Anyway, I’ve come across this wonderful article from the BBC. I must say that since I’m a technocrat, a futurist, and a science-fiction lover myself, in principle I agree with Asimov’s laws. Even more so since those laws are quite minimal – they simply protect people and robots (in that order). They do not implement a higher order of ethics, which eventually would be bound to result in something as ridiculous as human laws. And by ridiculous I mean any and all cases where discrepancies between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law exist (also known as the law vs justice debate), or situations where the judicial system is used/abused to pass judgment in cases which are the responsibility of the legislative arm of the government.

In this case, it seems that an attempt is being made at trying to write robotic laws at a micro level. It seems a very humane thing to do (no pun intended), but I believe that at least three major problems arise from even trying to pose the question.

First, the laws are being drafted taking into consideration the fact that robots will eventually become sentient and will require such laws. If that is the case, then how can we design laws for sentient beings without taking into consideration their own input? That almost sounds like the exact opposite of democracy.

Second, an attempt is being made at limiting the potential that robots will bring into our lives – the example given was of people becoming addicted to robots the same way people became addicted to the cyberworld when the web became popular. Notwithstanding this remote possibility (remote because only a tiny percentile of Internet users has been identified as suffering from such an addiction), such extremes often bring about novelties, ideas, further research, and so on. Trying to police the ‘explorer’ gene in people is like trying to thwart evolution and progress.

Third, there are still many countries where equality and democracy is nowhere close to being established. How can we attempt to implement a system of laws around an idea that a) we either cannot invoke in other countries, or b) simply did not work out. The process of democratization is not without its own flaws, just as most other political systems have their own. Why not try to implement if not something new, then at least a system that’s built upon the problems we recognize in democracy?

Yes, laws of robotics are required. But prior to laying them in stone or silicone, our own limitations should be recognized, established, and embedded in these laws both as a precaution and as a safety-valve.

The effects of the factors described above on the society at large are a separate topic. My focus is on something entirely different. The average lifecycle of objects sent into space is usually quite short because of the unpredictable and generally harsh conditions experienced in space. And yet, when I read something like this article, I cannot stop smirking in triumph. It is possible, we will succeed!

I remember, when I was just a kid, the Galileo probe was launched in the direction of the Jovian system. It, too, has wonderfully succeeded, much beyond anybody’s expectations, and continued gathering data up until it was intentionally expired in 2003, gathering more data on its last flight.

This is not the end of good news, either. The Mars Global Surveyor has so far returned over a quarter million images during its thrice extended mission, and is expected now to last well into the next decade. ESA’s Rosetta probe, launched two years ago, is not even expected to make contact with its target until 2014!

While I do understand the general concerns of the society, especially when we come around to yet another national budget coming under scrutiny, that there are many problems here on Earth that could benefit from additional resources, I do not think that cancelling the space program, as it’s happened several times in the past, is the solution. If more resources are needed, take 20% of defense budgets from our beloved G8 group of countries and you’ll have triple the amount of money that could be gained by cancelling the space program.

We forget sometimes that exploring the universe has a two-fold implication. On one hand is the advancement of sciences, both hard – physics, mathematics, astronomy, and soft – philosophy, bioethics, well, even literature. On the other hand, however, is the paramount benefit of continuing to look beyond the everyday, to pursue a dream of the entire mankind, to go beyond the known. Economies will fail or succeed, imperia rise and fall, generations come and pass, but humanity will always strive to improve itself and reach some next step in the evolution. We should always look beyond today and everyday to ensure that the dream survives…

Although this debate has raged on for at least a few decades, I think that we’re slowly approaching a moment where space exploration will become a common-day task.  Whether this happens for the right or wrong reasons (i.e. to further our understanding of the universe or to mine Mars) is another story.  For now, however, I’ll be happy if we make it into space for whatever reason.