Sex and marriage with robots? It could happen

Well it is a very disturbing article I have read in a while. According to my point of view, humans are gifted with an excellent organ known as ‘brain’. Human brain is god gifted with exceptional reasoning and intelligence. Emotion is the most creative function of the brain. This is one of the few characteristics which differentiate between humans and robots. Even though robots will become more human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them, still we should not fail to understand that these similarities in personality and knowledge are all programmable. We are talking about spending our lives with machines and making them our life partners. I would term it as sheer insanity because this similarity in personality and knowledge is the work of software after all. I cannot even think about acquainting my life with ‘something’ that has been programmed. And that it has no thinking and reasoning of its own. I mean two humans can have different opinions and they can argue on it to root out the differences and that’s how we can put our reasoning to work. Rather than spending our life with something which has been programmed to adjust and accommodate with us according to our thinking. That’s absolutely wrong because then every human being who will be committed in this kind of human-machine relationship will expect every other person to behave like a machine in the same adjusting manner. Human life will be a chaos!

Voters Roundly Reject MMP

The proposal to change the way Ontarians elect MPPs was given a thumbs down by the voters in the current provincial elections in Ontario, which in my opinion, is very unfortunate for the future provincial elections as it will not reflect the popular vote. Mixed member proportional voting system (MMP), is a voting system used to elect representatives to numerous legislatures around the world. In this system the voters not only vote for various candidates fielded by their respective political parties but are also asked to vote separately for a party. This system is currently in use in the following democracies around the world; New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, Bolivia, Venezuela, United Kingdom and Lesotho. Had this system been in place, the outcome of the current provincial elections in Ontario would have been different. Even though the similar proposals have been shot down earlier in Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, my personal opinion is that we have to intensify the campaign to educate people about the positive impact this system would have on the outcome of future elections in the province of Ontario. By implying this system, the election results would more closely reflect the popular vote. Not all of the above mentioned democracies adopted this system in a single referendum. If it took two referendums for New Zealand to adopt this system then we should also put it to test again in the next provincial elections.

Marriage Withering

"Marriages are made in heaven" is an old saying. Institute of marriage, considered as a union of two bodies, minds and hearts and blessed by God Himself is under threat. It is slowly withering away and being replaced by live in relationship. In Canada, more than 50% are in live in relationship. Both the systems have their plus and minus considerations.

To live in a society one has to abide by certain social norms. Secondly, there is no commitment without marriage. A social and emotional security that a girl looks for in a relationship is lacking without marriage. An emotional support, the little good things in life that we look forward to when one comes home after a day’s hard work can never be replaced by any form of live in arrangement. Thirdly, future of children is definitely at stake without marriage. There is also a respectability attached to a married couple and looked up to in any social function,when a couple lives together outside of marriage, it is called a live in relationship. If one likes a person and start living with him/her, the very next morning, i might wake up and start liking someone else and move in with that person. This will encourage the ‘Animal Farm’ culture.
In a live in relationship one gets nothing. There is no foundation for that relationship except for momentary physical attraction and moment these needs are met, one starts finding fault with his/her partner and walk out. Marriage binds some sort of discipline.

If there are so many minus points for live in relationship, then why are so many young couples adopting this arrangement? Firstly, the economics are forcing live in relationships. Accommodation in big cities is so expensive that young couples have no option but to resort to a live in arrangement.
Young couples are afraid of problems of divorce, dividing up property, alimony and issue child custody etc.

Looking at pros and cons, it emerges that there is no commitment in a live in relationship, but at same time one always wants to know his/her partner. When we date someone, we see the best in that person. But when we interact with the same person more closely, we see the best and the worst in him/her. An extended courtship period gives a good outlook for a would be marriage. It should be a step towards marriage. One must realize that no matter how advanced and modern we may become, there is always some near and dear ones around you who might get hurt because of one’s live in status.
Marriage is a tradition while live in is a trend. Trends come and go but traditions are maintained.

Ottawa signs on to rival emissions pact

Mr Stephen Harper while using UN forum to save Kyoto protocol, announced
Canada’s decision to join Asia- Pacific partnership, which is considered anti Kyoto
by Environmentalists. Asia- Pacific Partnership was created by Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and the United States and now Canada will be the seventh member. This partnership categorically rejects any mandatory cuts in green house emission, contained in Kyoto which emphasizes 50% cut in green house gases.

Canada after joining Asia-Pacific at New- Delhi, wants to coax other members to join the partnership after Kyoto expires in 2012. Mr Harper has set a very long term target of 60% to 70% cut in emissions by 2050 and also emphasize a binding target on other six partnership members. United States has already rejected 50% cut as contained in Kyoto. It is pertinent to mention that without these major emitters involvement, no global protocol can be effective. Mr Harper also recommends 2006 as base line rather than Kyoto’s 1990 and defended his 2050 target which is several decades away by introducing some intermediate milestones.

While world leaders were beating around Bush, literally and metamorphically, a very young Canadian Catherine Ganther, only 18 years old stole the show. Speaking on behalf of environmental organizations, in a pointed and focused approach emphasized that there is only one road to safe climate and that leads to Bali in December and that conference must extend the Kyoto agreement.

Harper’s double cross game with Kyoto Protocol is not understood since Canada is spearheading the environment protection and must have definite targets for any meaningful roadmap to safe environment.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/specialfeatures/photogallery.html?dataPath=/photogallery/news/gallery_724/xml/gallery_724.xml