7 ms·

The Ethics of Biologically Enhancing Soldiers

33 points by digisth 14y ago

alexvay 14y ago
Why such an article on such a topic start with torture is beyond me. The question we should be asking, I think, is when (the "how" is no longer relevant now is it) we start engineering humans, how we avoid the situation that has been "documented" in every post-apocalyptic sci-fi where a superior species arrives (or created) and wipes out the weaker, non-engineered humans? I am far less concerned with philosophical question, such as whether a person engineering to be the smartest would be smart on his own right; would a person engineered to be the strongest & fastest be a successful athlete in his own right, or is it simply an unfair inter-species competition which is no different than pitting a disabled person vs. a healthy one; etc.
- Lockyy 14y ago
  Was this issue with atheletes not debated recently in the London Olympics with the man who had a blade replacement for a leg who was allowed to compete with non-augmented athletes? I don't want to get into whether I think letting him compete against regular athletes was a good idea or not for that specific event. However I think there needs to be care because where is the line drawn? How advanced do his blades need to become before it's just not fair any longer?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    > the man who had a blade replacement for a leg Oscar Pistorius. He's a multiple gold medal winning Olympic athlete. He has two blades. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius)
politician 14y ago
Given our historically poor treatment of veterans, my main concern with biological augmentations is what happens to the hosts after they leave active service.
DanielBMarkham 14y ago
Telepresence, at least in terms of overall kinetic impact, is going to easily trump bioenhancements. In other words, it's not the bio-engineered solider with the special enhancements that should concern thinkers. It's the remotely-controlled soldier of 2050 operated from thousands of miles away. Our bio-enhanced guy will be sitting in a Starbucks in Deluth slurping down a double-latte, not marching off to war somewhere. As robotics takes off in 20-40 years, we're going to see a very real division between countries that can field robotic armies and countries that cannot. All the engineering the world isn't going to make a human emit less infrared radiation, or stop having the electrical signals that form a heartbeat. The history of warfare is just as this article indicates: a tool-using species coming up with more and more efficient ways to slaughter each other. Robotics offers the ultimate tools in this area: targeted lethality, impervious to human frailties, and an Information Age cleverness. They'll make chemical and biological weapons -- and enhanced ground pounders -- look like a day in the park. You really don't want to be a freedom fighter in the year 2050. Or piss off a major world power.
- kiba 14y ago
  Telepresence, at least in terms of overall kinetic impact, is going to easily trump bioenhancements. Combat AI makes much more sense, since they can react faster than a human sitting behind a computer separated by a further thousand miles away. The latency will add up, and reaction speed is going to be a decisive factors between combat robots. Telepresence might makes much more sense if you can decide on a slower time frame such as strategic or tactical decisions but those will be increasingly be made by the AIs or the humans near them.
  - DanielBMarkham 14y ago
    Agreed. I generalized, but you are entirely correct. You can't beat the speed of light, or the time it takes nerve impulses to fire Especially once we see armed robots facing other robots, the people will quickly be shuffled out of the mix. Having said that, my bet is that telepresence still rules to some degree. What you'll see is more strategic control. Just like with HFT, the tactical stuff will simply happen too quickly for meat bags. It'll be interesting if we start seeing a "war of missiles" for land forces like we've seen play out in the skies. Ground-to-ground anti-robotic ordinance shouldn't be too difficult to produce. It would have a much different signature than other forms of ordinance. If the pattern holds, this would lead to stealth robots, which would be a very interesting development. Hoards of invisible, lethal, ground-based intelligent robots is a pretty freaking scary scenario.
tokenadult 14y ago
Today's submission, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-than-human-the-ethics-of-biologically-enhancing-soldiers/253217/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-t... is an older article (February 2012) from the same author as http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-human-enhancement-turn-soldiers-into-weapons-that-violate-international-law-yes/266732/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-... (4 January 2013), submitted to HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5010370 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5010370 with a confusing altered title.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
You know the thing about majoring on the minors? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for intellectual pondering of almost any question, but let's not forget that before dealing with the ethics of enhancing soldiers, we might also need to consider the ethics of using them at all.
- gnosis 14y ago
  Yes. I see war as just about the ultimate unethical human activity. The (non)ethics of enhancing soldiers and using robots pale in comparison to the (non)ethics of participating in warfare and weapon design and manufacture in the first place.
jpxxx 14y ago
Yes, these are fascinating new ethical questions. watching legions of homeless, mentally ill vets mill on the street below
johnnyg 14y ago
From where I sit, those "primitive" IEDs seem to be giving America and allies all we can handle in Iraq and Afganistan... I get that technology is changing the world, and that drones HAVE changed the battle field already, but on balance it seems well known that one day we'll walk out of both of those countries either having lost or fought to a draw - how ever you want to spin it. I don't see how an action shot of a solider leaping with metal assisted legs, never sleeping and eating grass will change that.
PeterisP 14y ago
Ethics is a luxury for limited wars where you can't fundamentally lose anyway - where if you start losing, you can pack up and go home like in Vietnam, and BAM - no more deaths for you. However, if a total loss (say, genocide of your people) is a possibility (as in parts of WW2 or the cold war mutually assured destruction) then the ends may justify the means. Quite a lot of means.
evincarofautumn 14y ago
“our absurd frailty” This framing devalues much of the content of the article. We are not frail.
ISL 14y ago
This Nature Future immediately came to mind: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/491488a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/491488a...
greggman 14y ago
Forcing modifications on a soldier is arguably ethically questionable but if these types of enhancements turn out to be safe enough (for some level of safe) then I and many others will voluntarily enhance ourselves. I would like the gene that let's me eat without getting fat. I don't want to eat more. I just want to enjoy food. Needing less sleep sounds awesome. I enjoy sleep but I could mostly skip the unconscious part. Would like to keep the dreams though honestly I hardly have any. Stronger or more alert sound like awesome enhancements. Telepathy is already here. It's called a cell phone with wireless headset.

33 points by digisth 14y ago

Why such an article on such a topic start with torture is beyond me. The question we should be asking, I think, is when (the "how" is no longer relevant now is it) we start engineering humans, how we avoid the situation that has been "documented" in every post-apocalyptic sci-fi where a superior species arrives (or created) and wipes out the weaker, non-engineered humans? I am far less concerned with philosophical question, such as whether a person engineering to be the smartest would be smart on his own right; would a person engineered to be the strongest & fastest be a successful athlete in his own right, or is it simply an unfair inter-species competition which is no different than pitting a disabled person vs. a healthy one; etc.

Lockyy 14y ago
Was this issue with atheletes not debated recently in the London Olympics with the man who had a blade replacement for a leg who was allowed to compete with non-augmented athletes? I don't want to get into whether I think letting him compete against regular athletes was a good idea or not for that specific event. However I think there needs to be care because where is the line drawn? How advanced do his blades need to become before it's just not fair any longer?
- DanBC 14y ago
  > the man who had a blade replacement for a leg Oscar Pistorius. He's a multiple gold medal winning Olympic athlete. He has two blades. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius)

politician 14y ago

Given our historically poor treatment of veterans, my main concern with biological augmentations is what happens to the hosts after they leave active service.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

Telepresence, at least in terms of overall kinetic impact, is going to easily trump bioenhancements. In other words, it's not the bio-engineered solider with the special enhancements that should concern thinkers. It's the remotely-controlled soldier of 2050 operated from thousands of miles away. Our bio-enhanced guy will be sitting in a Starbucks in Deluth slurping down a double-latte, not marching off to war somewhere. As robotics takes off in 20-40 years, we're going to see a very real division between countries that can field robotic armies and countries that cannot. All the engineering the world isn't going to make a human emit less infrared radiation, or stop having the electrical signals that form a heartbeat. The history of warfare is just as this article indicates: a tool-using species coming up with more and more efficient ways to slaughter each other. Robotics offers the ultimate tools in this area: targeted lethality, impervious to human frailties, and an Information Age cleverness. They'll make chemical and biological weapons -- and enhanced ground pounders -- look like a day in the park. You really don't want to be a freedom fighter in the year 2050. Or piss off a major world power.

kiba 14y ago
Telepresence, at least in terms of overall kinetic impact, is going to easily trump bioenhancements. Combat AI makes much more sense, since they can react faster than a human sitting behind a computer separated by a further thousand miles away. The latency will add up, and reaction speed is going to be a decisive factors between combat robots. Telepresence might makes much more sense if you can decide on a slower time frame such as strategic or tactical decisions but those will be increasingly be made by the AIs or the humans near them.
- DanielBMarkham 14y ago
  Agreed. I generalized, but you are entirely correct. You can't beat the speed of light, or the time it takes nerve impulses to fire Especially once we see armed robots facing other robots, the people will quickly be shuffled out of the mix. Having said that, my bet is that telepresence still rules to some degree. What you'll see is more strategic control. Just like with HFT, the tactical stuff will simply happen too quickly for meat bags. It'll be interesting if we start seeing a "war of missiles" for land forces like we've seen play out in the skies. Ground-to-ground anti-robotic ordinance shouldn't be too difficult to produce. It would have a much different signature than other forms of ordinance. If the pattern holds, this would lead to stealth robots, which would be a very interesting development. Hoards of invisible, lethal, ground-based intelligent robots is a pretty freaking scary scenario.

tokenadult 14y ago

Today's submission, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-than-human-the-ethics-of-biologically-enhancing-soldiers/253217/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-t... is an older article (February 2012) from the same author as http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-human-enhancement-turn-soldiers-into-weapons-that-violate-international-law-yes/266732/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-... (4 January 2013), submitted to HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5010370 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5010370 with a confusing altered title.

jamesaguilar 14y ago

You know the thing about majoring on the minors? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for intellectual pondering of almost any question, but let's not forget that before dealing with the ethics of enhancing soldiers, we might also need to consider the ethics of using them at all.

gnosis 14y ago
Yes. I see war as just about the ultimate unethical human activity. The (non)ethics of enhancing soldiers and using robots pale in comparison to the (non)ethics of participating in warfare and weapon design and manufacture in the first place.

jpxxx 14y ago

Yes, these are fascinating new ethical questions. watching legions of homeless, mentally ill vets mill on the street below

johnnyg 14y ago

From where I sit, those "primitive" IEDs seem to be giving America and allies all we can handle in Iraq and Afganistan... I get that technology is changing the world, and that drones HAVE changed the battle field already, but on balance it seems well known that one day we'll walk out of both of those countries either having lost or fought to a draw - how ever you want to spin it. I don't see how an action shot of a solider leaping with metal assisted legs, never sleeping and eating grass will change that.

PeterisP 14y ago

Ethics is a luxury for limited wars where you can't fundamentally lose anyway - where if you start losing, you can pack up and go home like in Vietnam, and BAM - no more deaths for you. However, if a total loss (say, genocide of your people) is a possibility (as in parts of WW2 or the cold war mutually assured destruction) then the ends may justify the means. Quite a lot of means.

evincarofautumn 14y ago

“our absurd frailty” This framing devalues much of the content of the article. We are not frail.

ISL 14y ago

This Nature Future immediately came to mind: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/491488a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/491488a...

greggman 14y ago

Forcing modifications on a soldier is arguably ethically questionable but if these types of enhancements turn out to be safe enough (for some level of safe) then I and many others will voluntarily enhance ourselves. I would like the gene that let's me eat without getting fat. I don't want to eat more. I just want to enjoy food. Needing less sleep sounds awesome. I enjoy sleep but I could mostly skip the unconscious part. Would like to keep the dreams though honestly I hardly have any. Stronger or more alert sound like awesome enhancements. Telepathy is already here. It's called a cell phone with wireless headset.