OPINION

Killer app for humanity

Re: "Time to embrace the future", (BP, June 25).

A world in which robots do all the important things is a world in which the human (and, in fact, the natural itself) does not matter anymore.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I worked in a hair saloon and a "human-sounding" voice tried to book an appointment, I'd hang up.

Who is arrogant enough to not even make them call themselves?

Who doesn't have two minutes time to do this trivial task herself? Who is that busy?

Is this how the future looks? Machines do all the meaningful things, and we humans, well, we hang around?

The advancing development of artificial "intelligence" (AI) and the unstoppable crusade of automation are reaching troubling proportions.

China seems to be creating an Orwellian surveillance state, in which a score partly based on one's obedience to the party is assigned for every citizen, and facial recognition software automatically identifies you for petty crimes like jaywalking.

Singapore tracks its citizens' every move with a high-tech wristband under the pretext of a public health initiative. Where does all this data go, and what are they planning on doing with it? Where does it all end?

If all this doesn't seem deeply concerning to you, I urge you to take a look at history: Whenever states have increased control and surveillance, they usually did so as a preventive measure in anticipation of future unrest and upheaval.

Advanced technology is making rich people even richer, poor people even poorer (and more aware of just how poor they are), and create dependency and addiction on an epidemic scale. Any negative long-term consequences are, in most cases, "still being explored" (read: not yet discovered).

The rise of technology is concomitant with a dramatic increase in inequality, and instead of hoping that even more technology will fix this, we might as well try a different approach. How about doing the most rational thing: If more technology creates more inequality, why not try less technology?

The sheer scale of environmental destruction caused by the mining of rare earth minerals (REMs) and metals needed to produce high-tech gadgets is well documented, yet often not adequately included into the discussion about technology.

Even supposedly "green" technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels create vast amounts of highly toxic waste products (eg, one tonne of radioactive sludge for every tonne of REMs), and are therefore the exact opposite of whatever the concept of "sustainability" might mean these days.

REMs are required for all parts of computerised technology, so with even more of this technology, we put the planetary ecosystem on which we all depend for our very survival at risk.

I'm not sure if the benefits ultimately outweigh the risks.

When the demand for certain REMs indeed increases by up to 2,600% in the next 25 years, this would surely seal the fate of the biosphere.

Of course, if you attend one techie event after the other, it may easily seem like there is nothing wrong with technology -- but you are not likely to learn the whole truth at those meetings and conventions. Big Tech is notoriously naive, thoughtless, and biased and likes to pretend that there are no environmental consequences arising from producing and applying advanced technology.

This stands in direct conflict with the idea of progress and development, sure, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the latter two concepts might ultimately do more harm than good.

Personally, I think there is a lot left to debate. Do we want to live in a lifeless world full of robots, machines and pollution?

Or do we rather want to live in a world that is alive, buzzing with our fellow creatures, a symphony of the synergy of myriad biological species? Does technology really make us happier?

Does ever more technology ensure that we have the basic necessities of life?

How about cooperating with the rest of Nature instead of talking to soulless machines and wiping touchscreens?

Maybe we should value things like biodiversity, forested and protected areas, (self-) sufficiency and independence, and rediscover an ancient connection to our immediate environment. A healthy and happy ecosystem makes healthy and happy humans.

Maybe it's time to take an entirely different approach -- to go, in a way, "back to the basics".

The foundations for such change were laid down in great detail by His Majesty the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej in his philosophy of a "Sufficiency Economy". Instead of wanting more of everything, instead of neglecting the needs of our ecosystem for the sake of economic growth, maybe we should take a step towards moderation.

Maybe we should value things like biodiversity, forested and protected areas, (self-) sufficiency and independence, and rediscover an ancient connection to our immediate environment.

This approach is far better for our ecosystem than the oxymoron of infinite growth on a finite planet, and is consequently better for us (and for every other species we share this planet with).

This approach is far better for our ecosystem than the oxymoron of infinite growth on a finite planet, and is consequently better for us (and for every other species we share this planet with).

A healthy and happy ecosystem makes healthy and happy humans.

We can happily "embrace the future" but this future does not have to be akin to more dependence, alienation and pollution through digital technology, artificial intelligence and virtual reality. After all, we can live without machines -- but we can't live without Nature.

I feel compelled to respond to Darius Hober's June 23 letter, "The real cost of subs".

I have served in conventional and nuclear submarines for over 20 years and whilst some of the information provided by Mr Hober raises some concerns and indeed offers many issues for debate, some of those brought to the fore are not strictly true.

I am quite sure that the country selected by the Thai government to provide these submarines would, as part of a sales package, provide adequate information regarding crew training, maintenance and infrastructure requirements including docking facilities and through life support costs.

As a conventional force it is not thought to be a considerable amount more other than what is expected to support their existing surface fleet requirements. However, there is the added cost of weapons used.

It must be said, however, that if it was a nuclear capability that the Thai government are seeking then Mr Hober is entirely correct regarding the infrastructure and support costs outweighing those of the purchase price of the submarine, not forgetting the disposal costs.

With regard to escape facilities for the crew, submarines have escape towers fitted at the forward and after ends of the submarine.

However, if the submarine is being operated off the continental shelf and is in deep waters many larger counties such as the United Kingdom and United States have "rescue vehicles" (DSRV's) that can be deployed within 24 hours to effect a rescue, and no they do not have to rescue the whole crew in one dive as they could be at either end of the vessel, also "hyperbaric chambers" are part of the rescue package. If operating in deep water, all submarines have a Deep Diving Depth and a crush depth where no form of rescue can be conducted or is indeed effective.

In addition to this, I am sure that the Thai government is considering a conventional submarine, either a straight diesel snorting variant or maybe an Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) variant which uses a mixture of gases to run the diesel engines and negate the need for snorting to charge the main batteries and will remain covert.

I don't believe it is not for general discussion outside the auspices of the Thai military of how these submarines will be operated or deployed and in what scenario.

As for any docking requirements for the submarine, any dock is adequate as long as the submarine-form docking blocks are in position.

Another day on the bicycle-dodging motorcycles coming on the wrong side of the road and also lumbering farm vehicles oblivious to the speeding traffic, which of course are all ignoring the speed limits.

Then, miraculously, I come across an empty road devoid of traffic. A familiar occurrence, due the presence of a person of importance, as they always require an empty road to blast down with blaring police sirens wailing announcing their distinguished existence. A requirement is that hundreds of police are also out in force blocking all minor roads to ensure a trouble-free passage.

Where are these upstanding members of the law during the times they are required such as Songkran and New Year, as the only time I encounter them is during these times and helmet checks at the end of the month, where of course they cease working before 5pm.

Now if the government was at all serious about reducing Thailand's atrocious road accident statistics instead of spending money on aircraft carriers, submarines, metal detectors, etc, they would be best suited to buy breathalyser units and radar guns by the thousands and correspondingly increase the monetary penalties.

Now a problem though is keeping all this increased revenue out of the hands of Thailand's finest, but if you could, then you would have a large surplus to spend on roads and also hopefully a decrease in road fatalities.

Re: "Treasure trove seized from ex-leader Najib", (BP, June 28).

The ongoing investigation into graft and corruption by the new prime minister of Malaysia after only a few weeks in office needs to be commended.

It raises the question, though, as to why some Southeast Asian countries, where corruption is endemic, find it so difficult to combat corruption and bring corrupt officials to justice.

There was never any good reason for the coup, which would appear to have been staged because some wanted to serve themselves a bigger slice of the Thai nation's wealth without earning it.

Certainly, the public discussion needed to support any such extravagant a claim as that a coup was needed to benefit the Thai nation has never taken place, and the incredible fantasy of eradicating corruption was never less incredible than an election promise; rather, a hungry group decided for their own reasons to stage the coup which they were planning in detail whilst promising that there would be no such violation of the Thai people, in whom, according to Section 3 of the Thai constitution, lies the sovereign power of the Thai nation -- a moral and legal principle that the ruling politicians have ignored for more than four years.

The series of false promises from 2014 to return the Thai nation to the Thai people from whom it was taken by overthrowing the supreme legal foundation of the nation attest to the true nature of the collusion to trample the democratic wishes of the people into the dirt and silence their voice in the affairs of their own nation.

None of this is excusable. It is, rather, the epitome of corruption: Corrupt rule of law, corrupt morals and corrupt acts that strictly follow the corrupt laws corruptly made up enable that legalised corruption.

Re: "Bold Melania's 'I don't care' jacket causes a stir", (BP, June 24).

"I don't care" (in Italian me ne frego which actually translates more strongly into 'I don't give a ****) was the slogan of so-called Black Shirt paramilitary squads that made Benito Mussolini's rise to power possible.

The message Ms Trump was sending on her way to view children in her husband's internment camps is clear to anyone schooled in early 20th century European history.

Let's not forget this immigrant First Lady (who inexplicably at one time held a US "genius visa") was born and raised in a Slovenian town that was then part of Italy that supported Mussolini and retains odes to the dictator.

Zara, the fashion house that made the coat Ms Trump wore, is known for other nods to fascism.