ROBOTS AS FROM ISAAC ASIMOV.
The following is an excerpt taken from the site<url>
http://info.rutgers.edu/Library/Reference/Etext/Impact.of.Science.On.Society.hd/3/5</url>here Isaac answers to a question given below.
Notice how relevent he is,even today.
Question: The first book of yours that I read was I, Robot. In
your opinion, how close are we today to the world you described in
that book?
Answer: Although the book was written in 1939, those robots were very
intelligent and human-like in their capacity. As yet, the robots we
use today are merely computerized arms that can do one specialized
job. So, we're not very close, but we're heading in the right
direction. Although I have never done any work on robots and know
almost nothing about the nuts and bolts, I think that I came close
enough that I am almost the patron saint of robotics. Most of the
people who work in robotics obtained at least some of their early
interest in the field by reading my books. I was the first person to
use the word robotics, and I spoke of the Handbook of Robotic, from
which I quoted my three laws. I said they were from the 56th edition,
in 2058 A.D. Now someone is actually in the process of putting out the
first edition of that book, and they've asked me to write the
introduction. I guess the people who are working in robotics see
themselves moving toward the world I described 40 years ago, and I'm
willing to accept their judgment.
Question: Why do you restrict yourself to looking for Earth-like
planets in the search for technological civilizations, why not
Jupiter-like planets, for instance, or Pluto-like planets?
Answer: If we assume that there can be life even under widely varying
conditions, we make the problem perhaps a little too easy. There is
also the chance that life evolving under such conditions might be so
different from human life in very basic ways that we will not be able
to detect it or to understand that it is a technological civilization
even if we encounter it. As our information and knowledge grow, we
might be able to widen our view to recognize life and civilization of
widely different kinds. But to start with, acknowledging our own
limitations and the fact that we know so little, we are looking for
technological civilizations sufficiently like our own to be perhaps
recognizable. So at the start, but not necessarily forever, we
restrict ourselves to Earthlike planets.
Question: Do you think, because our bodies are fragile and we have
limited life spans, that what we now know as humanity would ever be
replaced by inorganic intelligence?
Answer: I believe that computers have a kind of intelligence which is
extremely different from our own. The computer can do things that we
are particularly ill adapted to do. Humans don't handle rapid
intricate calculations very well, and it's good to have computers do
them. On the other hand, we have the capacity for insight, intuition,
fantasy, imagination, and creativity, which we can't program into our
computers, and it is perhaps not even advisable to try because we do
it so well ourselves. I visualize a future in which we will have both
kinds of intelligence working in cooperation, in a symbiotic
relationship, moving forward faster than either could separately. The
fact that we are so fragile and short lived is an advantage in my way
of thinking. In Robots of Dawn, I compare two civilizations; one is
our own in which people are short lived, and the other is that of our
descendants in which they are long lived. I point out the disadvantage
to the species as a whole of being long lived. I won't repeat the
arguments, because if I don't you may storm the bookstores out of
sheer curiosity to see what I've said.
Question: One of the great themes of science fiction is the settlement
of other planets. Is there any place in this solar system or nearby
that might be habitable?
Answer: As far as we know, there is no worid in our solar system that
is habitable by human beings without some form of artificial help. The
Moon and Mars, which come the closest to being tolerable, will require
us to build underground cities or dome cities, and if we venture on
the surface, we will have to wear space suits. This is not to say that
it will not be possible someday to terraform such worlds and to make
them habitable; but I honestly don't know if it will be worth it for
us to do so. As to planets circling other stars, we do not really know
of such planets in detail. We suspect their existence, and we figure
statistically that a certain number of them ought to be habitable, but
we have yet to observe any evidence of such a thing. It is still very
much in the realm of speculation.
Question: You made the analogy between the migration from Europe at
the turn of the century and possible future migrations to space
stations and other planets. It has been shown that as a result of our
technology, people in this country are taller, heavier, better built,
and able to set new records in endurance and physical capabilities.
Would you speculate about the effect that living in space stations
might have on the human body and its evolutionary potential?
Answer: It is hard to tell. I suspect that people will make the
environment of these space settlements as close to that of Earth as
possible. But in one respect, they will have problems; there is no way
that they can imitate Earth's gravitational field. They can produce a
substitute by making the space settlement rotate, so that the
centrifugal effect will force you against the inner surface and mimic
the effects of gravity. But it won't be a perfect imitation; there
won't be a Coriolis effect and, also as you approach the axes of
rotation, the gravitational effect will become weaker. The people who
will live in a space settlement will be exposed to variations in the
gravitational effect far greater than any you can possibly feel on the
surface of the Earth. This may give rise to all sorts of physiological
changes in human beings. I don't know what they will be; we can't know
until we actually try living in space. So far, people have been
subjected to essentially zero gravity for as long as 7 months at a
time without apparently permanent ill effects. But human beings have
never been born at zero gravity or under varying gravitational
conditions; they have never developed and grown up under such
conditions, and we can't be sure what the effects will be. From an
optimistic standpoint, I suppose that under such conditions human
beings will develop a greater tolerance of gravitational effects than
they now possess. This will further prepare them for life in the
universe, whereas we ourselves have been specifically evolved and
conditioned for life in one very specialized place in the galaxy. The
overall effect may be to strengthen the human species; at least, I'd
like to think so. The future will tell us if that is so.
Question: In your opinion, when will there be solar power stations in
orbit and manned ventures to Mars, considering the technological leaps
with the Space Shuttle and the Soviet's Salyut space stations?
Answer: It is hard to say when solar power stations in space will be
developed. It's up to the human governments that control the money and
the manpower. If we begin to cooperate and make a wholesale attempt,
we could have solar power stations in space before the 21st century
was very old. In other words, someone as young as the person who asked
me this question, may see space stations by the time he is
middle-aged. But on the other hand, if we choose not to do it, then we
may never have these stations in space. The choice is ours. We can
choose to develop space or we can choose world destruction. I'm at a
loss to state in words how desirable the first alternative is and how
likely the second alternative is.
Question: What kind of timetable do you envision for humanity's
exploration of space, and what good or harm do you think is done by
prospace groups?
Answer: Well, we can't expect things to happen too quickly. The
region that we now call the United States was being settled for nearly
two centuries before this country came into existence. We've
celebrated our bicentennial as a nation, but in a little over 20 years
we're going to have to celebrate the tetracentennial of our existence
as a community on American soil, from the establishment of Jamestown
in 1607. If it took nearly two centuries to settle the United States
to nationhood, it might take that long to establish a space community
strong enough to be independent of the Earth. On the other hand,
things move more quickly now; we're more advanced. It may take less
than a century to do so if we really try hard. As for the effects that
prospace organizations might have, I'm not a sociologist so I just
don't know. I'm in favor of prospace organizations doing their best to
persuade human beings to support space exploration. I don't know how
that can be bad.
Question: Assuming that we do not annihilate ourselves, what is your
view of how life on Earth will evolve, both humans and other life
forms?
Answer: You must understand that evolution naturally is a very slow
process and human beings can well live for 100,000 years without many
serious changes. On the other hand, we are now developing methods of
genetic engineering which will, perhaps, be able to wipe out certain
inborn diseases, or correct them and improve various aspects of the
human condition. I don't know how we will develop or what we will
choose to do; it's impossible to predict.
Question: How long do you think it will be before people live in outer
space?
Answer: That's entirely up to us. In a way, we've had people living in
outer space already, ever since the first Russian cosmonaut spent 1
1/2 hours in space. We have now had people living in outer space for 7
months at a time; in fact, one Soviet cosmonaut lived in outer space
for 12 months over a period of 18 months. So we've had people living
in outer space already, and I'm sure we'll have more and more of them
for longer and loner periods of time.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985Ñ470-563
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Burke, James, 1936-
The impact of science on society.
(NASA SP; 482)
Series of lectures given at a public lecture series sponsored by NASA
and the College of William and Mary in 1983.
l. Science - Social aspects - Addresses, essays, lectures. 1. Bergman,
Jules. II. Asimov, Isaac, 1920- . III. United States. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. IV. College of William and
Mary. V. Title. VI. Series.
Q175.55.B88 1985
303.4'83 84-14159
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Washington, D.C. 20402
Science and technology have had a major impact on society, and their
impact is growing. By drastically changing our means of communication,
the way we work, our housing, clothes, and food, our methods of
transportation, and, indeed, even the length and quality of life
itself, science has generated changes in the moral values and basic
philosophies of mankind.
Beginning with the plow, science has changed how we live and what we
believe. By making life easier, science has given man the chance to
pursue societal concerns such as ethics, aesthetics, education, and
justice; to create cultures; and to improve human conditions. But it
has also placed us in the unique position of being able to destroy
ourselves.
To celebrate the 25th anniversary of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) in 1983, NASA and The College of William
and Mary jointly sponsored a series of public lectures on the impact
of science on society. These lectures were delivered by British
historian James Burke, ABC TV science editor and reporter Jules
Bergman, and scientist and science fiction writer Dr. Isaac Asimov.
These authorities covered the impact of science on society from the
time of man's first significant scientific invention to that of
expected future scientific advances. The papers are edited transcripts
of these speeches. Since the talks were genera!ly given
extemporaneously, the papers are necessarily informal and may,
therefore, differ in style from the authors' more formal works.
As the included audience questions illustrate, the topic raises
far-reaching issues and concerns serious aspects of our lives and
future.
Donald P. Hearth
Former Director
NASA Langley Research Center
bye!