This is a screenshot from "I, Robot", a sci-fi movie starring Will Smith. In it, he plays a character who has a prosthetic arm. In fact, in addition to the arm he has a prosthetic shoulder and lung, as with much of his left flank being artificial as well. It is a much stronger, but aesthetically identical arm, and in the picture above you can see it that has been damaged by being struck very hard by another robot (the point of the scene being to demonstrate how strong his prosthesis is.) From the discussion in class it sounded like the consensus was that most were opposed to this idea, that any artificial arm should not be markedly stronger or different from a biological arm. I think that if the new arm were aesthetically similar, not only would I not have a problem with it (and I don't think I would have much of a problem with it anyway) but the public at large wouldn't either, and, furthermore, wouldn't even have any way of knowing - until like in this scene, the technology saves a life.
Joe
First of all, I was so not expecting the robotic arm the first time I watched that movie. I don't know if I missed the original explanation, but that scene certainly surprised me.
ReplyDeleteThe question, I feel, is that, if the arm is aesthetically similar, how much stronger should -- or, perhaps, could -- the new arm be? Is it right for him to gain this supreme advantage in his life, when he could have easily just been returned to a homeostasis, of sorts? Had it been a normal, non-cyborg person in his position, they would have easily died. I know this is getting into a lot of ethical issues, but is it right that he has a better chance of living because much of his body had been taken from him already? Things to ponder.
-- Ryan