Scott Kirsner has penned an
article for
The Boston Globe about the latest work being done by DARPA's Dean Kamen to develop the next generation of prosthetic limbs. Excerpt:
When Kamen, one of America's best-known inventors, first spoke with officers at the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, they told him they were looking for a research and development group that could build a prototype of a new prosthetic arm. Kamen was expecting to hear a list of technical specifications, such as how much the arm would need to lift and how many moving joints it would require. Instead, Kamen says, the Pentagon officials told him they wanted to create an arm that could "pick up a raisin or a grape from a table, know the difference without looking at it, and be able to manipulate it into the person's mouth without breaking it or dropping it."
"Wow," Kamen thought, "that is pretty much beyond the capability of current engineering."
Several hundred US soldiers have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan missing an arm, and several dozen have lost both arms, according to Kamen. The numbers are tragic - yet too small to motivate some of the largest makers of medical devices. But Kamen says, "You don't say no to DARPA, and you don't say no to a challenge that can be that much of a life-changer for people who need it."
Read the
entire article and be sure to check out the video.
Scott Kirsner has penned an article for The Boston Globe about the latest work being done by DARPA's Dean Kamen to develop the next generation of prosthetic limbs. Excerpt:
Hi, I'm Adam. I've recently become quite a fan of this blog but have not elected to comment on any post, until now that is.
ReplyDeleteI think this seems to be a wonderful development, regardless of the fact that the funding is an indirect result of people losing their extremities for dubious reasons (war). War is and has always been, as the cynic says, a well-paved road to progress.
Obviously there's interesting implications to any development such as this, and seeing what comes of it will undoubtedly be very interesting.
Kamen's latest project makes a hell of a lot more sense than his stupid Segway invention a few years back. Yeah, like we really needed to find a technological solution to the problem of having to walk, something people in obesifying developed countries need to do a lot more of, not less.
ReplyDeleteGeorge, I'll not linger here, but must comment on one of your earlier posts.
ReplyDeleteYou were certainly welcome to join our METI discussion group. Inspired by my article at:
http://www.lifeboat.com/ex/shouting.at.the.cosmos
However, you wrote: "Brin is vehemently opposed to this idea, as he believes it could put humanity in great peril. For all we know, he argues, some malevolent ETI is lurking in the neighborhood waiting for less advanced civilizations to draw attention to themselves."
I would be very interested in the provenance of this lurid and somewhat demeaning quasi-quotation.
My position is simply that narrowly dogmatic communities should not plunge into activities that commit humanity down paths that have low probability but high potential impact outcomes, without at least first engaging the wider world scientific community in eclectic discussion.
The only "vehemence" has been to ask for open discussions, which should be enjoyable and illuminating to all.
There is a general principle here. It is simply wrong to arrogate peremptory moves that bet human posterity, based upon cult-like and unchallenged assumptions.
George, I'll not linger here, but must comment on one of your earlier posts.
ReplyDeleteYou were certainly welcome to join our METI discussion group. Inspired by my article at:
http://www.lifeboat.com/ex/shouting.at.the.cosmos
However, you wrote: "Brin is vehemently opposed to this idea, as he believes it could put humanity in great peril. For all we know, he argues, some malevolent ETI is lurking in the neighborhood waiting for less advanced civilizations to draw attention to themselves."
I would be very interested in the provenance of this lurid and somewhat demeaning quasi-quotation.
My position is simply that narrowly dogmatic communities should not plunge into activities that commit humanity down paths that have low probability but high potential impact outcomes, without at least first engaging the wider world scientific community in eclectic discussion.
The only "vehemence" has been to ask for open discussions, which should be enjoyable and illuminating to all.
There is a general principle here. It is simply wrong to arrogate peremptory moves that bet human posterity, based upon cult-like and unchallenged assumptions.