Robots Nice, but No Butler-Tanks

Adam Rozenhart, The Gateway (University of Alberta)

EDMONTON (CUP)—The year 2015 is
now, and will be in the future, a significant
year for humanity. Not only will it mark
the 13th anniversary of Robert Zemeckis’
untimely demise at the hands of an errant
hoverboard prototype and the year that
Marty McFly makes his trek to a futuristic
Hill Valley in order to thwart a bank rob-
bery perpetrated by Griff Tannen—but it
is also, at least according to the predic-
tions of about 2,600 leading experts and
scientists in Japan, the year by which
robots will be doing most of our house-
hold chores.

But in spite of reports of excellent
sales of those delightful Robosapien toys,
this familiar platitude—that robots will
become the next generation of ser-
vants—is nothing more than an empty
promise, and one that we’ve all heard
before, at least in some form, since time
began in the early *40s.

Those were heady days, weren’t they?
The Allies had Hitler and his German
army on the retreat, yet we still had the
time to stand back, look at ourselves, and
say, “Soon, every living room in the world
will have a tank in it—you know, doing
laundry, watching TV, and firing 20-mil-
limetre shells at the kids when they start

 

 

acting up.”

Then, the war ended, our soldiers
returned home, and no one—not even
Truman himself—had a butler-tank to
fetch him his early-evening scotch or blow
his noisy son’s head off when guests were
over.

But humanity has entered something
of a technological renaissance. Though
we have so far been unable to actually

manufacture the Orgasmatron booths
featured in Woody Allen’s 1973 film
Sleeper, old ideas are being mixed with new
ones and scientists are coming up with
some excitingly novel human-assisting
technology.

Besides the standard MRIs, X-ray
machines, and other human-helping con-
traptions, companies like Sony have
created robot dogs capable of imitating

other canines without the mess—or love
and warmth—of the real thing. And if
you're one of those people without any
friends, Wow Wee toys created the fantas-
tic Robosapien to help fill the void. Sure,
it won’t cook you dinner or anything like
that, but it'll really annoy you after a short
while—just like real people.

Ten years is a long way from now,
though. Who am I to disagree with 2,600
leading Japanese experts and scientists,
anyhow? We probably will have house-
keeping robots cleaning up after us in
2015. And if that’s possible, then maybe
it’s also possible to build a time machine
out of a stainless-steel car, go back in
time, and stop Robert Zemeckis from rid-
ing that hoverboard prototype over—and
eventually into—that abandoned old-
folks’ home filled with rusty nails and
frayed power cords.

Or maybe it’s possible that robots are
actually really stupid and boring toys, and
while they may make children and adults
with mental disabilities clap with glee at
their stilted capering, the rest of humani-
ty is out there in the real world being
productive and hopefully trying to cook
up some kind of butler-tank prototype.

 

Science

Nels

David Suzuki,
David Suzuki

srolerererta eye!

 

Climate Science
Keeps On Ticking

If you didn’t know what the Kyoto
Protocol was all about a few weeks ago,
you'd be hard pressed not to know now.
The international agreement to reduce the
heat-trapping emissions that are causing
global warming has been all over the news
since it came into force last week.
Leading up to the big day, I expected
to hear from “both sides” of the issue in
the media—those who felt that the agree-
ment was an important first step to

March 2/2005

address a huge challenge for humanity,
and those who felt that the targets would
be too difficult to achieve in a short time-
line.

What I didn’t really expect was how
the “climate change isn’t happening”’ peo-
ple crawled out of the woodwork,
bleating about myths and conspiracy the-
ories that somehow seemed to involve
nutty left-wing scientists, government
bureaucrats, and the French.

Naively, I had assumed that this dis-
cussion was largely over, since these
people had such little credibility. But there
they were, being interviewed on televi-
sion, in newspapers, and on _ the
radio—sometimes right alongside legiti-
mate climate scientists or politicians. Over
and over, they made bizarre pronounce-
ments about how the science was
uncertain and how humanity’s hand in
global warming could not be proven.

This continued insistence on “proof”
even in the face of overwhelming evi-
dence is simply bizarre. To say that we
don’t know enough about climate change
to prompt action is to say that the entire
discipline of science, as we know it,
should not be trusted. Uncertainty is

inherent in the scientific process.

Currently, the vast majority of scientific
evidence tells us that human activities are
causing climate change and that it could
have very serious consequences if we
don’t do something about it. Of course,
the science could all be wrong—but I
wouldn’t bet our future on it.

Anyone who wants to know the real
story on the current state of climate sci-
ence should simply pick up a science
journal. Or, to cut to the chase, read a
short article by the University of
California’s Naomi Oreskes, published in
the journal Science in December. Her
analysis of all 928 peer-reviewed climate
studies published between 1993 and 2003
found that not a single one disagreed with
the general scientific consensus position
on climate change.

Yet in spite of this, and in spite of the
thousands of climate scientists who are
working directly on this issue and are very
concerned about it, from whom did we
hear as Kyoto approached? A handful of
pundits peddling warmed-over opinion
articles and half-baked interviews. Yes,
good dialogue, discussion, and debate are
vital to journalism, democracy, and sci-
ence. But they have to be informed
dialogues—not conspiracy theories. And

that is exactly what these people are serv-
ing up.

Of course, part of the problem is that
journalism is fueled by conflict, so
reporters will often dredge up a crusty
commentator to make sure a story is “bal-
anced.” That may make for great TV
drama, but it’s giving industry and politi-
cians an excuse to drag their heels on
taking action. And heel dragging is hardly
prudent in light of the science.

Our climate is a very complicated sys-
tem. We don’t know everything about
how it works, but we’re learning more
each day. What we do know tells us that,
by dumping vast quantities of emissions
into the atmosphere, we are disrupting
our climate in ways that may make it
increasingly inhospitable. The Kyoto
Protocol, by itself, won’t stop this from
happening, but it’s the first step towards
an energy economy that could.

That won't stop some people from
bleating their conspiracy theories and
claims that everything is going to be just
fine. Given how disturbing the real sci-
ence is, I sincerely wish they were right.

Take the Nature Challenge and learn
more at www.davidsuzuki.org

www.theotherpress.ca | 9