Blog Assignment 3 – Book Reflection

This entry is based on two books I have read, namely Seeds of Earth and The Orphaned Worlds which are the first two books in the science fiction trilogy Humanity’s Fire written by the Scottish author Michael Cobley.

The story takes place far into the future. In the prologue we are told that Earth has been attacked by an alien race and in one last, desperate attempt to save humanity three colonization ships were sent out into space in order to ensure our continued existence. The actual story is about one of these knew colonies and how the survivors tries to rebuild their society. The survivors aren’t alone on this new world and one of the things they will encounter is sentient machines, i.e. true artificial intelligence. 

Research in artificial intelligence is quite common today and we try to build more and more advanced robots. Although it’s a long way yet to the point where robots can be considered self conscious, I think we should ask us what we will do if we ever reach that point. Do we really want to share our planet with another intelligent species? 

Humanity’s Fire gives many examples of how different races have tackled this problem. One race shares their world with sentient machines by having a ‘chip’ inserted into their brain containing an artificial intelligence. In this way they get a mind brother or sister (they are aliens so they aren’t really divided into two different sexes) which they can communicate directly with via their thoughts. Another race has created sentient machines that are independent of their creators and are treated as just another race of intelligent beings.

I think that someday we will construct some sort of thinking computer. It’ll probably not think in the same way as we do or have the same views of things, but it’ll still make its own decisions and learn from experience. Some people think that AI research should be abandoned and Hollywood have made many movies, like Terminator, Matrix and I, Robot,  with the theme of machines taking control over humans. I’m too a bit uneasy with the idea of thinking machines. Especially when almost all things, from nuclear power plants and missile guiding systems to washing machines and cars are controlled by some kind of computer.  But on the other hand artificial intelligence may help us solve problems we can’t by thinking in whole new ways and space travel would probably fit robots much better than it does humans. Robots wouldn’t need air, water, food, warmth or protection from radiation and wouldn’t mind spending fifty years or so in a spaceship.

Today’s most intelligent robots have intelligence at the same level as a fly and are easily outmaneuvered by a cockroach when it comes to navigating through a room. But even if artificial intelligence is many years in the future some questions are worth considering today.

Some of the facts for this entry are taken from:       

Physics of the Impossible. Kaku, M. New York 2008.

More about ethical behavior in robotics can be found in:

Robot be Good. Anderson M. and Anderson S. L. Scientific American, Vol. 303, No. 4, pages 54-59; October 2010.

Blog Assignment 2 – Online Video Clip

The following discussion is based on the video clip The Story of Stuff made by Anne Leonard (available on www.storyofstuff.com)

Anne Leonard has studied environmental science at Barnard College in New York and worked for Greenpeace International for eight years. Today she drives a project with the aim to make people more aware of the problems their lifestyle causes.

The message in the video clip is that we (with we Leonard means the industrialized world in general and the US in particular) have to stop consuming so much and begin to live in a more responsible fashion. The video explains how much waste and toxic chemicals are released from the production chain and how the companies have made a system (capitalism) that will, in the end, destroy the environment. Leonard also talks about something called externalized cost with which she mean that the consumers don’t pay the actual price for the products they buy. Part of the price is always paid by the people (often in developing countries) how get there environment destroyed by things like mines, toxic waste and pollution. If factors like this would be added to the price of the products the price would be much higher.

After watching the video I must admit that, although the picture she is painting is a bit extreme and all the facts aren’t quite right^*, the problems Leonard describes are very real.

Leonard talks much about all the toxic chemicals that we use in everyday products like pillows etc. She mentions the brominated flame retardants and I can give some more examples like bisphenol-A, asbestos (which is still a common material outside Europe and the US) and acrylamide (which was used as a sealant, called Rockagill, in Hallandsåsen and are sometimes used as a retention agent in papermaking).

As a chemist I think many companies are too quick to use chemicals and materials which aren’t properly tested. In our society every advantage you can get as a company is worth fighting for and new chemicals can sometimes give you that valuable advantage over your competitors. The solution to the problem is not to abandon capitalism altogether because, let’s face it, it’s the best system we have come up with so far. A more realistic solution is to make the laws and regulations better. Especially force the developing countries to accept more strict regulations, because when a chemical becomes forbidden in Europe the companies which uses it often move their production to another part of the world where it’s accepted.  

One thing that I reacted on was Leonard’s saying “toxic in toxic out” about a production chain. This is not always true. Many harmful substances can be turned into less harmful ones with the proper treatment. I think we can’t ban all toxic chemicals (nearly all chemicals are toxic to some extant) but instead we should try to minimize the emission and pollution of them and try to recycle them.

I got the impression after I had watched the video that Leonard tried to scare her watchers a bit. This is quite typical for the US where scaring people is a common way to make people heed your message. I think this isn’t the best way to present your message to a Swedish audience.

Even though Leonard tries to scare her audience to reconsider their lifestyle I think her message is important and that all of us should think about it next time we are out buying Christmas presents.

^*See for example Los Angeles Times, Teaching 'stuff' about ecology, Margot Roosevelt, July 13, 2010.

Blog Assignment 1 - Online Article

Is it right to spy on the employees?

That is the question which will be discussed in this blog entry. The following discussion is based on the article Snooping Bosses (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1531312,00.html).

First I want to talk about the different reasons to have surveillance on the employees. The reasons are different for different types of companies. As I see it there are three main reasons for surveillance:

• ·         Large companies with a lot of people working in an office environment have the need to minimize the time the employees’ spend on non-work related things. The company can save much money if the employees focus on their work. It’s also easy for the company to discover members of teams which do less than the others.

• ·         In businesses where research and development is important, e.g. drug or defence industry, it’s essential to keep the inventions and discoveries secret until they are patented. A pharmaceutical company spend millions of euro to find new molecules which can be used in drugs and if the information would leak to rivals they could lose a lot of money.

• ·         People working for examples as doctors, police officers or teachers have a big ethical responsibility. A police officer can’t use his authority for personal gains and a doctor who makes bad decision must be stopped. The surveillance is (sort of) for the greater good.

I think all the reasons are justified to a certain degree. A company can’t pay someone who doesn’t do their work. It’s also unfair to the other employees of someone doesn’t pull one’s weight. The second reason is very important for the companies which need to use it. Nowadays the rivalry is very hard in certain types of businesses and much can depend on a new type of product. The third reason can be hard to judge because we also have to trust the work they are doing and not question all of their decisions. Sometimes a police officer has to make hard decisions which someone else who is not there has a hard time to understand. I think it’s not good with too much surveillance if it’s done because of the third reason.

One danger with increased surveillance is that some people don’t want to work at a company that have them under too much surveillance. The employees and their knowledge and ideas are very important for companies like Google. Google have made a great effort to make the company an attractive place to work (with free lunches and day care centres etc.) and thereby many of the best programmers etc. choose to work for them.  The point is that if people don’t feel comfortable with the company’s surveillance policy it’ll have a hard time to attract the most skilled persons.

The article Snooping Bosses is from the U.S and the situation are not the same in Sweden. According to a report from the Swedish Data Inspection Board (a summary can be found at http://www.datainspektionen.se/Documents/rapport-monworklife-summary.pdf) called Monitoring in Working Life (2005:3) the surveillance in Sweden was much lower around this time. For example the camera surveillance of employees in workplaces where the public doesn’t have access was “rather unusual”. The conclusion of the report is that many employers have the technical possibilities to carry out surveillance of the email and internet use but they don’t use this possibility.

In my opinion surveillance at the working place is okay to a certain degree. After all you get your salary because you are supposed to work, not looking at Facebook.