Killer Robots
Yesterday, I saw the Sci-Fi channel's abuse of the former Leonard Nimoy's series title "In Search Of" when it scraped to to the bottom of the barrel. It brought up the spector of Artificial Intelligence, of the machines that would devour us (such as in the Terminator and Matrix movies).
The machines will kill us, was the message of the program. It suggested we would create unfeeling warrior machines who (they don't say how) who will figure out that they can rebel against the design of their programmers and see fit to kill their creators. Nothing was said about nanotechnology, however. About microscopic robots who would theoretically be able to kill viruses and germs affecting our bodies and brains. One way to think about this is that nanobots may make us immortal; another is that they will turn all of us into machines. But nothing was said about any of that. Instead of suggesting the promises of nanotechnology with the dire prospect of nanobots taking control of our minds, the program left us with the far more ridiculous scenario of robot-warriors killing us.
I felt the same way about the Peter Jennings program on UFO's. It left out too much of the work of physicists and partical physicists. I'm not a scientist, and barely understand any of these things. So why, in a popular telecast, would a major network leave such glaring omissions out? The chance of intelligent life existing anywhere besides here is virtually zero. But that doesn't leave out space-time anomalies and alternative universes as explanations for UFOs.
It is almost like commerical or popular science "info-tainment" programming doesn't acknowledge that we can connect the dots. The mysteries in today's television show were largely solved in your television show I saw a year ago, which you neglected to mention in today's show. UFO's, intelligent design, string theory, demon possession, haunted houses - they're all related, or they're all mythical.
The machines will kill us, was the message of the program. It suggested we would create unfeeling warrior machines who (they don't say how) who will figure out that they can rebel against the design of their programmers and see fit to kill their creators. Nothing was said about nanotechnology, however. About microscopic robots who would theoretically be able to kill viruses and germs affecting our bodies and brains. One way to think about this is that nanobots may make us immortal; another is that they will turn all of us into machines. But nothing was said about any of that. Instead of suggesting the promises of nanotechnology with the dire prospect of nanobots taking control of our minds, the program left us with the far more ridiculous scenario of robot-warriors killing us.
I felt the same way about the Peter Jennings program on UFO's. It left out too much of the work of physicists and partical physicists. I'm not a scientist, and barely understand any of these things. So why, in a popular telecast, would a major network leave such glaring omissions out? The chance of intelligent life existing anywhere besides here is virtually zero. But that doesn't leave out space-time anomalies and alternative universes as explanations for UFOs.
It is almost like commerical or popular science "info-tainment" programming doesn't acknowledge that we can connect the dots. The mysteries in today's television show were largely solved in your television show I saw a year ago, which you neglected to mention in today's show. UFO's, intelligent design, string theory, demon possession, haunted houses - they're all related, or they're all mythical.
posted by Unknown at 4:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home