digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Scientists create remote-controlled pigeon

technology.timesonline.co.uk — Chinese scientists have succeeded in implanting electrodes in the brain of a pigeon to control the bird’s flight remotely, state media have reported.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • clownguyx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24When are they going to put these in a woodpecker with an electrode that makes it peck away? Next time someone cuts me off while driving their SUV on a cell phone and their window is down, they're getting pecked.
  • soviyet, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5Ugh, I just came to submit this. This is cruelty without cause. What possible benefit does one get from controlling a bird electronically? If I could understand what stride we are taking with this, perhaps I'd calm down a bit.

    But HOLY CRAP.
    • swordedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+43Spy pigeons dude, spy pigeons. Put a camera on it and you can photograph your enemy using birds.
    • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7@Achalemoipas

      Lets not forget the removal of internal organs of dissidents for the wealthy in need....

      It must be asked - how long before they apply this technology to humans?
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@Soviyet

      It is an experiment that allows us to map and interpret how the brain works. The fact that it is immoral to do this to humans makes such research on them impossible. This experiment may lead to an understanding of the brain that will allow us to cure diseases, repair brain damage, and improve the overal function of our brains. Please think before you respond...
    • KWhat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Wonder if remote control humans making good soldiers was on anyones mind?
    • 35263526, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4@R34C7

      It's just as immoral to do thing to animals other than humans. We're not particularly special, and this is cruelty. If it really is for scientific advancement, we should be doing it to volunteering human scientists, not sticking things into the heads of animals too weak to object.
    • donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11People study, poke, and prod human brains ALL THE TIME.
    • falstaff, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5It's like the old story about NASA spending boatloads of money creating a pen that works in zero-g while Russians just used a pencil, only this one's about the US spending boatloads of money developing UAVs, while the Chinese just strapped cameras and bombs to pigeons.
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ 35263526

      You can argue animal morality all day long if you like, but please define for me what it is that makes animal cruelty immoral. Most people will define rationality as the line that defines our morality and an animal most certainly is not a rational agent. You must then define harming anything that has life being immoral, but that most certainly cannot be true because I am sure, as much so that you are alive, that you have harmed more than one organic life-form in your lifetime. In what way then do you classify the life of an animal of equal importance to a human being? If it is not, then it must be justifiable to attempt to save human lives through the sacrifice of animals.

      There is no way to justify cruelty to animals that has no substantial human benefit and I will never condone such, but before you argue immorality in the form of cruelty to animals make sure to tell me what it is that makes it immoral. I very much doubt that you can come up with any convincing argument.
    • godofgodlygods, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@35263526

      We're not special? What other animal is as intelligent as us? Name one. Go on. I'll save you the trouble: None. There is nothing more intelligent than the ***** sapien.

      Last time I checked, we get by in this world through survival of the fittest. Evolution. Darwinism. I'd much rather do this testing on a pigeon than a small child down the street. We're humans, and it is in our psych to want to eventually become the masters of everything. We want to know how everything works so that we can do whatever the hell we want. If that's what it takes to survive and make life good for all of us, so be it. ***** the pigeons.
    • godofgodlygods, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Oh, I also just wanted to add, as further evidence to my point...

      Even our ***** retards are smarter than any other animal in the world.

      That's an evolution OWN.
    • godofgodlygods, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2...No offense to you retards out there reading this. :)
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There's a certain form of wasp that injects a toxin into a cockroach's brain, and sits atop it, literally steering the cockroach into a dark place, where it can lay its eggs in the now zombified cockroach. How is this any different? The wasp evolved the required physiology and instinct to do that to the cockroach, we evolved the intellect required to do it to the pigeons. It's no different.

      http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/02/02/the_wisdom_of_parasites.php
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Achalemoipas

      First of all intelligence and "the infinity of the universe" cannot be used in any realm of comparison. I think the point that you are attempting to make is that humans are insignificant in size as compared to the expanse of the universe. Your confusion is your assumption that size is a defining factor in importance. In fact quantum theory gives evidence that human perception shapes the functioning of the universe itself. Also quantum physics defies the notion that ourselves and anything else in the universe exist in separation, that all particles of matter are one in the same and it is simply our perception that allows them to exist otherwise. Your observations are rather near-sighted.

      By the definition of intelligence, we are in fact "smarter" than cats and dogs. Additionally, Our ability to mathematically describe and interpret our world cognitively does in fact prove that we have reason beyond the capabilities of an evolutionary happenstance enabling animals to recognize patterns.

      Humans spend time watching their pets because the geometrical shape of certain animals' facial features react with our brains because they match those of our children, thus instinct takes over and forces emotional attachment. There is no irrationality involved.
    • bronstad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2humans are rational?

      the only psychologist to ever get a nobel prize (Daniel Kahneman) spent most of his career showing that people are irrational

      even when we're arguing logically, we can't escape emotion - many other psychologists have looked into how emotion tells us that arguments "feel" right or wrong
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@bronstad
      "humans are rational?"
      I guess it depends on your definition of rationality. I cannot say that I dissagree with Daniel Kahneman in that people do act with emotion, it is obviously neccessary, as in survival situations, not to stop and think about it. People do; however, possess the unique ability to observe and interpret their world in a conscious method. Without this rationality it would have been quite impossible for Daniel to compose his theory of human irrationality if he did not himself have a rational progression of thought to get there. Of course people have irrational tendencies, but I cannot agree this means that we are entirely irrational.
    • bronstad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Most animals can naturally and instinctively calculate immense numbers of variables instantly. You cant. "

      Yes you can. What do you think your body is doing when you walk down the street or throw a ball? It's implicitly calculating immense numbers of variables instantly. Did you mean that there are little furry calculators running around out there in some other sense? Which animals are like that?

      And I've always referred to Daniel Kahneman as "Daniel Kahneman", not meaning to imply that I'm on speaking terms with the guy. I've never met him. Hilarious.
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Achalemoipas
      I never claimed to be an intellectual, but if it was your impression that I was implying such I guess then that is your problem. Generally though the digression of an argument to personal attacks is a response you see often when someone is backed into a corner. If you notice, I never took it upon myself to personally attack you for your views, simply offer refutation.

      I guess I have little more to expect from someone who believes they and humanity amount to nothing and somehow can equally rationalize that a pigeon does have some value in the scope of the universe and we should not harm it.

      Intellectual argument and reasoning is a result of practice, unfortunately you have offered me practically nothing. See insulting someone is easy, breaking down their arguments is a challenge. Try it.
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"I've never mentionned or even refered to pigeons as being more important than humans, I merely explained that they are not less important than humans which is entirely different."

      -and I never said you did, what I did say is that you make the point:
      "How do you think your "intelligence" measures up to the infinity of the universe? All things considered, humans are no more important than a pebble on a road or one grain of sand on a beach. We are infinitely insignificant and so are our lives and our planet."
      and continue to argue that pigeons are significant enough that we should be concerned with their wellbeing.

      "The first sign of ignorance, ambivalence of terminology."
      Obviously you have had very little experience with philosophical reading because otherwise you would realize that terminology is a main focus of any argument. There is a continuous struggle to gain meaning through the use of words because every individual defines the words they use in a different way.

      " 'People do; however, possess the unique ability to observe and interpret their world in a conscious method.'
      Absolutely nothing to do with rationality or intelligence, human consciousness exists, bravo. We could argue the same about most mammals. Also, interpreting doesn't mean correct logic interpretation. That is why people are so amazingly wrong about almost everything all the time."
      We cannot argue the same for most mammals because they make no conscious effort to interpret their world, exactly as I said. Our understanding of mathematics to interpret our world proves that we do in fact have correct logical interpretation because it can successfully describe the physical world. If it did not then bridges would collapse and space shuttles would never make it to their destination.

      " 'Of course people have irrational tendencies, but I cannot agree this means that we are entirely irrational.'
      Nice rebuttal to a non-existant argument. Nobody said that humans were entirely irrational. Daniel, as you call him, only said that human logic was guided by sentiment and natural instinct. Therefore, they have some logic. For my part, I said that humans had the capacity of logic, but were not reasonnable beings."
      If you notice in your obviously self-absorbed world that this comment was not directed to you and was directed to bronsted who did say that people were irrational.


      ' 'Also quantum physics defies the notion that ourselves and anything else in the universe exist in separation, that all particles of matter are one in the same and it is simply our perception that allows them to exist otherwise.'
      That was precisely my point. Humans are equals to animals in the universe. They have the same value. I guess it was pretty "near sighted" indeed..."

      First of all you reject my claim and then use it in your own argument, then assert that lack of separation assumes equality within our realms of perception.

      " 'Our ability to mathematically describe and interpret our world cognitively does in fact prove that we have reason beyond the capabilities of an evolutionary happenstance enabling animals to recognize patterns.'
      No. It simply does not prove that. Apparently you don't believe in evolution, wow."

      How in any way does this show I do not believe in evolution? Do you know what reasoning is? I cannot believe that you think that animals reason, as though you have somehow successfully attempted to reason with a tiger about why they should not maul you, or maybe reason with a dog as to why they should not eat themselves to death.

      And again, your insults are not appreciated.
    • artanis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Even our ***** retards are smarter than any other animal in the world."

      Really? Last time I checked, animals can survive on their own without supervision, while most mentally retarded people would not be able to.
  • dgblackout, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5video or fake.
  • Combat247, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@dgblackout Why would it be fake? they made remote controlled mice, this, i would imagine, wouldn't be that much more difficult. the reason? Spy Birds >:D
  • Razster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Already been posted Yesterday...
  • zigziggityzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17How long until you can buy one at Wal Mart?
  • Tr33fiddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Ethics aside, this is freekin awesome.
    • jd33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Agreed. Can you imagine controlling a real pigeon remotely. Sweet.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Only if I can make it poop on an annoying co-workers car at will.
  • kgtech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Is it possible that one day this could be used to help paraplegics to walk again? This would definitely be down the road, I understand that, but it is possible that instead of an outside user controlling the body... the body's user could use it to control limbs that have no more connection with the brain.

    To the people that are talking about "free will" there was a report that came out 2 years ago, it was reported on NPR's Science Friday that we do not have control over our actions, anything we do has already been thought out by our subconscious before we even think of how to react.
    • Software2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This method works by stimulating parts of the brain. So, if the connection is severed, it isn't going to do much.
    • donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, the goal is to bipass the severed spinal coord so that paraplegics can directly control prosthesis with their minds. So yes, research in this area could lead to paraplegics walking again.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You've got to be kidding...NPR reported we have no control over our actions? We don't have free will?

      Just because a "scientist" reports something doesn't make it true. Look at the "Body Mass Index" (USA). This is a "scientific" mechanism for determining if you are overweight. Sounds good except it doesn't account for Muscle. Something found in varying degrees in the body. The "scientists" behind this debacle apparently were unfamiliar with this "muscle" phenomenon.

      In short, lots of people are stupid - even some scientists.

    • MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If we did have free will, then there would be part of our brain that existed in a vacuum - unaffected by anything else. And there isn't. That's the argument I usually hear.

      It's a nice illusion though.
  • lishnetzy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7first pigeons, then people
  • lukeduke, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Can you make it poop by remote control. That would be good for flying around the neighborhood and hitting the freshly washed cars
  • diggfinity, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I thought it said remote-controlled *prison*. I spent a good thirty seconds thinking about the implications. Then I put on my glasses.
  • daylightfades, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1No doubt, maybe they can program the penguins not to crap all over my car.,
  • andyd273, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'd like a remote control for our dog... just give it a snooze button. That way when it starts whining at 6 am we could just hit snooze and get a couple more hours sleep.
    • chedabob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14One exists already. Its called a foot.
  • jerryn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0Hey Bush.. It's a new Chinese Weapon of Mass Destruction! Hmm..
    Just think, it's an easy way to get the Bird Flew deployed where you want it.


    I guess the next step will be Chinese cyborg dogs

    and then chinese cyborg human female slaves.


    • glguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Lol, it is bird *flu*, not *flew*.

      I bet it's been quite confusing for you when the media talks about an outbreak of bird "flew" and you are looking into the sky and can see them flying around.
  • DearSergio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think this is great, but what they should do is have it backwards. Implant electrodes into flock animals, and receive data from these electrodes. We could learn a lot about group behavior in flock animals, how they communicate, how desicions are made, etc. Flock behaviour is very interesting.
  • skrapek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Pictures from Wired: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/02/cyborg_pigeons_.html
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Dude! The things brain is exposed!
    • SillyDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh thats gonna give me nightmares
  • Umberhulk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Evil Bert is at it again?
  • DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Robotic Bees, now Pigeons, what'll they think of next?
  • MrRuslan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Get your tin foil hats here...
  • ncapone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I for one welcome our remote control pigeon overlords.

  • docintherock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I am Borg Pigeon 7 of 9. Prepare to be assimilated.
  • manbanner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Big fish eat little fish. We shall control this planet or die trying. A science minded person myself, I vacillate between giving in to blissful "Idiocracy" or feigning some sort of sense of control over our fates. Would I have trouble doing the experiment myself? Probably. Am I glad someone is doing this kind of research? Yes.
    • godofgodlygods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, not control the planet; make it livable. Permanently. Everything that we do, we do to better the human race. All of the research we do, in the end, goes towards the human race, and making it so our lives aren't wasted.
  • yanivalfasy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1great, just what we need -- commie pigeons
  • theladyavatar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0how long until you can get that for your kids?
  • Absolut352, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0They should use Canadians instead of pigeons. Using pigeons is just immoral.
  • sedwards, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Isn't China where waves of bird flu start? Is this a delivery system for a bioweapon? Using it as a spy drone doesn't make much sense because with small UAV's you can stay aloft at higher altitudes for longer and have an on-board power source to transmit surveillance data. Taking off my tinfoil hat for a minute, this is clearly just a proof-of-concept technology... but still...
  • Hayaemsay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Suicide Pidgeons anyone?
  • thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The next predator drone is going to be a pigeon.
  • slackbuster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They can't keep from screwing with the stock market but they can remote control a pigeon.. Amazing.
  • ryandury, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0wtf .. thats insane.

    I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to plant an explosive inside of one and fly it right in to the vicinity of someone in particular with uh, lets say, presidential status.

    No one would have a clue.
  • RefinedZombie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, crazy stuff. Sort of reminds me of that Grant Morrison comic, We3. But with less cute animals.
  • lextel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yes, but will it still explode when you feed it alka seltzer?
  • crazyguy7038, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Only time can tell before they try this on humans. Of course, it would be stupid to try and make a human fly...
  • TechyLah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why is the morality for this stuff so hard for people to get?
    You CAN harm animals for food or to save human lives.
    You can't harm them for fun or anything frivolous.

    Bomb-sniffing rats, raccoons or dogs - yes.
    Anti-terror kamekaze pigeons - yes.
    Remote control dogs or pigeons to play with - No.
    Brain control experiments on human death row prisoners - No.

    Basic ethics - from the Judeo-christian heritage.
  • cmeador, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds like RFC 1149 may finally be implemented.

    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html
  • g2g079, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Has anyone ever mention that penguins dont fly
  • havesometea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6076860.stm

  • Meowbiusfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You bling back No.49,Happy Famiry and two packet soy!

    And don't forget chopstick!

  • sarahmaddelson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Amazing. Who's able to open the link?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.