Robot Even before the first robot was built, the subject of robotics was controversial. The word "robot" was coined in 1921 by a Czech playwright who wrote about a colony of machines endowed with artificial intelligence that eventually turned against3 their human creators. Although that account was fictional, the first industrial robots were in use by the early 1960s. Today, we continue to be intrigued by robots and their potential for both good and evil. Basically, a robot is any machine that performs work or other actions normally done by humans. Most robots are used in factories to make products such as cars and electronics. Others are used to explore underwater, in volcanoes and even on other planets. Robots consist of three main components: a brain, which is usually a computer; actuators and mechanical parts such as motors, wheels and gears; and sensors for detecting images, sound, temperature, motion and light. With these basic components, robots can interact with their environment and perform the tasks they are designed to carry out. The advantages are obvious — robots can do things humans just don’t want to do, and they are usually more cost effective. Robots can also do things more precisely than humans and allow progress in medical science and other useful advances. But, as with any machine, a robot can break down and even cause disaster. There’s also the possibility that wicked people will use robots for evil purposes. Yet this is also true with other forms of technology such as weapons and biological material. Robots will probably be used even more in the future. They will continue to do tasks where danger, repetition, cost or the need for precision prevents humans from performing. As to whether they will be used for good or evil, that depends on the nature of the humans who create them.
相关问题推荐
-
The Truth about Genetically Modified Food At almost every public lecture I give, someone asks me my opinion on genetic modification—whatever be the topic of the lecture. Genetic modification (GM) has the power to save lives through its use in medicine, such as the production of insulin for diabetics or the treatment of genetic disorders. The current outcry comes when it is used to produce food. Some of these public concerns reflect real problems, but others are fuelled by misinformation and overdramatisation. There is nothing new about crop modification; plant breeders have been doing it since agriculture began. The wonderful range of apples or potatoes we now enjoy is the result of crossing different varieties. Cabbages, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale and broccoli all originated from one botanical species. Modern molecular biology has enabled us to go much further. We can now isolate the gene for a particular characteristic of an organism and transfer it to another species. It is this practice of transforming a plant with alien genes—perhaps from an animal or bacterium—that is causing all the controversy. There are three main concerns. Scientists can now take a gene for resistance to a particular herbicide and transfer it to a crop: when these plants are sprayed with weed-killer, the weeds are destroyed while the crop is unharmed. A prime concern is the harmful effect this could have on the biodiversity of farmland, where so many insects, birds and other animals depend upon “weed” species. Another fear is that alien genes from a GM plant could escape into a wild population of a related species. Since plants are fertilized by pollen that is carried through their, often for great distances, this is entirely possible. A wild species modified in this way with pesticide resistance could become a “super-weed”, while a species that becomes unnaturally resistant to animals that feed on it could disrupt the food chain. The third worry concerns a proposal to produce seeds for cereals that cannot germinate to produce next year’s seeds. This “terminator technology” would be of obvious advantage to seed companies, since farms would be forced to buy new weed annually. But the same technology could be devastating to some farmers in the developing world who depend upon saving some seeds for next year’s crop. Fortunately this technology is not yet in use and there has been strong pressure to abandon it. I would not hesitate to eat a GM vegetable—it is most unlikely that the current modifications are harmful to the consumer, despite what we read in the press. However, the introduction of animal genes into food plants presents considerable ethical difficulties to vegetarinsarians and member of religious that forbid the eating of certain animals. This is one of the reasons people are demanding that tall genetically modified food products be clearly labeled. The public have a fight to know what they are eating and a fight to choose. I believe that in my own nation GM is well regulated, but this cannot be said for some other countries. One of the problems is that at the moment this technology is commercially motivated. Because the compositions developing GM food want to introduce it as quickly as possible, in my opinion, it is being rushed into without adequate research or precautions. Genetic’ modification is here to stay, and there is no doubt it will save lives. But ,like so many other scientific discoveries, such as splitting the atom, it can be seriously misused. Instead of condemning the technique, we, should ensure it is used wisely. We need to evaluate each application carefully, from environmental and ethical standpoints, and we must urge governments and companies to use it for good rather than for greed.
-
Transformation of St Kilda Seventy-five years ago, the residents of a group of islands off the northwest coast of Scotland packed up and left for good. Their home—St Kilda—-now has World Heritage status but with the departure of the St Kildans in August 1930, a way of life that had existed for thousands of years, vanished. St Kilda was years for years known as the most remote settlement in the entire British Empire, but actually it is not so far away—-around 200 km west of the nearest point of the Scottish mainland. Seventy-five years ago, at the end of August 1930, the last 36 islanders banked up their turf fires, opened their Bibles at Exodus, put some oats on the table, then left forever, bringing to an end a habitation and a way of life that stretched back at least two thousand years. St Kilda is an archipelago of sea stacks, skerries and four islands, of which only one, Hirta, was permanently inhabited. It was remote in ways other than geography. The people, who never numbered more than a couple of hundred, spoke not English but a distinctive form of Gaelic. Their economy, their whole culture, revolved round seabirds—fulmars, gannets and puffins. They ate them and exchanged their feathers and precious oil for goods such as tea and sugar from the mainland. In the Victorian era, at the height of Britain’s imperial adventure, this self-sufficient life held a strange fascination. St Kilda became a fashionable tourist destination and steamers regularly dropped anchor in Village Bay. But the visitors could not comprehend the St Kildans they gawped at. There is an astonishing recording in the BBC’s archives of an islander saying that her mother, in payment for a bale of tweed which had taken all winter to weave, was given an orange. She didn’t know what it was. There had been worse traumas: St Kilda’s graveyard is one of the most heartrending places. It is full of tiny hummocks, where infants are buried. Newborn babies were all anointed where the cord had been cut with a concoction of fulmar oil, dung and earth and 8 out of 10 of them died of neonatal tetanus. The minister finally put a stop to this in 1891 and after that the babies lived, but it was too late. Add to this grief, emigration and harsh religion and it’s no wonder that the St Kildans lost heart. By the 1920s there were no longer enough people to do all the work. In 1930 they planted no crops and petitioned the government to take them off the island. St Kilda is now owned by the National Trust for Scotland. There are tow National Trust wardens and in the summer volunteer work parties come to maintain the buildings. There’s a resident archaeologist. A century on St Kilda has become a chic destination once again. There were 15,000 visitors last year. Recently one of the wardens found the first piece of litter; a plastic water bottle wedged between the stones of a wall.
-
Green Gene Technology For the past 10,000 years humans have influenced the plants they use at first unknowingly, later by design. Today’s crops have been created by a process of selection and classical breeding. More specific improvements in breeding will be possible in future. Science has cracked the genetic information code. Green gene technology is an effective tool in crop breeding, enabling us to develop new crops even more rapidly and specifically. We can make them more efficient, optimizing their contents and valuable substances to suit the wishes and requirements of customers and the processing industry. Their metabolism can be individually modified, making them produce starch, protein and fats with special properties. Through gene transfer plants can be made more resistant to viruses, bacteria, harmful fungi and insect pests. Genetically modified plants can be cultivated to possess improved stress behavior, with the result that they absorb water better in dry locations and can make more efficient use of soil nutrients. We can also optimize weed control. To do so, we make crops tolerant to environmentally sound and easily degradable herbicides. This is not as simple as it sounds. But we have been successful: Innovator has been on the Canadian market since 1995. This is the first oilseed rape variety to contain the glufosinate tolerance gene, facilitating the use of AgrEvo’s broad-spectrum herbicide liberty. We are committed to green gene technology, with which we aim to make crop breeding even more efficient and environmentally friendly. Before being brought on to the market these genetically modified plants are researched and tested for years until the questions posed regarding their safety have been answered. This is a great opportunity for us to realize our vision: the use of faster methods to breed varieties which will continue to provide us with sufficient food and raw materials in future. Our fossil reserves will soon be exhausted. Experts estimate that we only have enough oil for another 43 years and natural gas for less than 60. This means we must rethink and act accordingly, using new crop varieties to step up the move to replenishable sources of raw materials and energy. In other words, green gene technology is the key technology for sustainable agriculture.
-
Healthcare Reform During the past two decades, all of the industrialized nations have enacted some form of healthcare reform. America is no exception. Just a few years ago, the U. S. was consumed by a vigorous public debate about healthcare. In the end, the debate reaffirmed that the U. S. would retain its essentially market-based system. Instead of reform imposed from the top down, 3 the American healthcare system underwent some rather profound self-reform, driven by powerful market forces. The market—not the government—managed to wring inflation out of the private healthcare market. 4 Today, it appears that U.S. healthcare costs are again on the rise. At the same time, American patients—like patients elsewhere—are becoming more vocal5 about the restrictions many face in their healthcare plans. Talk of government-led reform is once again in the air. 6 We must think twice, though, before embarking on “reform” if that means imposing further restrictions on our healthcare markets. The more sensible course is to introduce policies that make the market work better—that is, to the advantage of consumers. I base this argument on our company’s decades of experience in healthcare systems around the world, which has given us a unique global perspective on the right and wrong way to reform healthcare. The wrong way is to impose layer after layer of regulation and restrictions. We have seen this approach tried in many countries, and we have always see it fail—fail to hold down costs, and fail to provide the best quality care. Medicine is changing at so rapid a pace that no government agency or expert commission can keep up with it. Only an open, informed and competitive market can do that. This lesson holds true for the U. S., and for all countries contemplating healthcare reform. Free markets do what governments mean to do—but can’t. The right approach10 is to foster a flexible, market-based system in which consumers have rights, responsibilities, and choices. Healthcare systems do not work if patients are treated as passive recipients of services: 11 they do work if consumers are well-informed about quality, costs, and new treatments, and are free to act responsibly on that knowledge. Of course, reform should never be driven purely by cost considerations. Instead, we ought to devise new ways of funding healthcare that will make it possible for all patients to afford the best care. Ideally, these new approaches would not only reward individuals and families but also encourage innovation, which can make healthcare systems more efficient, more productive, and ultimately of greater value for patients. The path we choose will have enormous implications for all of us. We are in a golden age of science, and no field of scientific inquiry holds more promise than that of biomedicine. 13 Not only can we look forward to the discovery of cures for chronic and acute disease, but also to the development of enabling therapies that can help people enjoy more rewarding and productive lives.14 New drugs are already helping people who would once have been disabled by arthritis or cardiovascular disease stay active and mobile.15 More effective anti-depressants and anti-psychotics are beginning to relieve the crippling illness of the mind, allowing sufferers to function normally and happily in society. The promise is quite simply—one of longer, healthier lives. 16 What is at issue are the pace and breadth of discovery, and how quickly we can make the benefits of our knowledge available to the patients who need them. Therefore, the policy environment the biomedical industry will face in the next century may make or break the next wave of biomedical breakthroughs. 17 Will that environment include protection for intellectual property, freedom for the market to determine price, and support for a robust science base? 18 Will healthcare systems nurture innovation, or remove incentives for discovery? Will they give consumers information and options, or impose stringent rules and regulations that limit access and choice? For the U. S., as for the
-
Water Crisis in Spain There’ve been floods, gales and heat waves across Europe-and some lay the blame for the unpredictable weather on climate change. Spain is undergoing its worst drought for sixty years with many areas in the south of the country not seeing a drop of rain for months. Some reservoirs are nearly empty while the volume of water in some rivers is down to a third of its normal level. Guadalajara, in the centre of the country, used to be a prosperous tourist area. Its old Moorish name, ironically, means "water running through rocks." But when Emma Jane Kirby visited the small town of Buendia, she found an ecological disaster area in the marketing. There’s a strange smell around the lake at Buendia, the sort of smell that greets you when you first open the fridge after a week or two away from home—a putrid stench of salad leaves that’ve begun to turn to compost in their cellophane bag. I’m reluctant to mention this to my companion, Marco ObisP0 because this after are is the place where he has spent every one of his summer holidays and a just few hours ago we were pouting over the family photograph books while he reminisced wistfully about his idyllic childhood. The problem is I don’t recognize this place as being the same one he showed me in the pictures Those images boasted bronzed children racing joyfully down a bank of emerald green grass towards a vast expanse of water so blue that the cornflower sky above looked dazzled. But this landscape is bleached and barren, the banks crusted white, the ponds patchy and the colour of thin ink. Guadalajara in the centre of Spain has been hit hard by drought. The rains haven’t come since spring last year, leaving the soil parched and lifeless, as cracked and scarred as the face of a small pox victim. The sun has sucked the life from anything that once had the energy to be green and stealthily, its hot tongue has lapped away at the lake’s edge reducing the reservoirs to a fifth of the size they were twenty years ago. As quickly as the water’s evaporated, so have the tourists—the holidaymakers from all over Europe with whom Marco played as a child have been lured away to other areas of Spain where swimming or sailing a boat can be done without fear of scraping knees or hulls on the lake bed. If the landscape is crying out for new water management, then it’s weeping with painful dust-dry tears. North east of Buendia, only the ancient Spanish pine forests seem able to sustain life, some atavistic survival instinct wing them triumph over droughts which long ago killed off the weaker competition. But the trees are now so dehydrated and sapless they’ve become irresistible to fire-two weeks ago, thirteen thousand hectares were lost to a spark from a barbecue-an inferno that also claimed the lives of eleven men. As far as the eye can see now, the hills are almost bare.