First technology post - UAVs for casualty evacuation (1)
Posted 13 February, 2008 in Technology, Diary
Unmanned vehicles and networked devices are an area of personal interest, and pretty much what’s putting food on my family’s table at this moment. I’ve always wondered how long it was before some bright spark realised UAVs are perfect for casualty evacuation from the battlefield. It appears the Israelis have done just that, but they tend to be bright sparks in this area:
Israel is searching for the best platform for unmanned medavec missions. The latest contender is the Butterfly unmanned powered parachute made by Israel’s EMIT.
Think of the benefits of casualty evacuation UAVs over existing methods of extraction. Firstly, in terms of getting an aircraft to the casualty you don’t have to worry so much about being shot down. You can send a number of them into a battlefield and if you lose a few on the way it’s not such a big deal. Yes, these would probably need to be designed, built and managed to a certain level of airworthiness as they’re eventually going to carry a wounded human being, but they needn’t be as expensive as something like a helicopter, and expense isn’t such a concern on this mission anyway as we’re talking about a human life. So you can get it into a tight spot under fire. UAVs lend themselves to different methods of landing compared to conventional aircraft, for example, you could pop a parafoil at a very low altitude to drop nicely into a hot landing zone. If you spudded in you could have a follow on vehicle that would try again, and it won’t matter so much as you’re probably not killing anyone. Once you’re on the ground you can load up the casualty. I’m not saying this is the ideal solution and I’m sure he’d rather be on a chopper. But if you can’t bring a chopper in because you’re risking the life of a pilot then I think someone with a sucking chest wound would happily accept a UAV ride as their next best option. So he’s launched on his way to safety. If there’s substantial risk on him being shot down on his way out then have a couple of other identical UAVs flying with him to minimise the chances of his one being hit.
Whatever happens, this technology will revolutionise the way we do a lot of things, from checking power lines to killing terrorists.
My prediction is that applications like casualty extraction will be met with a new form of air vehicle to achieve vertical take-off and landing i.e. one that isn’t rotary-wing. Rotary wing is too complex, difficult to maintain, unstable (unless it’s a gyrocopter) and more expensive. The nature of UAVs lends them to innovative new solutions being employed.
Yes, that’s right, technology! This blog was always meant to be about politics, philosophy especially Objectivism, musings on my own life………….and technology. As it says at the top of the page, I’m a techno-optimist - I see technology as a solution to nearly all human problems. Really, as an Objectivist, I’d say that’s simply applying reason as the means of improving the human condition. Of course, technology doesn’t mean we can ignore the moral side or lose qualities like self-reliance. Just that it’s certainly a great vehicle for human progress, and I like it, so I’ll write on it! However, since it took me seven years from registering the domain name to actually making my first post on politics, I suppose another eight months to my first technology post is to be expected!
Don’t say sorry for me, Kev……. (1)
Posted 11 February, 2008 in Politics
Despite that our PM believes there’s a ‘blight on the nation’s soul’, I’m openly stating that I don’t feel an ounce of guilt or obligation to Aboriginal people. A ‘one-way’ apology made by the great KRudster this Wednesday will not be a reflection of how I feel or any acknowledgement of guilt on my behalf.
You see, I can’t work out what I’m supposed to be apologising for. I wasn’t there when the ‘Stolen Generations’ were ’stolen’. As I wasn’t born I can’t see how I can be complicit in this terrible act. I’m apologising for the sins of my grandfathers? I’ve never met either of them, so I wouldn’t know. Stolen land? I’ve never owned or acquired land in Australia by any means, so I’m not sure how this applies to me. I’ve never taken anything from Aboriginal people or acted improperly towards them in any way.
I’ll even go so far as to say the motivations of most of the key players are dubious. Listening to an interview with Warren Mundine this morning (on News Radio, I believe - can’t find a link) the issue of forgiveness in the form of a reply from Aborignal people was raised. This seems to be a sticky issue that doesn’t get played much by our media friends despite the Libs calling for it at one stage, also reflected by the fact that the only press our religious conservative senator Steve Fielding received on this issue was in the Geelong Advertiser. Warren Mundine objected to forgiveness on a number of grounds. Firstly, it wouldn’t be heartfelt apology if we came expecting forgiveness. Secondly, a full apology couldn’t be made from all Aborigines because one person couldn’t speak for the great diversity of Aboriginal people, unlike the Australian Parliament which speaks for all Australians. I think Warren was drawing a particularly long bow with that one. I can’t remember the rest.
I’m all for reconciliation, whatever that means, I’m just not sure it applies to me. The only conflict I’ve personally had with Aboriginal people is when they used to steal my stuff growing up near Dubbo. Relax, I’m over it, and everyone’s forgiven. I certainly don’t feel the PM needs to say it for me.
Seriously, I can agree there is a role for government here. If there needs to be some serious healing and understanding so we can move forward then quite possibly the government of the day can play a role in making this happen. But that’s the clincher - is moving forward as a nation really what this is about? I don’t think it is. The real motivation is a desire for guilt from our left-wing friends (and western Judeo-Christian society in general) to be carried as a sign of their virtue. Furthermore, our muppet of a PM and his merry party are happy to play to this to prove their own virtue; to show that they’re better than the conservative government they replaced. It’s guilt all round, so everyone dive right in and feel as bad as you need to. See someone not feeling bad and getting on with a productive life? Well then, you’re clearly the better person. From the other side, the real motivation from Aboriginal people is to get that formal acknowledgement of guilt onto the white man, in a way that can’t be negated or disregarded, by getting the PM to declare it so. Then they can be the ‘victim’ for generations to come. If an Aborigine hasn’t been ’stolen’ or had their family or friends ’stolen’ - and as far as I’m aware, most of them haven’t - then I have no problems stating that they’re simply attempting to secure their welfare future and to remain the ‘victim’ for as long as possible.
In short, if there is something that needs to be said, then I’m happy to say it. Forgive me and we’ll call it water under the bridge. I’m confident that if we work together we can build a bright future. Of course, that requires the forgiveness part and generally moral behaviour from our sunburnt brothers. I suspect that’s not what they really want, and frankly, the evidence to the contrary isn’t exactly overwhelming.
Objectivist values (2)
Posted 7 February, 2008 in Philosophy
I don’t know who came up with this list, but I’m fairly sure it wasn’t Rand herself. As far as I’m aware this is the closest thing Rand said to the list below:
To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: reason, purpose and self-esteem.
I’m assuming this list was derived as a simple summary of how an Objectivist should live, based on Rand’s writings:
Can’t see any huge holes.
BTW, an adequate replacement for the Ten Commandments? I’ll let my Christian readers decide! 
(Later on I might do a comparison between this list and a few verses from the Good Book.)