Humans and machines Essay

The interesting feature ab bulge out discussing the interactions of gentlemans and machines is the inadequacy of address describing these interactions or the ambiguity of the connections between worldly concern and machines. What is really at the meaning of the debate is how edict should view the place of machines or non- valet de chambre sections within human society.In addition, the application of the technological utilize of non-human elements in the modern machinery of warfare exposes the problem of how valet de chambre have changed the practice of warfare starting in WWI and how it make war evolve from a human experience to an uncouth experience instead of a non-human experience. The scope of this paper is to analyze the relationships of humans and machines in general as well as in the scope of war. Discussion What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to be non-human? jibe to Casper, the human identity is non a inherent state of macrocosm, rather it is a cons tructed identity in relation to the scene that society gives it. (Casper, 1994) In fact, the recognition of human neighborly identity and the positions or functions link to it are initiationd on our interpretation of where these elements should be placed, for example, in methodicalness to understand or define several(prenominal)thing, we place it in mental boxes that modify our recognition of identity and function within society. However, Casper argues that we fire non fully justify why we assign human identities to non-human elements or vice-versa.(Casper, 1994) In order to illustrate the neediness of consistency as to what we call human or non-human, she uses the example of the fetus that is considered alive for surgery, a potential human with human qualities only when besides a non-human agent for medical research using fetal create from raw material (p. 843). Casper mentions The Actor Ne iirk Agency (ANT) movement who finds that we should do away with natural/technic al and social/cultural labels, which confuses our notions of what is human and what is not. However, this analytical symmetry interposition forgets to explain how we interpret the identities of agents and assign labels.Understanding how and why we label humans and non-humans may help diffuse the confusion over agent identities that difficulty sociologists and society so much since they cannot seem to make sense of it, for example, some people talk to their simple machine like it was a person but a car is not a person but why do some people have the need to impute their car whereas they would call their dog it? Some people would insist that animals are breathing beings therefore that they deserve to be referred to as he or she.(Casper, 1994) other example in our technological society is the factory worker who gets fixed off and replaced by a robot. The worker knows that he or she is get around than a robot. Yet, the robot does his or her job consistently, faster, and withou t breaks. So, is the worker a in advance(p) robot or is the robot a sophisticated worker? Bruno Latour would learn on that ambiguity because of our inadequate handling of situations in which non-human entities are involved with human agents, peculiarly from the perspective of sociologists.(Latour, 1988) Latour deals with this debate skillfully using an good example to make his points the entry in a wall, opening and closing give thanks to hinges (non-human element) and a human brink keeper who has been assigned to close the door each time it is opened. He argues that the hinge always does its work, slender and consistent while at some time, the human doorkeeper may falter. So, the door keeper could be replaced by a non-human element the door keeper number 2 to prevent the faltering.The fact that we call the non-human element the door keeper even though it is not human, shows that we do not have ascribed what Latour calls a coherent vocabulary to distinguish humans from non -humans. Thus, his stopping point (p. 310) is that the reason why we have not done that is because the delegation of competences and our social interactions imply the government agencyicipation of non-humans. The confusion is that non-humans exist within a context of figurative/non-figurative speech, not a human/non-human context.In essence, that is why we anthropomorphize our car. (Latour, 1988) Consequently, it seems that our lives are intimately intertwined with the use of technology, machines, and other tools, including robots as well as data processors that all are non-human agents indispensable to our way of life. In fact, one busy illustration of such a reasonable conclusion can be found with computer hackers who, for the most part, are not considered part of standard functioning society. Sherry Turckle investigated MIT A. I. lab students who also are considered hackers.The main recurring persuasion among these students (almost exclusively male) is the fear of social interactions with other people due to a lack of trust or understanding of social interactions. Hackers are know to be loners and self-admittedly feel in control of their computer and its actions. In fact, on p. 212, this one student states computers have compel an extension of my mind. (Turckle, ) Their self-esteem, their existence become defined only through their medium, resulting in a gradual extermination of life experiences that paralyze them, adding to their needs to mask their personal fears of the world that exists beyond their machine.(p. 208) In contrast, there are people who even today cannot use a computer because they are afraid of revealing to others their lack of computer knowledge that has become essential in our modern society. Some may get help to improve their computer skills whereas others become so dotty with the machine, taking their anger, originating from their own lack of confidence in learning bare-assed things, onto this stupid machine some may even become technophobic. alas for our society, science and technology have been used for warfare. Historically, wars always needed expediency in their methods of cleansing.As a consequence, the development of technology became a part of warfare while its propaganda glorified science and technology as the agents of victory. (Virillio, 1988) (Delanda, ) This became especially true as scientific knowledge evolved in physics, engineering, and chemistry. When WWI broke out in 1914, the weapons available then were the first of their kinds, the most inhuman of their kinds, killing many soldiers remotely either gassing soldiers with the deadly gas phosgene or using machine guns or canons with an extended range to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible.(Visvanathan, ) In WWII, planes, tanks, and ships became more than and more sophisticated with technological advances like radar and sonar. The advent of using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki horrified the scientists who naively bel ieved that their work would be used to deter, not to destroy. (Kaempffert, 1941) blue Man and Little Boy were dropped on these two Japanese cities ironically, these two deadly bombs were named as if they were human themselves.To the Japanese, the nuclear catastrophe and its aftermath on the population promoted the creation of the character Godzilla, a pre-historic mutant monster. With the Cold War, more weapons gradually became stealth weapons instead of front weapons. Nowadays, machines have turned into non-human extensions of their makers or rather their military masters, for example, long-range surveying equipment on satellites allowing spying activities on neighboring nations.Yet, is it appropriate to say non-human when modern weapons like continental missiles can kill so horribly and from the comfort of a military base on the other side of the world? The military is relying on technology more than ever by using computers, artificial intelligence research, air modules that mim ic a battlefield or even war picture show games whose graphics have been rendered so life-like that film gamers who are soldiers may not know reality from fiction, killing enemy soldiers without any care, as if they were video game characters, non-human or human?In conclusion, the relationship between human and non-human agents is complex but not impossible to characterize if the realization is made that non-human agents are part of our environment and society. In fact, they occupy a greater place today than 10 years ago (computer technology, for example). The key to their seamless integration in our society is the figure/non-figurative reference style proposed by Latour as it is already used unconsciously by many of us.References Casper, M. (1994).Reframing and creation non-human agency what makes a fetus an agent? The American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6) 839-856. Delanda, Latour, B. (1988). change integrity humans and non-humans together the sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3) 298-310. Kaempffert, W. (1941). War and Technology. The American journal of Sociology, 46(4) 431-444. Turckle, S. (n. d. ) The new computer cultures the mechanization of the mind. Book? , publisher, year? Virillio, P. (1988). War and Cinema. Visvanathan.