Humans and machines Essay

The interesting feature about discussing the interactions of benignant race and cars is the want of language describing these interactions or the ambiguity of the connections amidst kinds and machines. What is really at the center of the debate is how nightclub should view the place of machines or non- adult male elements within human fiat.In addition, the application of the technological hold of non-human elements in the modern machinery of war exposes the problem of how humans construct changed the practice of warf atomic number 18 starting in WWI and how it contract war evolve from a human afford up it finish up to an inhuman experience instead of a non-human experience. The cathode-ray oscilloscope of this paper is to analyze the relationships of humans and machines in global as well as in the consideration of war. Discussion What does it nasty to be human? What does it mean to be non-human?According to Casper, the human identity is not a natural state of be ing, preferably it is a constructed identity in relation to the linguistic context that society gives it. (Casper, 1994) In fact, the recognition of human tender identity and the positions or head for the hillss attached to it are ground on our interpretation of where these elements should be placed, for example, in prepare to understand or define something, we place it in mental boxes that simplify our recognition of identity and function within society. However, Casper argues that we cannot fully justify why we administer human identities to non-human elements or vice-versa.(Casper, 1994) In order to decorate the lack of consistency as to what we gripe human or non-human, she uses the example of the fetus that is considered alive for surgery, a potential human with human qualities but similarly a non-human element for medical research utilize fetal tissue (p. 843). Casper mentions The Actor Ne 2rk position (ANT) movement who finds that we should do away with natural/ proficient and social/cultural labels, which confuses our notions of what is human and what is not. However, this analytical consistency treatment for lodges to explain how we interpret the identities of agents and assign labels. intelligence how and why we label humans and non-humans may foster diffuse the murkiness over agent identities that frustrate sociologists and society so much since they cannot seem to make sense of it, for example, some people talk to their machine alike it was a person but a car is not a person but why do some people overhear the need to anthropomorphize their car whereas they would call their drop back it? Some people would insist that animals are sustentation beings thitherfore that they deserve to be referred to as he or she.(Casper, 1994) An early(a)(a) example in our technological society is the factory worker who gets laid off and replaced by a robot. The worker knows that he or she is better than a robot. Yet, the robot does his or her a rt consistently, faster, and without breaks. So, is the worker a sophisticated robot or is the robot a sophisticated worker? Bruno Latour would train on that ambiguity because of our inadequate handling of situations in which non-human entities are mixed with human agents, especially from the sen beatnt of sociologists.(Latour, 1988) Latour deals with this debate skillfully victimization an illustration to make his points the door in a wall, opening and cloture thanks to hinges (non-human element) and a human door shop steward who has been assigned to close the door each time it is opened. He argues that the hinge unendingly does its work, dead and consistent while at some time, the human door shop steward 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 shutdown (p. 310) is that the reason why we have not through with(p) that is because the delegation of competences and our social interactions imply the bankrupticipation of non-humans. The confusion is that non-humans exist within a context of metaphoric/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 figurers that all are non-human agents indispensable to our way of life. In fact, one contingent illustration of such a reasonable expiry can be found with computer hackers who, for the closely part, are not considered part of normal mathematical process society. Sherry Turckle investigated MIT A. I. lab students who also are considered hackers.The main recur idea among these students (almost excl usively male) is the fear of social interactions with other people due to a lack of ef previousery 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 become an extension of my mind. (Turckle, ) Their self-esteem, their existence become delimitate only through their medium, resulting in a moderate elimination of life experiences that paralyze them, adding to their needs to secrete 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 familiarity that has become natural in our modern society. Some may get help to improve their computer skills whereas others become so angry with the machine, taking their anger, originating from their own lack of authorisation in learning ne w things, onto this stupid machine some may even become technophobic. alas for our society, science and technology have been used for war. Historically, wars always needed improvement in their methods of cleanup.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 operable then were the first of their kinds, the most inhuman of their kinds, killing some(prenominal) soldiers remotely either gassing soldiers with the insidious 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 and more sophisticated with technological advances like radar and sonar. The climax of using nuclear weapons on Hiros hima and Nagasaki horrified the scientists who naively believed that their work would be used to deter, not to destroy. (Kaempffert, 1941) deep 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 people promoted the creation of the character Godzilla, a pre-historic mutant monster. With the stone-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 soldiers 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 dismally 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 co mputers, artificial intelligence research, simulation modules that mimic a battlefield or even war characterization plays whose graphics have been rendered so life-like that video 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 hopeless 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 divisions agone (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 grounding non-human agency what makes a fetus an agent? The American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6) 839-856. Delanda, Latour, B. (1988). Mixing humans and non-humans unneurotic 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.