
The Ethics of Biologically Enhancing Soldiers - digisth
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-than-human-the-ethics-of-biologically-enhancing-soldiers/253217/
======
DanielBMarkham
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
_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.

~~~
protomyth
"they can react faster than a human sitting behind a computer separated by a
further thousand miles away"

Maybe. The problem is identifying friend and foes. An AI might need more time
than an actual person. Beyond that, losing a robot is not a big deal compared
to losing a person, so the mistakes made in the field (ex. killing an innocent
person who happened to get in the way) can be lessened because the fear of
death is no longer there for the soldier.

~~~
DanBC
> Beyond that, losing a robot is not a big deal compared to losing a person,
> so the mistakes made in the field (ex. killing an innocent person who
> happened to get in the way) can be lessened because the fear of death is no
> longer there for the soldier.

"Friendly fire" from remote-operated robots would be pretty hard for people to
cope with.

'Robots killed my dad, a hero soldier who fought for this country' is a
headline no-one wants to read.

~~~
tlb
FWIW, here are the causes of death of US soldiers in Iraq [1]:

    
    
      2573 Hostile action
      2496 IED
      665  Non-combat
      402  Helicopter accident
      361  Vehicle accident
      63   Unknown
      39   other-unknown
      31   Airplane crash
    

Over 800 are accidents, and IEDs are just enemy robots.

1\. <http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/>

------
tokenadult
Today's submission,

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-t...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-
than-human-the-ethics-of-biologically-enhancing-soldiers/253217/)

is an older article (February 2012) from the same author as

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-
human-enhancement-turn-soldiers-into-weapons-that-violate-international-law-
yes/266732/)

(4 January 2013), submitted to HN

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5010370>

with a confusing altered title.

------
PeterisP
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.

------
jamesaguilar
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
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.

------
alexvay
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
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
> 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>)

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

------
jpxxx
Yes, these are fascinating new ethical questions.

 _watching legions of homeless, mentally ill vets mill on the street below_

------
johnnyg
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.

------
greggman
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.

------
evincarofautumn
“our absurd frailty”

This framing devalues much of the content of the article. We are not frail.

------
ISL
This Nature Future immediately came to mind:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/491488a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/491488a.html)

