The idea of robots is not new, and mention of them goes back to at least classical Greek times. In Homer’s Iliad,
for example, a Greek god named Hephaestus created armor for the hero Achilles. Later, around 1495, Leonardo Da
Vinci created specifications for a robot that could wave its arms, sit up, and
move its jaw and head. Still, use of robots has become widespread only recently.
Among the more interesting types of robots we use today is one called the swarm
robot. This type of robot was inspired by colonies of insects (like bees or
ants), and is distinct from other types, in that the robots act together.
Because of it, these robots are said to use what’s called “swarm intelligence,”
wherein the individuals behave together as one superorganism. In much the
same way birds will flock in a single group and ants will work collectively,
these robots are employed to work together to complete one major task. The U.S.
military, for example, was recently working with the idea of swarm intelligence to
control unmanned vehicles. More interesting, two researchers
have argued that nanobot swarms can possibly be used in the human body to
destroy cancer tumors. For the more mundane tasks of life, swarm robots can be useful for things like dispersing to
find something hidden, to spy, or to clean. The benefit to this type of robot
is that even if several of these robots fail or malfunction, the rest can still
complete the task.
I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...
Comments
Post a Comment