Our planet is in trouble because of the
environmental impact of the world's growing population. Carbon
dioxide levels will soon hit the level of 400 parts per million.
Scientists predict that the average global temperature may rise
between 2 and 5 degrees centigrade (as much as 9 degrees fahrenheit)
by the year 2100. Fish stocks are declining, and the world's oceans
are getting warmer and more acidic, which might one day cause a
catastrophic mass extinction event. The global supply of fresh water
is declining, and large aquifers in the US and other countries are
being drained to dangerous levels. Soil fertility levels are
declining, and more and more forests are shrinking because of the
global pressure to turn forests into farmland or grazing land.
These problems are all related to the
environmental footprint of human beings. As population grows, man's
effect on the environment grows. As people consume more and more to
mimic the lifestyle of the Affluent Society of western countries,
man's ecological footprint gets worse. The average American's carbon
footprint exceeds 20 tons of carbon per year. Over a 80 year
lifespan, that adds up to 1600 tons of carbon being dumped into the
atmosphere.
One way to reduce the bad effect of
human society on the environment is to reduce population growth. But
other than just sexuality itself, there is a major factor that tends
to lead to population growth: the simple fact that having children
around is lots of fun. When I am on my deathbed and want to think
back on my best times on this planet, I will probably remember
playing with my children in the park, or playing with my kids in my
back yard, or reading a story book to my children. Quite a few
parents may think that teenagers can be trouble, but almost all
parents love having around the house a child of 6 or 7.
But what if there was some way to give
couples the fun of having a small child around the house, without the
heavy environmental impact of having a child? Before long, there may
well be a way of doing that. The solution: robot children.
Robot children would be huggable
humanoid machines designed to simulate small children. For a married
couple the rationale behind obtaining a robot child would be to
experience some of the joys of parenthood, with lots of nice
companionship, but without the environmental cost of adding a new
human being to the planet.
For such an invention to make sense
from an environmental standpoint, we should not imagine a child robot
that is moving around 14 hours a day. The best type of child robot
would be one that would be designed to move around only a few hours
on weekdays, after their parents returned from work. That would save
a lot of energy. There are several ways in which that might be
handled. The crudest way might simply be to equip the child robot
with an on/off switch. Parents could then turn on the robot when they
came home from work, and turn it off when they went to bed.
The only problem with that approach is
that the parents would then be reminded every day that their child
robot is not a real child. It might be best to avoid such reminders.
One can imagine various ways of limiting the robot's energy use
without reminding the parents that the robot child is just a robot.
One way would be for the child robot to be programmed to take itself
to bed every night. After saying good night to its parents, the robot
could then plug itself into a recharging unit, lie on a bed, and
pretend to be sleeping. It could then wake up when the parents
returned from work the next evening.
Another approach might be for parents
to drop their robot children off every morning to a kind of pretend
school. Inside the school the robots would do nothing but silently
recharge their batteries. The parents could then pick up their robot
children from the school.
How soon could such robot children be
available? As early as the year 2040. Creating a robot that simulates
a small child is vastly easier than creating a robot that could pass
for a full grown human being. The robot child would not need to be
able to read, write, or do math, as it would not actually attend
school. The robot child would merely need to be able to engage in
simple conversations with the wedded couple that obtained the robot,
and would also need to be able to play a few simple games such as
catch and tag. The ELISA computer program created during the 1960's
showed that a fairly simple computer program can fool people into
thinking they are talking to a real adult person. It is presumably
even easier to write a program that can fool you into thinking you
are talking to a child.
Robot children could have additional
programming allowing them to do chores around the house (or even look
after very aged people). The average person would probably greatly
prefer to have a household chore robot that simulated a real family
member, than to have some big metallic robot helper like the robot
maid in the Jetsons TV show.
We can imagine a government offering
free robot children to married couples, to reduce the nation's carbon
footprint. But the government might need to be selective about who
qualified for getting the robot children. The rule should presumably
be: the less intelligent the married couple, the more likely
they should be to qualify for free robot children.
The rationale behind such an approach
is rather obvious. When a very smart man and a very smart woman mate
to have a child, it is good for the overall gene pool of the planet,
because the child will probably be pretty smart. But when a stupid
man and a stupid woman mate to have a child, it is not good for the
overall gene pool of the planet. So imagine if a government offered
free robot children to newly married couples with lesser intelligence
(as determined by their grades, SAT scores, and college record). And
imagine that the couples were told they would need to tearfully
return their robot children to a government office (never to see them
again) if the couple ever had a real child. This would help to
increase the quality of the gene pool, by discouraging reproduction
by couples with below average intelligence.
This might result in a “win/win”
situation: a win for the planet (because it would help to curb
overpopulation), and also a win for the human gene pool.
No comments:
Post a Comment