Re: A Race of humanoid drones for labor.
Chris Hind (bholat@earthlink.net)
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:10:52 -0700
At 08:28 8/31/96 +0100, you wrote:
>At 01:16 30/08/96 -0700, Chris Hind wrote:
>
>>Lets face it, robots will never be doing tasks such as house-cleaning,
>>building construction, interior or exterior decorating, etc. because they're
>>too clunky and not as flexible as flesh and bone the only potential
>>replacement I can think of is nanites or robots consisting of nanites. They
>>can't even climb stairs with much ease which is why they invented the
>>webblimp to fly over the terrain and skip the obstacle altogether.
>
>Sorry, Chris, but how on Earth can you post to a mailing list such as this,
>which so overtly recognizes the potential of technology, and come out with
>such an incredibly short-sighted view of robotics? "Robots are too clunky
>but I'm with you on immortality, uploading, nanotechnology,
>bioengineering..." Hello?
>
>Give it a few years and that statement will come back to haunt you.
Prolly true. It's just from what I've seen so far I get that impression and
I DO hope I'm wrong. My problem is that how are we going to get over the
problems such as creating robots flexible enough to manuver around objects
with a non-uniform surface. I'm sure the answer is probably out there but I
just don't see robotics as the way to go when combination bio/robotic would
add the best of both worlds. I see both used together-- you see them
seporately. I just haven't seen much breakthrough development in this area.
If you know of some tell me. Because what is bio? Basically it's nature's
robots and their parts are much smaller than robot parts which make them
more efficent and flexible. All we need to do is engineer metalloids into
the bio format somehow. I don't see robots (ie. Data from StarTrek) I see
Cyborgs (man & machine).