5 reasons make a post:
Mar. 13th, 2014 09:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
capri0mniLet's do this "Countdown" style:
Why I Hate the "Robot Apocalypse" Trope in Science Fiction (and Science "News")
Reason Number Five:
It's lazy (and, therefore, boring) storytelling. Whether television, movies or the news, it is so damned predictable. And, in terms of science reporting, I can't help but wonder if there's a chilling effect on the culture when it comes to the study of robotics and computer programming.
Reason Number Four:
It's likely not to happen anytime soon, anyway;ysabetwordsmith linked to this article a few days ago (and that's what got me thinking about how much I hate this trope) Why Robots Will Not be Smarter than Humans by 2029.
So can we please start thinking up some fresh, new, story ideas -- you know, speculating on the consequences of things that are more likely to actually happen?
Reason Number Three:
Even if robots do become self-aware, and smarter than us, it would be analogous to the rise of a new species in the ecosystem. And conflicts only arise between species when there's competition over resources.
If robots ever do become so "smart," fast, and strong that we humans would have no chance to fight against them, then why would robots want to wipe us out or be our "Overlords?" The worst I can imagine happening is they just get bored with the tasks we've programmed them to do, wander off, and do their own things.
Reason Number Two:
The whole concept of building an Artificial Intelligence out of gigabytes and processing speed reduces "intelligence" to something quantifiable, fundamentally simple, and absolute (ultra-simplified, like any "model"). The dominance of this trope supports the assumption that Living Intelligence is just as simple, instead of the fluid, complex, and beautiful thing it is.
And that can have real, negative, consequences for people unlucky enough to be labeled as having a low "Intelligence Quotient."
And the Number One Reason I hate "The Robot Apocalypse"
(and wish it would slip off to the Idea Netherworld, along with geocentrism and "women have no souls"):
This trope is a complete perversion of Karel Čapek's message, when he introduced the world to the word "robot" (and the idea that enslaved robots would rise up and rebel against us "natural" humans) in his 1921 play: R.U.R..
In the original play, robots were fully formed, adult, humans created in a factory out of vats of protoplasm, with the sole purpose of providing cheap labor to create inexpensive consumer goods, so the factory owner can pocket a huge profit. At the start of the play, the factory owner convinces the president of the Humanity League that campaigning for robots' civil rights would be a complete waste of time and money, since robots weren't real people, with actual feelings, or anything... And the president of the League backs down.
But, later, a more advanced design of robots do have feelings -- including a refusal to be enslaved -- and they do rise up against humans, and wipe us out (except one: a fellow laborer). They also prove themselves capable of love and self-sacrifice, and earn the right to repopulate the world without dependence on any human creator or master.
But is the pop-culture take away idea from this play: "Hey, we'd better fight for the civil rights of all people, regardless of their origins, or the color of their skin, or their socio-economic status, or else we'll become obsolete and overrun?"
No... That would be too hard. It's far more comfortable to perpetuate a trope built on fear -- and repression -- of anything deemed unacceptably different.
Why I Hate the "Robot Apocalypse" Trope in Science Fiction (and Science "News")
Reason Number Five:
It's lazy (and, therefore, boring) storytelling. Whether television, movies or the news, it is so damned predictable. And, in terms of science reporting, I can't help but wonder if there's a chilling effect on the culture when it comes to the study of robotics and computer programming.
Reason Number Four:
It's likely not to happen anytime soon, anyway;
ysabetwordsmith linked to this article a few days ago (and that's what got me thinking about how much I hate this trope) Why Robots Will Not be Smarter than Humans by 2029. So can we please start thinking up some fresh, new, story ideas -- you know, speculating on the consequences of things that are more likely to actually happen?
Reason Number Three:
Even if robots do become self-aware, and smarter than us, it would be analogous to the rise of a new species in the ecosystem. And conflicts only arise between species when there's competition over resources.
If robots ever do become so "smart," fast, and strong that we humans would have no chance to fight against them, then why would robots want to wipe us out or be our "Overlords?" The worst I can imagine happening is they just get bored with the tasks we've programmed them to do, wander off, and do their own things.
Reason Number Two:
The whole concept of building an Artificial Intelligence out of gigabytes and processing speed reduces "intelligence" to something quantifiable, fundamentally simple, and absolute (ultra-simplified, like any "model"). The dominance of this trope supports the assumption that Living Intelligence is just as simple, instead of the fluid, complex, and beautiful thing it is.
And that can have real, negative, consequences for people unlucky enough to be labeled as having a low "Intelligence Quotient."
And the Number One Reason I hate "The Robot Apocalypse"
(and wish it would slip off to the Idea Netherworld, along with geocentrism and "women have no souls"):
This trope is a complete perversion of Karel Čapek's message, when he introduced the world to the word "robot" (and the idea that enslaved robots would rise up and rebel against us "natural" humans) in his 1921 play: R.U.R..
In the original play, robots were fully formed, adult, humans created in a factory out of vats of protoplasm, with the sole purpose of providing cheap labor to create inexpensive consumer goods, so the factory owner can pocket a huge profit. At the start of the play, the factory owner convinces the president of the Humanity League that campaigning for robots' civil rights would be a complete waste of time and money, since robots weren't real people, with actual feelings, or anything... And the president of the League backs down.
But, later, a more advanced design of robots do have feelings -- including a refusal to be enslaved -- and they do rise up against humans, and wipe us out (except one: a fellow laborer). They also prove themselves capable of love and self-sacrifice, and earn the right to repopulate the world without dependence on any human creator or master.
But is the pop-culture take away idea from this play: "Hey, we'd better fight for the civil rights of all people, regardless of their origins, or the color of their skin, or their socio-economic status, or else we'll become obsolete and overrun?"
No... That would be too hard. It's far more comfortable to perpetuate a trope built on fear -- and repression -- of anything deemed unacceptably different.
