The people of the world may be starving, going without clean water, decent air and proper health care, and the planet's climate may be changing in ways that will make it ultimately uninhabitable - but you can always count on the world's governments and their private corporate masters to use technology in profitable - if destructive - ways.  After all, what's human life compared to a defense contractor's bottom line?

The latest toy (over which U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his British counterpart in the Ministry of Defence, Des Browne are already giddy about) is an "armed remote-controlled robot" manufactured by the Foster-Miller corporation of Waltham, Massachusetts. The machine-gun-equipped robot, called "Sword," was certified safe for use by the US forces last summer.

Robots have previously been used to detonating improvised bombs in the UK, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan. The latest version has been developed from an earlier machine from the same company, called "Talon."  This one had a manipulator arm which has been replaced by a rotating machine gun carrier. According to Foster-Miller general manager Bob Quinn, "It's for urban combat and perimeter security and it's fully controlled by the soldier." Indeed, none of the robots currently under development will operate autonomously, except for a "return home" function pre-programmed into them.

Since the bellicose Bush is handing out defense contracts like the Easter Bunny throwing candy to eager little children, defense contractors are busily designing the next generation of "battlebots" that they believe will be "smart" enough to tell friend from foe.  There has been some outcry about this from the AI community, fortunately. "It is ethically problematic to use software that may work in lab conditions but not under a whole range of extreme conditions, such as when you suspect someone might be a suicide bomber," says Kirsten Dautenhahn, an AI expert at the University of Hertfordshire.

Lucy Suchman, a researcher at the University of Lancaster whose work involves studying interactions between humans and computers adds, "This plan is just ridiculous. It involves the worst kind of simplistic profiling. It's a fantasy on the part of technology enthusiasts within the Pentagon."

Since there is so much profit at stake, Bob Quinn - predictably - disagrees. "Recognition technology is progressing fast. I think it will separate the wheat from the chaff," he says, pointing out that the Pentagon's Office of Naval Research - through which the funding is being channeled - is "not known for wasting research dollars." By the way, anyone out there wanna buy a bridge in Tacoma...?