The government, which succeeded in getting broadband Internet into 72 percent of all households in the last half decade, has marshaled an army of scientists and business leaders to make robots full members of society.
If all goes according to plan, robots will be in every South Korean household between 2015 and 2020. That is the prediction, at least, of the Ministry of Information and Communication, which has grouped more than 30 companies, as well as 1,000 scientists from universities and research institutes, under its wing.
"My personal goal is to put a robot in every home by 2010," said Oh Sang Rok, manager of the ministry's intelligent service robot project.
Well, I find their goals to be a little ambitious... and I wonder at the focus on robots-for-robots-sake. But at least they have ambitious technology goals that they actually fund with real government money. Go South Korea!
1 comment:
First off, I believe that basic scientific research is a "good" thing, including research that doesn't necessarily have direct commercial potential. My question is regarding the statement "ambitious technology goals that they actually fund with real government money". Would this be a voluntary fund to which people could contribute to the government for the explicit purpose of these robots? If so, why would the government need to be involved in managing the funds? Would it be paper money which the government specifically printed for this purpose there by devaluating the existing money supply? If an individual attempted this it would be called counterfeiting. Or would this be money that the government confiscated through taxes ultimately under threat of legal action backed up by force? If an individual attempted this it would be called theft. If the project goes poorly at what point is it terminated? In a free market the financial backers, whether capitalists looking for a return on investment or scientifically enlightened philanthropists, could evaluate the risks versus rewards and choose appropriately. They may bungle it, but it's their money to bungle and one can hope they will come out the wiser. It seems too often the case that the solution to failing government programs is not common sense but more money without limit. We live in a finite existence. Finite time, finite space, finite matter/resources, and finite energy. As cool as robots and technology are, is this the best allocation of resources? Almost certainly yes... for some people. Certainly for the people on the receiving end of the research grants. Certainly for the government officials starting and managing the project while it is successful which could certainly be the entire project. Quite possibly a significant number of South Koreans if the project is successful as a whole or at least a branch of research was fruitful. But what of the people who may have their money used for something with which they disagree? What of people who think it's a cool idea but would rather have their money spent on breast cancer research in hopes of saving their wife/mother/daughter/sister/self? Who knows what is the best use of finite resources? You're not going to get any arguments from me that the vast majority of people act like cattle or "sheeple". But I believe people should have the freedom to spend their own money, time, and resources as they see fit. I can understand the desire for long term research which short term consumerism driven businesses are
unlikely to deliver (with some notable exceptions of Bell Labs in their earlier days and some good physics research by IBM). Perhaps the funniest line I've ever heard in Star Trek was from the ferengi Quark on Deep Space 9 commenting about the history of the Federation versus the Ferengi, (probably not exact but pretty close) "Long term technological progress is insignificant to short term quarterly gain". I think there are ways to address this issue that are better than government programs. While it doesn't directly address research, I think a society more along the lines as discussed by Stefan Molyneux (http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux-arch.html) could better handle it. If you only read one article, read the first one (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html). People want many things but I believe most people want more than a measure of beauty in their lives. To me, science and technology (for the most part) are beautiful. I would contribute to such beauty.
DMD
Post a Comment