If the US Military started remote-controlling bugs and sharks and other animals for military uses, what would PETA do?
I wasn’t surprised when I read about cyborg search and rescue insects on BBC. I was more like, “finally, something bugs can be useful for.” I appreciate the pollenating contributions of some insects and have a macabre fascination for the flesh-crawling talents of decomposers, but there are simply way too many insects in our neighborhood that mostly only annoy and infest rather than constructively contribute to the greater good of their resident subjugating species.
Not that they have to – I think that Homo sapiens’ intervention and advancement has caused the smaller pieces of our ecosystem to digress into nuisances more than anything else. Should we change it? Definitely. And cyborg insects seem like a very interesting way to go about it.
And then I remembered one of my favorite welfare groups: PETA. They might be caught in a bit of a predicament in this case. The cyborg insects are suited with tiny backpacks that have equally minuscule equipment for gathering data, monitoring, and communications transmissions. They are the first step towards a new approach to search and rescue. Of course, like all other animals used for human gain, they can still be seen as “being used,” albeit in this case they’re “being used” to save human lives.
Perhaps in the case of stealth shark spies, PETA could have a more solid stance. By implanting electrodes in sharks’ brains, the Pentagon and its Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) wants to remote control the apex predators of the sea to become stealthy spies of nature that track down seafaring vessels or even submarines virtually undetected. Can you imagine the picket cards yet?
There’s a straightforward military application of partial “mind control” over animals, isn’t it? I’m quite certain this won’t sit well with a lot of animal-lovers. Did you notice that insects and sharks are the types of animals used – some of the least adored species in the planet?
But no, a factoid insert in a similar BBC article mentioned 3 interesting points in history where other animals were tested for military and weaponized uses.
- WW2 Cat bombs. The idea: strap a bomb on a cat and dive-bomb it onto Nazi ships. The silly part: since cats hate water, when they drop on the ocean they’ll scurry onto ship decks and thereby purrfectly position their explosive ordinance right where righteous Allied forces want them to be. These flying, swimming cats never made it into the history books because during testing, the felines passed out in mid-air…while dropping thousands of feet into open sea.
- WW2 Incendiary bats. The idea: strap incendiaries onto hibernating bats and drop ‘em from planes so they could wake up, fly into enemy infrastructure and boom! The silly part: the test bats didn’t wake up from induced hibernation and fell to their deaths.
- Anti-VietCong Dolphins. The idea: train dolphins to attack VietCong divers by ripping off their diving gear and subsequently dragging them off for interrogation. Someone even thought to place carbon dioxide filled syringes on the dolphins’ flippers so they could inject it into the divers. The silly part: ahm…everything?
The US Navy insists that it never uses mammals to harm humans – only other humans, which, I suppose, fell out of the mammal category somehow, somewhere along the road, while I was blogging.
I’m sure the trouble this time around would be something about taking away the animals’ free will, at least to a certain extent. Personally, I find that making use of insects to help in search and rescue efforts is quite practical – they’re small, organic, and they power themselves as well as the equipment they’ll be lugging according to the BBC article. Sure, we get to control their motor functions for a bit. That doesn’t necessarily make it so bad for the bugs.
As for the sharks, if such technological advancements could lessen known shark attacks which eventually culminate in gory, bandwagon screamer Hollywood flicks attempting to capitalize on the premise of high concept films, then I, for one, won’t mind.
I wasn’t surprised when I read about it, and I won’t be surprised when I eventually read protests against it. If these advancements really usher in the era of remote controlled, cyborg animals, what would PETA do? What else?
Additional reading (if you haven’t had enough): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8302903.stm
Discussion
No comments yet.