Copyright Ian Pearson, BT Futurologist
Click here for contact details, other articles and personal details
The future of pets
Feb 1999
In the UK we are very fond of our pets. Some seem to prefer them
even to people. In return for shelter and food, they are good company and have
health benefits, such as reducing our blood pressure and stress levels. But
soon, we may have another form of pet in our homes, an electronic variety.
Tamagotchis have come and gone, but soon we will have mobile robotic pets with
much more sophisticated 'personalities.'
People have no problem dealing with their pets but often are
technophobic when it comes to machines. But it is now possible to build a
general purpose interface which should enable the worst technophobe to harness
the potential of information technology. Speech recognition and synthesis and
radio technology mean that most electronic equipment could be completely hidden
from sight under the stairs or in the attic. People could just talk to it from
around the house. Ideally, the interface should be visual too, so the computer
should be able to see you and you should be able to see what it is showing you,
perhaps on your TV screen. The electronics needed would be physically small.
Video cameras and microphones could be hidden in the walls of the living room
in due course just like on Star Trek.
However, many people would prefer something more visible. A cute
robotic pet would suffice, a cute kitten or teddy bear, Barbie Doll, or a more
traditional robot. It could have miniature video cameras in place of eyes and
microphones in place of ears. Its voice output could either use the TV or
speakers in the device itself. A radio link could easily be concealed in the
tail or body. The body would also contain the minimal electronics required to
drive the interface as well as those required to drive the robotics. In this
way, the kitten (or whatever) could behave like a pet most of the time, while
acting as the human interface top the information superhighway and all the
facilities that that enables. The TV may have a channel reserved for the
computer, or perhaps we could adapt on-screen messaging. Its would use
rechargeable batteries, and in the case of the kitten, it might just wander
back to its basket or rug for a recharge via an inductive loop.
These robotic pets would appear very useful. Although the pet
itself would just be the front end of a more sophisticated computer linked to
the network, people would probably associate the functionality psychologically
with the pet. They could ask it to order their shopping, find a nature
documentary on the digital TV, or organise their next holiday. Unlike the real
cat, it wouldn't bring in dead mice or scratch the furniture, but might happily
play with a ball of string when it is off duty.
Other sorts of robotic pets might be very different. Philips have
designed a small plastic spherical pet with wheels for instance. We may have
several that wander round in a flock, following us round the house and
responding in simple ways to what we do. Manufacturers will doubtless have fun
designing their personalities and care requirements. Apart from conventional
digital computing, they will also be able to make good use of noisy neural
network based learning systems, hopefully giving a more organic feel. Some
progress is already being made here. We can expect our cyberpets to behave in
unpredictable ways, and to respond to us, maybe even to how we are feeling.
Computers can infer much of our emotional state from our facial expressions
already. Cyberpets may be truly good companions just as real pets are.
Eventually, and no-one really knows when, the sophistication of
the electronics in our cyberpets could match or exceed the 'mental'
capabilities of our organic pets in every way. They may appear truly conscious,
and we can expect that this would make them even more fun. But at that point,
we will have to start asking new questions, about their rights. If they evolve
to the point where they are capable of suffering in any way, then we will have
a duty to protect them. Of course, children will love the electronic pets, and
will play with them in various ways. We can imagine children setting mazes and
obstacle courses, ambushing them, and trying to confuse them. We may have a
need for robotic psychiatrists (Joanne Pransky was the world's first) when the
experience has proved too much.
But what of our real pets? Animals will not necessarily relate
easily to the electronic variety. If they are just a tin can on wheels, there
is probably no problem, but when they look and behave in similar ways to
animals, real pets may be somewhat more confused. Certainly, the robotic cat
may be attacked just as willingly by next door's Rottweiler, but is unlikely to
have the same physical dexterity that a real cat would use to escape. We will
have to wait and see. Robot vets would seem another obvious need.
But already we are putting chips into our dogs to identify them. Perhaps
later, we could put locator chips in them too so that we can find them if they
get lost, using satellite tracking. More frivolously, and I hope we never do
it, we could go further and link these chips to the dog's nervous system to
guide it home, or by using satellite positioning and navigation, we could just
program the dog and send it out for a walk on its own. Technology can be fun,
but it is possible to take it too far.