Imagine the high school classroom of 2050: visually and ergonomically friendly photonic-computers with terabyte memory capabilities molded into the multi-touch desks; a smart automated control system that regulates day lighting, air quality, and temperature; and holographic maps and overhead projection features. But something is strikingly different; in one corner of the class there sit two teenagers next to each other, a boy and girl—or, at least, what appear to be a boy and girl. Facial features seem normal, hair is shiny and bright, eyes are wide and alert, so that only the most carefully discerning observer can detect any differences between these two ’students’ and their human counterparts. The primary differences are evident below the surface. The synthetic e-skin filled with tiny piezoelectronic thermo sensors; the pneumatic artificial tendons surrounding the translucent, crystalline-silicon embedded eyes; and the neuroelectronic architecture controlling the facial gesture system are all developed features that give an almost lifelike quality to the two students. Jimmy and Jade represent the most sophisticated humanoid models to date at the midway point of the 21st century—cognitively literate biorobots powered by quantum computers embedded with billions of nanocarbon neuronal circuits, capable of processing signals and stimuli at comparable speeds to the human brain.
Given the dramatic increase worldwide in the research and development on humanoid robotic technologies, it is necessary to look beyond just the technological implications of this new reality but to also consider the socio-cultural and educational implications that humanoid robots will have on societies of the future. As someone who is trained in educational theories, I’ve given considerable thought to how future teachers and pedagogues may invariably need to focus their attention on examining the social and educational implications of the rise of humanoid robots and their technological identities. This reality is already imminent in Japan, which may well be a decade or more ahead of the United States in terms of integrating humanoids into civic society. This trend is also emerging in other countries such as South Korea, China, Germany, and Italy, to name a few, suggesting that humanoid robots will eventually provide important measures for testing the boundaries of social attitudes, stereotypes, and views on diversity. Humanoid robots are steadily becoming more autonomous, intelligent, and interactive with verbal, nonverbal and emotional communicability, and as this techology continues to grow exponentially these entities will also require rights to protect their own interests. Roboethics is already being taken very seriously in South Korea, where the government has drawn up a code of ethics to prevent the abuse of robots by humans and vice versa.
It is well recognized in educational circles that technology directly impacts the way that students are prepared for civic life and citizenship education. And as new technological innovations are introduced, corresponding educational models and theories must address the socio-cultural implications of those transformations. The prevailing historical notion of citizenship education in the United States and other democratic countries has derived from traditional assimilationist conceptions which attempt to conform citizens to the requirements of the nation-state. On the other hand, increasing trends in globalization and transnationalism, especially in the last two decades, have indicated the need for a “cosmopolitan” recognition of the importance of inclusivity and the need to celebrate the richness of diverse cultures, languages, and experiences in the global classroom (Walker & Serrano, 2006). In light of the rapid increases in globalization, educators need to probe further the question of how “horizon technologies” (Blades & Richardson, 2006) such as humanoid robots might affect the outcome of discussions on social equality, civic participation, and citizenship education in the context of global civil society. More precisely, considerations must be given to creating educational curricula that model and promote the creation of a cosmopolitan social vision which will treat entities that are not human, but seem so, with a sense of fairness and equality.
Implementing such an educational vision would entail the development of a cosmopolitan cultural identity that is deeply cognizant of the multivariate and complex ways in which individual identities are formulated. In considering the pedagogical dimensions of a new globalized, technological integrated culture, Blades and Richardson assert the need to be prepared for the possible questions that will invariably arise with the advancement and integration of mechanical intelligences into society:
“At which point does our ability to pattern a machine after ourselves lead to machinery with a right to self-existence? To its particular forms of happiness? Can such machines become miserable? Would we care? Are androids beings in their own right? If we do not offer rights to androids, are we in the process of creating a race of slaves and would this be a new kind of racism? If humanity develops an attitude of disregard towards androids, how might this affect our regard for each other?”
In anticipation of these kinds of complex questions, there exists a need for schools and educators to reconceptualize their approach to civic education and to provide more innovative ways to educate students about emerging technologies. The challenge of the future for educators will concern the issue of how to teach about and extend this understanding to humanoid robots, which, if current trends continue, will someday occupy seats in classrooms right alongside of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Tags: cosmopolitanism, future of robotics, human robot interaction, humanoid robotics, roboethics
