together, or face the consequences.

edit on 6-9-2012 by TheOneElectric because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:26 PM
I don't think that killing is the goal of such technologies.

I would be more inclined to think that these sorts of bots/drones would be used for recon' and painting targets for air strikes.

Larger versions could be used to extract soldiers and perform dangerous roles such as mine-sweeping.

As a killing machine - IMHO - it is only useful where an air strike will fail. For example, deep underground bunkers and caves.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by OccamAssassin

If only for recon, then I don't see why not. It's safer and more efficient than using humans for the job.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:32 PM
OP I think that I'm going to have to say it depends on the robot, it's capabilities and the way it's used.

Also, is that Rosie O'donnels tread mill?

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:43 PM
I don't think any killing is ethical .... And pushing a button to turn on a robot or drone or long range attacks seem somewhat cowardly.

new topics

top topics


log in