Terminator?

[RedFish]

I have a fascination with implements of destruction. I've read recently of new autonomous battlefield robots capable of harvesting organic matter to repair and sustain themselves. We are reassured by their creators that they will only harvest plants.
Now, plants do really well on a battlefield, don't they? The grainy images of the Somme depict only too well the ability of trees etc. to withstand artillery bombardment and trench warfare.
The Iraqi desert is blooming, no? The high mountains of afghanistan are full of plants, trees and fields of grasses(some are eh?).
I can't help but think there is a 'terror' aspect to these weapons, and that in practice 100lbs of dead flesh on a battlefield is going to be a lot easier/more efficient to source than a tree.
Anyone? Moral and philosophical implications?

[leo-rcc]

As a roboteer I'd like to hear more of these machines. Do they run on all kinds of plantlife, and can they work on plant material like wood? Because wood is most of the times not hard to find on battlefields.

I've visited Bastogne about 2 years ago now. There is also a permanent exhibit there that shows models of the terrain of Bastogne during the siege. Even though the rim of the woods had trees that had more of a resemblance of telephone poles then trees, only 50 to 100 meters behind those there were thick forests with lots of green. Animals, now that was a different story. Most animals had the good sense to get the hell out of there lest they be eaten by soldiers or killed by artillery.

In deserts, most common is the dry grass type vegetation, shrubs, Cacti, and surprisingly a lot of bristle-bush (I've seen amazing amounts of them). I was in a desert several times and it is not all sand and nothing else, which was kind of what I expected it to be in deserts (part of me was a bit disappointed really). I was told when you get further inland the amount of vegetation declines, but battles were never fought there. Even in WW2 the Afrika Korps with Rommel and the Desert Rats with Montgomery never ventured further inland then 100km. Practically all battles followed the coast lines within 20-30km.

[RedFish]

observers.france24.com/en/content/20090720-military-man-eating-robots-soon-loose-eatr-vegetarian
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/ro...-rules-war
http://www.robotictechnologyinc.com/imag...y%2009.pdf

I'm leaning towards the sensationalists here, I've seen Terminator... The problem I foresee is the lack of any other source leading to deliberate or accidental scavenging of corpses for fuel. Of course the manufacturers are going to tell us that won't happen, but surely that's just down to programming? I'm not a roboteer.
And the idea of autonomous battlefield robots in general. At least 'drones' have a human behind the gamepad.
Are we really heading towards a human/ no-human war? I know where my sympathy would be, regardless of right and wrong.(< as the cause of the conflict)
Think the techno's great by the way, would love a Cyclone for my bike.

[Violet]

Humans will never be entirely out of direct combat in wars (especially 'ground' wars)... but that is not to say large portions of the "war machine" (if you will) will not be replaced by much more efficient nonhuman systems (see computers, engines, guns, explosives, anything that you see in 'modern' armies that are not human, and more). We're simply too efficient and effective of an available resource to not use. And even if, for argument's sake, we are not directly incorporated into armies... it is quite easy for us to improvise our own weapons (or to use those granted(?) us by evolution), so it is not as if our not being officially in wars directly has much basis on wether we are in them or not.

Regarding the 'moral' implications behind a (possibly) corpse eating machine: what of it? Why would doing anything at all to a corpse be notable morally?

[leo-rcc]

I'd also like to point out that humans have been known to eat other humans for survival, even outside war.

Autonomy does not mean that humans do not make decisions on what the robot does, it only means it has some degree of problem solving it can do itself without human intervention. There is always a chain of command, even if the lower rank is mechanical, it still takes orders from a higher ranked human.

Besides that, I would have to get some data on this, but I would not be surprised that pound for pound there is more energy to be gained from plantlike material then from animal material since animals tend to get their energy secondhand from vegetation or third hand from other animals that eat vegetation. Efficiency is also a major factor in this.

[RedFish]

But surely the aim of the advancement towards full autonomy in battlefield robots is to remove at least one side from the 'meat grinder' end? Hopefully 'ours'. That's my understanding anyway.
I thought some bright spark had seen the films, and realised what effect the sight of a 'mindless' killing machine tucking into the corpses of its defeated foes would do for an enemys morale....'We kill you, we eat you, we kill you some more.' I'd probly p*** my pants. Public opinion also fights wars, how would a nation which uses corpse-fuelled robots to fight its battles appear to the rest of the world.? Self-sustaining, turn-em-loose and forget 'em machines to kill and dispose of all in its' 'program'.
Think flesh gives a better energy return, although harder to deal with/digest. Survival is also a major factor. Hunger narrows options.

[fr0d0]

Regarding the 'moral' implications behind a (possibly) corpse eating machine: what of it? Why would doing anything at all to a corpse be notable morally?

It does exist. There's just outcry about the 'immorality' of it. So you wouldn't mind the love of your life being devoured by a machine to fuel it's killing? People always personalise issues.

[Violet]

Regarding the 'moral' implications behind a (possibly) corpse eating machine: what of it? Why would doing anything at all to a corpse be notable morally?

It does exist. There's just outcry about the 'immorality' of it. So you wouldn't mind the love of your life being devoured by a machine to fuel it's killing? People always personalise issues.

Not if the love of my life was already dead, no. I love him for his personality, not his body

---

But surely the aim of the advancement towards full autonomy in battlefield robots is to remove at least one side from the 'meat grinder' end? Hopefully 'ours'. That's my understanding anyway.

That sort of advancement is multifaceted... but ultimately the value on persons in a society is decided upon by the society. Some societies don't give a rat's left ankle about their human population (as they have so many of them, eg. China).

I thought some bright spark had seen the films, and realised what effect the sight of a 'mindless' killing machine tucking into the corpses of its defeated foes would do for an enemys morale....'We kill you, we eat you, we kill you some more.' I'd probly p*** my pants. Public opinion also fights wars, how would a nation which uses corpse-fuelled robots to fight its battles appear to the rest of the world.? Self-sustaining, turn-em-loose and forget 'em machines to kill and dispose of all in its' 'program'.
Think flesh gives a better energy return, although harder to deal with/digest. Survival is also a major factor. Hunger narrows options.

How about tanks large enough to trample over 2 story buildings with little-no difficulty? Somehow I'm more frightened of the tanks. "Self sufficient" robotic troops simply isn't as efficient in wartime as other technologies. And even if it were (for the sake of argument) more efficient, that still does not detract from the efficiency of humans behind the technology.

[RedFish]

Can't argue with that.... But what if the devourer was also the killer?
I do have to admit, though, if both sides used robots and nothing else, and battles took place on neutral ground, with pre-determined rules of engagement accepted by both sides, and televised...with the results binding to whatever government, group or private sponsor took part....mmm...I'd buy that for a dollar.
Agree about tanks. Scary. But a human behind the controls. The unmanned 'drones' used today have a chain of human overseers who have to follow strict procedures before engagement. I see this as some attempt to proof against mistakes. Do we turn target acquisition over to auto? I think it would be a mistake. We may become targets ourselves.
Yes we are efficient in war. To our shame. Check this out..
youtube.com/watch?v=V2004nrHxa0&feature=related

[fr0d0]

Regarding the 'moral' implications behind a (possibly) corpse eating machine: what of it? Why would doing anything at all to a corpse be notable morally?

It does exist. There's just outcry about the 'immorality' of it. So you wouldn't mind the love of your life being devoured by a machine to fuel it's killing? People always personalise issues.

Not if the love of my life was already dead, no. I love him for his personality, not his body

But this machine killed him, and then it humiliated him by eating him to kill his friends...

LOL - dunno myself. People do get riled about this stuff. About the injustice of it. Why fret about murdered babies and the genocides of innocents if it doesn't matter? Clearly you and I are mutants void of emotion.