Re: Laws of Robotics, was Jury Finds Guilty of Homicide in Stillbirth.
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Mon May 28 11:00:27 2001
Joe -
so THAT'S what that is! and all this time i thought it was cauliflower.
one never knows do one?
art
At Mon, 28 May 2001, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 5/28/01 9:39:44 AM, wilsonk@gtn.on.ca writes:
>
><< However, it frightens me that women could be
>incarcerated to "guarantee" the well-being of their children. What will
>become the
>"standard of care" which they cannot violate without fear of incarceration?
>It's
>pretty clear that crack is beyond the pale, but do we also lock up women who
>smoke
>tobacco while pregnant? Drink alcohol? Have more than one sexual partner?
>Refuse
>ultrasound? Don't take their multivitamins? Don't wear a seatbelt? Ride a
>rollercoaster or go horseback riding? >>
>
>You know, discussions of this type make me harken back to Issac Asimov's
>Three Laws of Robotics:
>1. A robot must never harm a human being, either by action or thru inaction.
>2. A robot must always obey human commands, except if they violate Law #1.
>3. A robot must never allow itself to come to harm, except if this violates
>Laws #1 or #2.
>
>There is, to my wandering and disordered mind at least, a striking similarity
>to our "government" (however you envision it... the courts? the legislature?
>the "system"?) and the robots. That is, robots were made BY humans, obviously
>FOR humans - to make life easier, etc. And so was government. So look at
>where we are with that...
>
>One short story Asimov wrote was sort of a reductio ad absurdum of the role
>of the robot, where the robots generally, all pervasive and "one in every
>garage" sort of thing, actually followed Law #1 TO THE LIMIT. They wouldn't
>let children swing on swing sets, lest they fall and injure themselves. They
>would't let the lady of the house cook, lest she burn herself. Etc. etc. etc.
>And isn't that sort of how the US Government, at least, has gotten? They put
>warning labels on hot things (irons, stoves, etc) saying you shouldn't touch
>them because they're... well, they're HOT! They take objects off the market
>because they have points on them and "you could put your eye out." Basically,
>they act like humans are stupid and incompetent, and must be protected from
>themselves. The parallel is very amusing to me, since I used to read robot
>stories and was obviously pretty impressed by them, to remember this stuff...
>
>Hi ho!
>
>Joe P.
>
>P.S. Of course, the corollary is: Left to their own devices, humans, at least
>SOME humans, ARE pretty damn stupid. Cocaine? Drunk driving? Group sex?
>Twinkies for dinner? I mean, how stupid can you be and still have a brain?!?
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
|
|
