A New Kind of Man

                  Through Dr. Calvin’s description of how good people adhere to the three rules of Robotics on page 221 of “Evidence”, Isaac Asimov questions what it means to be human.  Byerley’s possible robot status hardly matters when he is such a good “human being.”  He looks like a human being, even being able to eat an apple, and his work as district attorney has also only shown him to be intelligent and capable.   In the case where Byerley is proven to be a robot, it should not make a big difference in the election because he is so immensely qualified as a candidate.  He still perfectly mimics all of the qualities of people that define their humanity. 

Byerley makes being a robot the same as being another religion or ethnicity, just another point of discrimination.  And people do discriminate against him.  Regardless of his qualifications or personal character, Byerley will lose the election if he is proven to be a robot.  In the same way that ideas like atheism have long been political suicide for modern day politicians regardless of the candidate himself, Byerley’s career is threatened by an aspect of his personal life that the general public has no real need to know.

                  Yet Byerley’s character might in fact surpass that of humanity.  Dr. Calvin suggests, “If a robot can be created capable of being a civil executive, I think he would make the best one possible.” (pg. 237)  While values like charity or diligence are things that humans may strive to achieve, people will not always live up to those values.  Robots on the other hand will never falter because of the existence of the Three Laws of Robotics.  That kind of perfection is something that could never be imitated by a human being.  Does that fact separate Byerley and robots like him as something not “human”, or does that just make them better humans than humanity itself?

Asimov’s Fear of Humans (Evidence and Little Lost Robot)

“To insult someone we call him 'bestial. For deliberate cruelty and nature, 'human' might be the greater insult” – Isaac Asimov (IMBD – Isaac Asimov Biography).

            

           The “Frankenstein Complex” (fear of robots) appears in both short stories. Dr. Calvin expresses concern over the missing Nestor, and Quinn identifies the issues of a robot politician. The public has “prejudice” against the use of robots beyond earth, and the Fundamentalists require “no new reason to detest robots” (“Evidence” 212, 225). While Asimov presents this expected fear, a greater fear appears to underlie this shell. Asimov’s true fear may be of humans.

          
           Let us differentiate between human and humanity. Humanity encompasses our idealized virtues: proper morals, care, etc. Human includes the condition that our quest for humanity is marred by vices like corruption and self-interest.

           Asimov articulates this fear of humans through Dr. Calvin. She recognizes that the Three Laws “are the essential guiding principles of…the world’s ethical systems” (“Evidence” 221). Consequently, she asserts that a perfect robot is “a very good man” (“Evidence” 221). Calvin’s favoritism for robots over humans silences her suspicion of Byerley because she believes a robot “capable of being a civil executive…[would] make the best one possible” (“Evidence” 237). Thus, Asimov suggests that the perfect robot is really closer to humanity than humans.

           Calvin only expresses fear over the Nestor in “Little Lost Robot” because it’s more human than robot. The Nestor exhibits a “superiority complex” and, due to its modified First Law, chooses to manipulate the other robots and lie to the humans in order to prove its ability. Prideful intelligence, lies, manipulation, and choice are all human elements. Thus, Calvin truly fears human vices, not robotic perfection.

          Therefore, the Three Laws make robots closer to humanity than humans. Yet, humans create the robots and their idealized Laws. The creators essentially gave their creations the potential to become what they could not. Is it justified to fear the possibility of our creation becoming what we wish to be? Furthermore, is there some element of humanity (not italicized) that perhaps includes the human struggle with imperfection?

This Trust to be Self-Evident (Evidence by Isaac Asimov)

      (In case you missed the email.)

     

           As we delve deeper into the genre that is sci-fi, we continue to examine our own humanity, and more particularly, the way we interact with each other as human beings. It can be generally agreed upon that in any functioning human relationship a sense of trust must exist. Asimov explores this sentiment in “Evidence”, drawn from the collection I, Robot, by questioning how much we can trust our fellow man if we doubt his status as such.

            The primary accusations against the beloved and impressive lawyer Stephen Byerley come from politician Francis Quinn, who from the get-go seems the untrustworthy, slimy politician archetype. However, he manages to convince robotic scientist Alfred Lanning there may be a chance the lawyer is not human. When Byerley comes before Lanning and his assistant Dr. Susan Calvin, and seemingly proves his status as human by eating from an apple, Calvin objects, saying “in the present case, it proves nothing…he is too human to be credible”. Going on to cite his firm morality and sense of righteousness, Calvin concludes this goodness is inherently inhumane, and that he must either be an impossibly good man, or most certainly robot.

            A week before his swearing-in, after the public accepts him as not being robot after all, Mr. Byerley and Dr. Calvin are discussing the election one last time. While the conversation seems as if the two dodge around the real question, the status of Byerley’s humanity, it seems apparent that Calvin believes him robot, as she tells the reporter back in the present. Despite going along with the district attorney’s insistence he is man, she states, “If a robot can be created capable of being a civil executive, I think he’d make the best one possible…incapable of harming humans,”. Here, the doctor suggests that humans cannot actually trust one another to act in each other’s best interests; that a person deserving of absolute trust is not one that develops as such, but is created as such.

            While in today’s society we can be positive the man or woman across from us on a subway car is human (I hope), we must ask ourselves: has society progressed to a point where we trust others more easily, or less? While we may not have robots like Byerley yet to fuel further mistrust, what role does technology play in the breakdown of our faith in one another?

More on the topic of mistrust among humans: 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/30/poll-americans-dont-trust-one-another/3792179/

Interstellar: The Spirituality of the Cosmos

           What is science’s place in mankind? Science offers us solutions, and the ultimate salvation in Interstellar comes from something “scientifically sound.” But, Interstellar also demonstrates that science alone cannot bring salvation; humanity requires a level of spirituality to survive.

            Earth is ravaged by blight and dust, partially because of man’s excessive use of resources. As a result, science has regressed to agriculture, losing its daring to discover the unknown. Cooper holds that science has lost something, its drive, its spirit. Without the balance of a daring spirit, science falls back onto strict logic, which is to feed the species. But, as we discover, humanity will die regardless of its farming efforts. Only by reviving the spirit by daringly venturing into the unknown (Space) might humanity be saved.

            The concept of faith in the unknown permeates much of the film. Although science has a grasp of higher dimensions, humanity still doesn’t completely understand those dimensions. Only by entering those dimensions can Cooper give Murphy the information she needs to save humanity. Salvation lies beyond (or between) the stars, outside what we comprehend.

            A myriad of religious references appear in the film. Overtly, the 12 astronauts (12 apostles) were sent on the Lazarus Missions to essentially revive something that has died. “Plan A” is essentially a Noah’s Ark leaving a dust-covered Earth. Dr. Mann, who was the “best of us,” may be seen as a Fallen Angel or the Fall of Man, corrupted by his reversion to strict logic (to save himself) and loss of faith in his sacrifice. Cooper and CASE commit to their sacrifice in hope of saving humanity. Hans Zimmer utilizes an organ in the score. The organ, while a complicated piece of musical technology, is also associated with the awe of churches. Altogether, religious references emphasize a degree of belief, faith, and unknown mystery in the film. 

            Ultimately, humanity saves itself. Yet, it does so through something scientifically theoretical, but not understood. Only two things can transcend Time and Space: love and gravity. Love is something “unscientific;” gravity is very scientific. Interstellar combines scientific daring with spiritual faith to assert a balance of the two in humanity. To find salvation, we must dare to believe (and bring along a few awesome robots).

Pessimism in The Time Machine

           A phrase that probably everyone has heard (and many have said) is "the good ol' days". It refers to various points in the past where things appeared to be simpler, and life easier. This phrase usually accompanies a pessimistic view of the present and the future: climate change poses a massive risk to human society, yet few people care about it; the current generation of Americans is entirely engrossed with technology, and many call us the worst generation; issues like terrorism or disease are increasing in frequency and deadliness. However, H.G. Wells' 1895 novel The Time Machine proves that such a mindset has always been part of human society.

            This pessimistic outlook is no more present than in the eleventh chapter of Wells' novel. Having just escaped from the Morlocks, The Time Traveller ventures even further into the future, where he encounters the ongoing devolution of our planet: Earth's rotation slows, its oxygen levels deplete, monstrous crabs dominate the land, and at the very end, only a strange black creature remains. Throughout this entire chapter, Wells uses a rich vocabulary to convey an overwhelming sense of despair in these landscapes: the lines "...the dim outlines of a desolate beach grew visible," (157), "I cannot convey the sense of abominable desolation that hung over the world," (160), and the final sentence, "But a terrible dread of lying helpless in that remote and awful twilight sustained me while I clambered upon the saddle," all evoke the bleak future H.G. Wells sees coming. These scenes, along with those with the Eloi and Morlocks, serve as a criticism of the Victorian society in which he lived, using hyperbole to illustrate what would become of the world if the system were left unchanged.

            My question then is as follows: how do you see our future? Is society, or the planet as a whole, slowly getting worse? Or is the future brighter and more optimistic than some believe?

VSauce's What Will We Miss? 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uiv6tKtoKg

So how about the new Star Wars movie?

yhrfhfgfgbfh