With arguably some proven credentials - with drones already being used in television production; law enforcers using thermal imaging cameras to catch suspects; and utility firms able to check for leaks - what's not to like about speedy shopping or sending drones rather than humans on dangerous military or surveillance missions?
The justification of 'protecting' others - ground forces, innocent civilians, homeland security - is of course an entirely valid ethical point, but it's the same justification as might be used by some functionary deputed to deliver the lethal injection to a death row inmate - protecting others from someone innately bad, an enemy of society, doing a job that the rest of society is too soft and squeamish to countenance. But is that how flyers would want to see themselves? A technically adept functionary? Is that what they joined for?
Yes drone attacks violate human rights - but the US has also made it clear that they are in a state of war with terrorists. What this means is that the law of war governs their actions - not the law of peace. It might be a good idea to get a grip on those concepts and develop a legal justification as to why the law of peace operates.
With a spirit determined to trail blaze through the clouds, reminiscent of Amelia Earhart's landmark solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1932, the world's first Abortion Drone flew from Frankfurt an der Oder, Germany across a river to Slubice, Poland. The drone delivered packets of abortion pills, prescribed by a physician.
Over the next few weeks, we'll be sharing blogs from inspiring innovators, who are using tech to change the world - from the charity helping sight impaired kids use public transport independently, to the start-up that have created an app to help parents suffering from postnatal depression... It's not about celebrating the technology by itself, it's about celebrating the humans and how they're using technology to achieve something great.
Reassurances without evidence from institutions or politicians heavily committed to the renewal project hold little credibility in the face of clear and emerging technologies that could not only undermine the advantage of the submarine, but leave us with an expensive and destabilising system. We need to reopen the Trident Alternatives Review and do a better job this time.