An Eye for an Eye: Group 3

  1. The goal: In a world where “eye for an eye” is the only law, we aim to aid the resistance in spreading less severe and less physical forms of justice and forgiveness.
    • The system will assess the damage done to the victim and rate it on a quantifiable scale
    • The system will learn from the user and ease them into the transition
      • First uses will allow the user to react very similarly to “eye for an eye” and will eventually ween them to a point of normalcy.
    • The system mimics the thought process of the individual and the user believes that it is their thoughts telling them how to react.
  2. The Idea: Creating a device that has the intelligence necessary to assess transgressions against the user and recommend a reasonable way to react, instead of defaulting to “an eye for an eye.”
  3. The problem: From early childhood, everyone is taught eye for an eye, sees eye for an eye, and practices eye for an eye. As a result, it’s deeply ingrained in the culture of the world. Possible implications are:
    • Japan has dropped nuclear bombs on the US after WWII
    • If you crash into a car, the person you crashed into must crash back
    • If you murder someone’s father, then the child of the father you killed must murder your father.
  4. The audience: This idea really only appeals to the members of the resistance because the device will be implemented on people without their knowledge. If the knowledge of this is released to the public, almost everyone would be outraged.
  5. The approach: Ideally the system will function as a brain implant to newborns and hospital patients that the user would not actually know about. However we lack the technology required to perform such a procedure so we will be implementing this idea in the following ways:
    • Study to get a deeper understanding of the creation and following of the “eye for an eye” system.
      • We want to understand any deeper meaning behind these laws, and if there were restrictions.
    • Study habit psychology as well as guilt psychology to get a better understanding of the inhabitants of our world.
      • We want to be able to relate to how they would feel upholding this law and how they would handle NOT upholding this law.
      • We want to understand learned behavior and what would go into changing a behavior engrained into a brain
    • Create a medium fidelity prototype
      • Using a set of sensors (proximity, sound and pulse indicator) we will attempt to create a device that mimics intelligence and can verbosely indicate to the user the situation that they have encountered and how to best respond to it.
    • We will create a high quality video that illustrates the intricacies of our product design and several usability settings.
      • We will have scenarios in which the user will believe that their subconscious is making the decision when in reality it is the system.
      • We will illustrate the beginner user in contrast to the veteran user and how the system has learned to react differently.
  6. Challenges & unknowns:
    • The challenges come in how far the law goes and where the line is drawn
      • What happens when one person kills a group of people?
        • One solution is to have an equal body count of the killer’s family or loved ones
      • Are there people (such as the president or the mentally ill) who are immune?
        • One solution is to allow no immunity and follow eye to an eye to an extreme.
      • What happens when something is accidental?
        • The idea is that the law would still be upheld when an accidental incident occurs.
      • How does the implementation of the device stay a secret?
        • It may not be a perfect secret and there will be conspiracy theorists, but the law enforcement will make sure that the secret doesn’t get out
      • How does this society respond to positive events?
        • Are people trying to reciprocate these good deeds?
        • Is that something that the implant should fix to maintain neutrality? Or are we trying to shape a utopia?
        • If you gave food to the homeless, would the homeless need to give you something in return? This can lead to a shift of the poor becoming more poor and the rich staying the same.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: