Avatar. The Avengers. Iron Man 3. Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The Dark Knight Rises.
These are five of the top ten all-time highest grossing movies. Their (arguable) inclusion in the Science Fiction canon begs a question of the genre: is it just the spectacle that we shell out to witness, or is there some more primitive itch that these kinds of events scratch?
This blog is dedicated to figuring out how it is that Science Fiction addresses the problem of defining "human."
Keep the contradictions coming. Along with the Futurist Manifesto, this writing also has its contradiction and its name is Helena. Her whole discussion with the doctors in the beginning is a prime example of this. She is there to discuss rights for the robots and to protect them from the "indecencies" they've suffered and then proceeds to make a comment about "Red Indians" and apologizes for confusing the humans with robots - as if its insulting. Not to mention she's not the best of activists. After she accidentally thinks that the managers are robots she gives up her cause. She requests to be sent away because she has revealed to them that she's trying to get the robots to claim rights for themselves. How was she planning to spur excitement in them if she backs off as soon as she faces authority?
I can't say I blame her reaction when she does face the robots though. How depressing to watch something that looks and feels like a human, but is utterly and completely detached. It's disturbing. So what does that say about the creators who watch them all day? Are they just so aware because they've seen them created that it's hard to think of them as human or are they just becoming detached from reality themselves? More mad scientists?
The fact that she had trouble understanding that they weren't human was interesting for a different reason as well. It was very much what we talk about in class with the "bullshit job." The job that is pointless, but works you until you don't feel alive; you're just going through the motions. This gave me flashes to my own job where I don't know how many times a day pick of the phone and say: "Thank you for calling Outback, this is Laura. How may I help you?" I don't know what I'm saying. I'm the robot and so are you. After all how much of our day is autopilot? The ultimate "meh" view of life. You work, you become a robot; you go through the motions, but generally they're pretty meaningless. The difference is we have the ability to think and break free from that.
Unless we do get stuck. I noticed an interesting allusion to depression that results from the pointless jobs. The DSM has nine symptoms for major depression including the lack of pleasure in activities, lack of interest in life/no fear of death, lack of appetite, psychomotor agitation, and irritability (the robots cramp) The robots exhibit all of these.
Also funny: we have to prove we're not a robot to comment on this blog.
I can’t quite place my finger on which human problem Capek is primarily trying to focus on. In the beginning I thought the primary theme would be on how humans are always looking for a cheaper source of labor, and how the robots have filled that desire. I like how the creator of this fantastic new technology is considered genius, but at the same time he seems to be thought of in a negative way. I can’t decide if it’s because he is an atheist, because that fact is mentioned multiple times, or if it’s because the people who work at Rossum’s agree with the general public that the man was crazy. Even if he was a genius. However, I believe it was Albert Einstein that said that genius is just a step beyond insane. (Or something of that nature). Also, why the hell is Domin telling Helena all this information about the company in the first act. He barely knows who this girl is but decides she gets the Grand Tour of the facility that is kept secret from everyone else. Is it because she’s pretty? I guess you could say this is good example of how human emotions mess up everything. However, without our human flaws and emotions I guess the world and our lives would be rather bland. We’d then be like a robot, and as Capek describes the characteristics of the robots in the factory, I would not like to live my life like that. Their lives are very shallow and insignificant and as I now see Laura wrote in the previous comment they all seem really depressed
ACT 1 I really liked this reading. It was simply easy to read, a bit of fun, and interesting enough to keep me engaged. Helena is sort of a sweet little innocent character who seems to be a friend to all. I find it interesting that much is kept from her (for some reason I don’t really know), yet she has a feeling that something bad is to come. I relate to her in some ways as I imagine I would be the one feeling bad for robots because they don’t have souls. It’s a sort of innocent and girly thing to be that way, but that’s how I am sometimes. I also think its ironic that they made a robot similar to her, yet that robot is “no good.” I think this leads to the difference in what is useful vs. what is important. Helena (the real person) is not told much of what is going on and is therefore not that helpful in the upcoming situations, yet everyone loves her and celebrates her. Helena (the robot) is not really good for anything, yet they made her and continue to keep her. Something about Helena (the real person) is likeable, genuine, and human, and counteracts her uselessness. Being extraordinarily useful or capable is great, but not what is really and truly important in a person. I think this is also represented in Dr. Gall trying to make the robots feel hatred or any emotion in general, his goal being to make them even more like people. There is something better to being a person than just being useful. The robots have the useful part down, being capable of anything and even stronger than people. But whatever this something is that makes being a person so much better, is lacking for the robots. Perhaps just having a soul as Helena might put it. It is obvious that she has burned the manuscript on how to build the robots, which I think is really interesting but I don’t quite know what to make of it yet. Perhaps her genuine little self is trying to help out in the only way she thinks she can. Also, on a separate and small note, I would like to know how these robots look. Sometimes they sound like they are made of metal (can be put on the scrap heap) and sometimes they sound like people (having hair).
As far as Act I goes, I found the whole description of mad old Rossum at the beginning to be the work trying to justify itself as "hard sci-fi." Yes, maybe Helena is pretty and Domin is just infatuated with her, readily revealing all the company's secrets, but this, to me, echoes one of those really cheesy plays/fictions that starts out with the maid cleaning someone's house, and then answers a ringing phone, saying things like... "What's that? You say Mr. Protagonist's car crashed? And his daughter is supposed to get his inheritance? But there's complications? And everything I reveal right here is going to continue on to be the main plot of our story? Oh dear!" Obviously it's not the same thing; R.U.R mainly seems to be trying to hard (literally and metaphorically) to be sci-fi with the intro story about "[Rossum] sitting with a test tube" and some jelly that he whips up into a few failed creations of man, instead of a dull plot overlay that the rest of the story will follow. What they have in common is the superfluous feel that we get when reading them-- rather than letter the story tell itself, the writer tries to influence the reader's thinking too much.
I agree that Helena is composed of many sorts of contradictions as well. (Not surprised about the "Red Indians" bit though-- note that one of the characters, Busman, in the cast is described as a "fat, bald, short-sighted Jew.") She cannot figure out who the robots are and who they aren't, and I'd figure she's just assuming things about the first robot she meets (Sulla) and the other humans (e.g. Fabry and co.) for comical effect. They tell her over and over what they are, and it takes her several times to actually get it through her head. It's to the point where it's trying to be funny, but fails so badly at its attempt that quite frankly I just wanted to stop reading.
And I know it's a translation, but all those grammar errors... ugh.
In the first Act of Rossum’s Universal Robots, the question of “what is human?” comes up very quickly. It’s then answered by “what isn’t a human?”, which is a hell of a lot easier to tackle. As the Young Rossum thought, there’s a lot to life (in a bits and pieces of person sort of way, not a deep philosophical sort of way) that can be left out. One of the life’s most redundant systems is on the level of the DNA. To quickly go through the process of building a person, you start from proteins. To get the proteins you need three bits of RNA, and to get that you need DNA. This idea is referred to as the Central Dogma of Genetics. The translation of RNA to proteins is incredibly redundant. The RNA gets translated into amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. There are many different proteins that make up a person, but only 20 amino acids and about 64 different combinations of 3 pieces of RNA. It’s incredibly redundant and could stand to be streamlined and simplified. If you’re an atheist like Old Rossum, it’s obvious that the more redundant a system is, the harder it is to really mess up what’s being made, be it a beetle or a Beatle. And if you’re not an atheist, to paraphrase Domin, any higher power doesn’t have any idea about modern engineering. People as a whole are flawed. We are irrational, complex, have weird moods, and care about what happens to us and those we care about. These are very philosophically human qualities. But why do we do these things when they are so irrational, and complex, un-streamlined processes? That’s the million dollar question.
Well. how interesting. To keep the focus on the topic of the class. The definition of Human. A small little piece spoke a lot to me here. And that is when Dormin talks of enjoying oneself and soaking in the beauty around him. It makes sense too, as far as I know of, there isn't another animal in the world that has some of its species take pleasure as goal in life. We have natural ecstacy that comes from having a jolly good time doing whatever it is we are passionate about. And we also have ecstacy, a drug created by man to make man feel greater pleasure than we could organically. We can look at sunsets or blonde models and go "Goddamn, what a beautiful thing that is" and get lost in the beauty. A dog won't do that. We make art, which is really just artificial beauty. whether symbolically or because of the lavish colors. We enjoy things because that is what we are. I suppose maybe in a fatalistic perspective, that is what we are made to do. Like how fish are made to be eaten, and zebras are made to gallop. We are made to enjoy ourselves. that's just a basic view however, I don't think that's true. But its something to think about.
The talk of no longer having to work reminds me of what happened in The Time Machine. Of course, there's no cannibalism. But this is another possibility of humans no longer having to work. I have not read past Act 1 so I wonder how this turns out for the humans in the story if this means that they have no means of manufacturing or logistics since the robots seem to have all that covered.
Sam: So Helena may not quite fit the part of the activist but she does play the captured maiden part perfectly. Helena like Helen of Troy was stolen away to be made a bride and was the reason the whole trojan war was fought. Because of Helena the doctor created smarter robots with feelings and then she burned the instructions to make more robots, causing the war. This kind of goes along with the futurist manifesto when they condemn women. Women do seem to cause men to do some stupid things. Not that we should actually repress women, just maybe not throw them into a group of mad scientists who haven’t been in contact with a human woman in quite some time. Its was bound to end badly. But this story reminds me a lot of Frankenstein and the big question of what it means to be human. In the end the robots do feel and one of their creators is left with a dilemma of are they human or not when they are scared to be cut open.
Kyle McKenna R.U.R I’m going to start this by stating I am not overly deep into the novel and I was not going to write a response at all but felt I needed to get this statement out before our first class on R.U.R. R.U.R already seems like a book/play/novel that is going to run parallel to the conversations we had with Frankenstein however we will not have to hunt deeply for it. On page 7 of the book, Domin tells young Miss Glory that “Old Rossum was completely mad” already bringing us to the mad scientist conversation. Then follows up by stating that Rossum was looking to replace God as the creator of life. This is exactly how we talked about Victor Frankenstein and led us down a deep dark path to the first books of Genesis. Which obviously I am more than happy to follow. This seems like another novel about the mad scientist hunting for the answer and again not being far in the book looks like another novel where we will be looking at the created lashing back out at the creator. This type of narrative opens up doors to create the conversation of what it means to be human, or what the real role of God is in our lives. Was he a mad man creating things at a whim and we are the bastard mistake he has let run wild? Or are we the perfect image of him and our endless curiosity is the tool he uses to control our further development? Thus far I am enjoying the book and would like to agree with whomever already called out the blatant references in the name because it doesn't seem like Capek really tried on this one at all.
On its face, it’s a very badly written story, not helped at all by whatever it was that happened at the end of the first act with Helena and Domin. It was interesting though; many themes come during the first act that given when it was written in 1920, are surprising. When Helena says, “They make me feel so strange”, Capek almost perfectly described how we feel today seeing a robot that tries to look too human without being human. I find it amazing that Capek, being of a time where robots were confined to science fiction, managed to describe just how we feel today when we see super-realistic robots, the uncanny feeling that something just isn’t right. I was surprised when they discussed the higher-class robot, as Helena is completely convinced that Sulla is a human. Capek also played with the idea of human, mentioning how we love to do things that are “really unnecessary”, and contrasting that to what is a robot, a soulless, simple device that completes work. I found it very weird that the robots in the play were almost biological, requiring food, and of an organic base. It was also strange how the robots in the play have more than just a basic skeleton/frame and means for having intelligence, instead they have veins and organs, going against Domin's story of the robots creation, simple and with "no tassels and ornaments". I also noticed roughly half way through the act, Helena corrects Domin on the meaning of Marius and Sulla’s names, how they were generals who fought each other, almost signaling that somewhere ahead we will get the low-class, “coarser” robots fighting the high-class, more refined robots, likely with the help of Helena trying to make them feel human.
I enjoyed reading the first act of the book. I've always thought the whole robot idea was cool and intrigued me. The book I think foreshadows what the near future could bring to actual life, a mix between technology and labor and marketing. When we think of robots a lot of time we think of being lazy, having robots do our every chore or task. I think we miss a whole aspect of it, being the marketing side. Also who makes the robots? More robots, or does the robot industry just increase the amount of factory jobs in America? While robots are not yet a large part of actual life, readings like this make you think of the possibilities if they were. Although there are many aspects besides the whole lazy idea, that is still a big part of it. Making everything ran by robots can just not be a good thing, as we would lose control of everything, and future generations would not know how to do anything for themselves. While there may be some pros to robots in the future, I think the cons weigh a little heavier.
ACT 2 Many people seem to dislike this book and I am not saying its any reward-deserving work or anything, but I do find it to be continuously entertaining. In this act, I found it really interesting that no one really felt badly or responsible for what the robots have become. It made more sense then when Dr. Gall admitted what he had done, and then when Helena chimed in as the real driving force behind it all. Helena still just being innocent, wanted to give a soul to the robots and try to find peace between them and mankind. The quote that no one hates mankind more than mankind stuck with me a little bit there. I also thought about how Dr. Gall agreed “for his own experiment,” but really because he cares for Helena. This is another thing that makes us human. When it finally comes out that Helena burned the papers, it was actually better received than I thought it would be. I also liked the little joke of crowd mentality when the robots just tried to appear intimidating by standing outside the house. This of course only lasted until they started coming through the window and killing various characters. I found it interesting when then the robots decide to keep the useful worker one, Alquist. Alquist, on the other hand, is so torn by the loss of his friends that they are his only concern. That Alquist would rather worry for his fallen friends than for his own fate is just yet another human quality the robots do not have.
What makes sci-fi interesting to me is the way it combines history, science, and philosophy, along with its unique narrative tone and style. Rossum’s combines these to make for a very interesting story.
Yes, the writing isn’t perfectly polished; it is theatrical and dramatic. However, I think the tone does have its charm. It is meant for a stage after all, where dramatic overacting is necessary, and the tone follows the kind of style of the time. For example, think of any old black and white film you’ve seen where the damsel throws herself dramatically into the arms of the protagonist. However cheesy we might think of it today, Helena’s rapid marriage acceptance seems to mirror this general style.
Historically, the themes reflect the preoccupations of the author’s time (like Communism in The Time Machine), which is always interesting to me. At the time this was written, Europe was defined by a revolutionary period that followed World War One. The robot uprising mirrors this tumultuous period and the play lists some areas where it’s taking place: The Balkans, Spain, and Havre. The themes Capek writes about reflect the lived reality that Europe was experiencing in Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain -essentially everywhere- like in the play. In Rossum's, manifestos are distributed, and there’s a serious birth crisis, all current events and preoccupations that Europe was grappling with.
The philosophical questions Rossum’s poses though, are the most thought-provoking. There are plenty that address the relevant issues of class, and economic and labor policies of course, but in sci-fi the human questions are most interesting to me. How do you manage the value of humanity? Doesn’t humanity claim dominance over the earth because we’re the highest form of life? So how are we inherently “better” that the robots we created, even if they are stronger, smarter, and more durable than we are? If the only initial difference between us and them is the lack of a “soul”, is this the defining feature that legitimizes or gives value to something? Is the inclusion of a “soul” what inspires the revolution? Is that newly included human element what corrupts them? Is it really corruption, or is it a living being claiming (as we did) its “natural” superiority over the earth? Despite the objections we as humans feel about being subjugated, can we nevertheless look past this and appreciate the logic of this premise? If superior beings dominate, does it follow that we too must be dominated?
This develops the interesting paradox of who’s dependent on who. We depend on robots and technology for our way of life, yet they depend on us for their continued existence. They take over the world, but not without us continually manufacturing them. Like Frankenstein, a similar theme play out here of the created claiming authority over their creator.
All the talk in R.U.R about the difference between humans and robots and why they would want to revolt and kill their creators got me thinking about the human question that this course focuses on. What exactly makes us any better than the robots in the first place? They're stronger, faster, smarter, and overall more efficient than humans, but they're still subordinate to us. I for one find it hard to believe that Dr. Gall was unable to see how unwise his experiments were. Robots in R.U.R were superior to humans almost every way so to me it seems obvious that if you started making robots that were smarter than humans, they would eventually realize that they are in fact the ones with all the power and revolt against their oppressors. I also had trouble grasping the ending of the play. I get that Primus and robot Helena were supposed to be the first robots to fall in love, which is why Alquist lets them escape and be the new Adam and Eve. But they're still robots after all and unless I'm missing something, robots still can't procreate, so I don’t see how letting these two robots run off to be together, in any way, saves life from perishing. Even though R.U.R felt rushed, over dramatic, and at times nonsensical, I still found it very entertaining and it brought up some interesting questions on what it means to be human.
“Rossum’s Universal Robots” was an interesting read which I personally though was very interesting, at least from a narrative perspective (Robots take over the world and are biological). For some reason at the end of the play I felt as if there was an empty hole in me because of the lack of resolution from the story however. Everyone dies? Really? Everyone is killed on the face of planet Earth in how many days? And only Alquist is spared because…he was a builder. I’m pretty positive that there are other “builders” in the world besides the character Alquist. Out of all of the characters he was the most willing to die however he instead is “rewarded” with life with the annoying as F*$K robots. I also enjoy how he is the most repulsed by what is being done at the factory and says nothing to the others until its too late. Not only this, but he renounces science and progress while maintaining his occupation as an engineer/carpenter, a field which is based upon such ideas. This just seems to be one of the many faults with the logic of this story. On a bit of a side note, am I completely wrong in thinking that the robots cannot reproduce? It was said previously within the play that they were given sexual organs in order to aesthetically “fit in”, however that does not necessarily mean that these parts work the same as they do on a normal human. From the story it would seem that they would not work the same as a human’s, because as young Rossum would agree, this does not make then better workers and sex as a whole is a pretty inefficient way of reproducing anyways, which goes against the whole idea of the robots. If this is in fact the case, then what was the ending with Alquist and the Adam and Eve reference supposed to mean seeing how Primus and Helena cannot reproduce. No matter how much two “things” “love” each other, babies do not form from the ether. I see why Brad said this was bad…
Evolution was mentioned in class last time and I thought it was a pretty interesting point to make. Specifically, I believe it was suggested that Rossum's robots could possibly be considered our evolutionary offspring because they're basically exactly like humans, except better in almost every way.
That might sound weird to some people (it sounds a bit weird to me too, honestly), but when you think about it we’d probably seem a little odd to our own ancestors. Are Neanderthals humans? I think most people would say yes, but what about those that came before them?
According to most biology textbooks, humans and apes are of common descent. However, as similar as humans and apes are, I think we can all look at an ape and say, “No, I don’t think that’s a human,” and vice versa with apes. This leads me to believe that the common ancestor we share with apes wasn’t quite what we’d consider human either. So at what point did the descendants of that common ancestor start being human?
I believe that this is part of why it’s so difficult to define what a human is. “Human” or “homo sapiens” are just classifications or categories, which means every time the list of traits expands, the number of organisms we can call “human” shrinks (this is a problem we encountered during the first day or two of class, I think).
So what happens if something near-human were to suddenly pop up in our society? It could be an inexplicably humanoid alien from outer space, or a human precursor that somehow found and figured out how to use a time machine, or it could be one of Rossum’s robots. Do we treat it like a human? Or is it time to start broadening our definition of human?
It’s possible that the thing I hate the most about this play is not the awful storyline but the relationship between Helena and Domin. They’re both so passive towards each other and everything they do makes the relationship seem so artificial. Domin’s character is so extremely dull that showing even the tiniest bit of emotion would be likely to cause his brain to overheat and stop working; when he surprised Helena on the ten year anniversary he couldn’t even be bothered to take her gifts out of his own pockets to present them to her. And when she pulled out the revolver he was so nonchalant and monotone, dancing around explaining himself and pushing it off that the weapon just happened to end up in his pocket by mistake.
I also thought it to be very interesting that Mr. Alquist was asking Helena about prayers against sins and disasters, then continued to inquire if there were any prayers against progress. Something to consider would be how the creation of these robots was supposed to be such a great new innovation; and even though they have turned and are so detrimental to humankind, Alquist still decides to refer to their existence as progress (having a generally positive connotation).
One final thing that I wanted to focus on was Helena’s character, and the way that I had perceived her throughout the play. She tended to be my least favorite character, and I hate to say it but I think that I felt this way primarily because she showed so much emotion. To me, her sympathy and compassion for the robots made her seem weak and incapable. She lets her feelings get in the way of her rational thinking, and in return she ends of dooming the resurgence of the human race (through burning Rossum’s manuscript).
it's so ironic that humans can no longer have babies by the end of the play. In the beginning robots had reproductive parts that didn't work and were unnecessary because by the end it was humans who had the unnecessary reproductive parts. Biologically humans really only reproduce because we need to create more of us to work an help our race. With no work to be done, why would we need more humans? It's the robots that now need more of themselves to work. It's like the circle we keep talking about in class where essentially the robots become the humans. At first it seems that humans and robots are on completely different ends of the spectrum but by the end we see that they're actually one and the same.
Both Act I and Act II were very interesting to me because I didn't expect this novel to be about robots and how futuristic it was for such an old novel. I can really see the science fiction in this novel by the way there is a scientist, robots, and more. I know that Young Rossum wanted to be rich and make the world a lot easier on us by creating robots to work for us, but soon the good things will turn into bad things. Like for example in Act II, there was a decline in human births because with the amount of robots in society taking over the work load of humans, not a lot of humans were needed as back then. So now the robots are increasing while the humans are decreasing in numbers. So this brings me back to Act I where Helena wants the robots to be paid by the owners but gave up on that idea since the robots did not really like anything. It seems to me that as time goes by and robots start to take over and are starting to be more human like, Helena's idea might not be a crazy idea and that paying the robots might be something that might happen soon in this novel.
In Act Two we really get to see the dangers of the mad scientist much more clearly than we did in Act One, even perhaps more clearly than we did when reading Frankenstein. Obviously we see the danger when the robots are taught to be like soldiers and begin to revolt against the humans, but we also see it through Domin's reaction to the revolt. He says that he does not regret making the robots, no matter what sort of destruction follows. "Not even now, on the last day of civilization. It was a magnificent undertaking," he says to Alquist, when Alquist says that the real crime was in making the robots in the first place. He goes on to say that it was a noble task that they were doing, trying to get rid of the slavery of labor--which is of course ridiculous because they were just enslaving some other form of life instead of humans, and, as Alquist pointed out, that was not even the main objective of Rossum when he started the production (the main goal being, of course, making a profit). Domin embodies the idea of the mad scientist even better than Frankenstein, because while Frankenstein was able to look back and see his mistakes, regret them even, Domin says that he was right to do what he did and that he wouldn't change it, no matter the consequences of his actions.
The part that stuck out to me when I was reading pretty much the second half, was Domain's "rant" on page 74 in the copy Brad put online. Right at the beginning of act III. Domain kind of just goes off into a tangent, I think almost trying to comfort himself. He talks about why exactly he did what he did, which brings in the overwhelming topic of ridding of drudgery labor. He says "I wanted a new generation", which brings in the realistic feelings, that this could actually happen. The author recognizes that this is not everyday reality and indeed, a new generation would have to take place. I think that the second half of the book, and especially that quote by Domain really bring a realistic side to the story. Mainly because it is not just sunshine and roses anymore, we start actually seeing the problem, not only with robots, but with over manufacturing robots. Again I will say, I think this book can be a realistic foreshadowing of our world to come.
ACT 3 In this act, I was interested by the reliance of the robots on Alquist to show them “the secret of life.” The robots are confident that humans know this and that it is absolutely necessary for robots to go on. I found it interesting that he keeps repeating that the only procreation comes from people and that without them the robots would not be there anyway. The robots, as useful as they may be, are still lacking that something that humans had. When the robots finally start showing some sign of human nature and compassion/love, Alquist sets them free to go be with each other. I liked that the robots began showing these signs, as maybe their part-biological/organic make up made them susceptible to human nature and feelings. As an ending though, I was left with a few questions. Even though the two robots are now free to run off in love as husband and wife, aren’t they incapable of having further generations anyway? Maybe he jut sees this as hope for the robot population. Though it may be hope, it doesn’t tell us what will happen to him or what he will do, or what exactly happened to Domin and Helena. Did they go away on the boat and I just missed that? Wasn’t the boat taken over by robots? I don’t particularly remember them dying (maybe this is just a flaw in my copy – the bookstore one). I also liked that our typical picture of the ideal future – incredibly efficient robots doing all of the work that we don’t want to – is played through with a chance to strive, but still brought to light as not what we might really want. What we are very confident is going to be a great idea and great change for the world does not always play out the way we think. Perhaps we assume the grass would be greener with robots, but it never really is. Either way, it was an entertaining story that I’m sure would have made for one quite colorful play.
Similar to Brendan I don't understand how Primus and Helena now suddenly have the ability to procreate and restart the human race or the robot race or whatever would result. Robots are made sterile so even if they do have the capacity for love can they develop the ability to reproduce? Does evolution over time not exist in robots? Or maybe it's just another way for Alquist to shirk his responsibility, which he does a few different times throughout the play. Instead of fixing the problem he just hopes Helena and Primus can answer it themselves.
A prime example of this is only a couple of pages earlier when he refuses to dissect the robots in order to find the formula to restart their production. He cringes at the idea of murdering a couple of robots in order to save the world. That asks the question is the purpose of being alive completely a personal and unconnected matter where you should live the best possible life for yourself or is that overshadowed by your duty to humanity and its continuation? Is Alquist being compassionate here or just really selfish?
Are Helena and Alquist, who are concerned for the well being of humans and robots and are against hurting them really the better human beings or the worst ones? Is compassion, even in the face of danger, really worth the risk of possible destruction? Maybe it's not always better to be the bigger person. Maybe that's the justification of war.
The epilogue seemed like it was trying to wrap things up in some profound, elucidating way, but ended up rather clunky. Like a pimply faced teenager on a first date, it ended with halting, confused awkwardness. For example, Alquist calls robots the “shadow” of man, and ponders the use of stars if man is not there to think or wonder about them. Yet, he refers to a dissection as “murder”, and toils much like a robot himself: “Must never stop.” Furthermore, Helena and Primus are pronounced “Adam and Eve” thanks to Dr. Gall’s firmware update of a “soul”, yet they still cannot reproduce. The line, “The world is yours” is less of a revolutionary, cathartic realization after you remember they’ll be dead soon. “Oh…well…it’s yours for the next decade or so, anyway…”
Here is where the paradox becomes explicit: Robots dominate, but are willing to give up the world for life’s secret. (A secret, by the way that Helena 2.0 has no interest in. “Don’t bother with the secret of life, what does it matter to you?”) Alquist is giving orders and is the most powerful being there, despite being surrounded by robots that beat him in brains, strength and numbers. The search for remaining humans ends without any results, as does the search for the secret to robot life.
R.U.R. took what I predicted and turned it on its head. I thought that the robots would take over and make the humans their slaves. I would think that the robots would be logical enough to keep other humans besides Alquist around. Besides masons and bricklayers, they would need more doctors and engineers. This is what bugged me the most about this whole story the most. They claim to be so perfect but overlook one crucial part and that’s what they need to know in order to reproduce. I heard about the religious references at the end of this story but, I didn’t think that it would be this blatant. The Tower of Babel reference was way more subtle. It’s interesting that in a world ruled by robots, religion still has its place. In my last response, I wondered about the issue with labor and compared it to The Time Machine. I think that labor is humanizing only when humans do it. To expand on that, humans get a sense of accomplishment among other feelings when they finish a job. When something is done through automation, it may be done quickly and more efficiently but it lacks that. I think that was the issue of no longer being able to work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKeep the contradictions coming. Along with the Futurist Manifesto, this writing also has its contradiction and its name is Helena. Her whole discussion with the doctors in the beginning is a prime example of this. She is there to discuss rights for the robots and to protect them from the "indecencies" they've suffered and then proceeds to make a comment about "Red Indians" and apologizes for confusing the humans with robots - as if its insulting. Not to mention she's not the best of activists. After she accidentally thinks that the managers are robots she gives up her cause. She requests to be sent away because she has revealed to them that she's trying to get the robots to claim rights for themselves. How was she planning to spur excitement in them if she backs off as soon as she faces authority?
ReplyDeleteI can't say I blame her reaction when she does face the robots though. How depressing to watch something that looks and feels like a human, but is utterly and completely detached. It's disturbing. So what does that say about the creators who watch them all day? Are they just so aware because they've seen them created that it's hard to think of them as human or are they just becoming detached from reality themselves? More mad scientists?
The fact that she had trouble understanding that they weren't human was interesting for a different reason as well. It was very much what we talk about in class with the "bullshit job." The job that is pointless, but works you until you don't feel alive; you're just going through the motions. This gave me flashes to my own job where I don't know how many times a day pick of the phone and say: "Thank you for calling Outback, this is Laura. How may I help you?" I don't know what I'm saying. I'm the robot and so are you. After all how much of our day is autopilot? The ultimate "meh" view of life. You work, you become a robot; you go through the motions, but generally they're pretty meaningless. The difference is we have the ability to think and break free from that.
Unless we do get stuck. I noticed an interesting allusion to depression that results from the pointless jobs. The DSM has nine symptoms for major depression including the lack of pleasure in activities, lack of interest in life/no fear of death, lack of appetite, psychomotor agitation, and irritability (the robots cramp) The robots exhibit all of these.
Also funny: we have to prove we're not a robot to comment on this blog.
From Alyssa:
ReplyDeleteI can’t quite place my finger on which human problem Capek is primarily trying to focus on. In the beginning I thought the primary theme would be on how humans are always looking for a cheaper source of labor, and how the robots have filled that desire.
I like how the creator of this fantastic new technology is considered genius, but at the same time he seems to be thought of in a negative way. I can’t decide if it’s because he is an atheist, because that fact is mentioned multiple times, or if it’s because the people who work at Rossum’s agree with the general public that the man was crazy. Even if he was a genius. However, I believe it was Albert Einstein that said that genius is just a step beyond insane. (Or something of that nature).
Also, why the hell is Domin telling Helena all this information about the company in the first act. He barely knows who this girl is but decides she gets the Grand Tour of the facility that is kept secret from everyone else. Is it because she’s pretty? I guess you could say this is good example of how human emotions mess up everything. However, without our human flaws and emotions I guess the world and our lives would be rather bland. We’d then be like a robot, and as Capek describes the characteristics of the robots in the factory, I would not like to live my life like that. Their lives are very shallow and insignificant and as I now see Laura wrote in the previous comment they all seem really depressed
ACT 1
ReplyDeleteI really liked this reading. It was simply easy to read, a bit of fun, and interesting enough to keep me engaged. Helena is sort of a sweet little innocent character who seems to be a friend to all. I find it interesting that much is kept from her (for some reason I don’t really know), yet she has a feeling that something bad is to come. I relate to her in some ways as I imagine I would be the one feeling bad for robots because they don’t have souls. It’s a sort of innocent and girly thing to be that way, but that’s how I am sometimes. I also think its ironic that they made a robot similar to her, yet that robot is “no good.” I think this leads to the difference in what is useful vs. what is important. Helena (the real person) is not told much of what is going on and is therefore not that helpful in the upcoming situations, yet everyone loves her and celebrates her. Helena (the robot) is not really good for anything, yet they made her and continue to keep her. Something about Helena (the real person) is likeable, genuine, and human, and counteracts her uselessness. Being extraordinarily useful or capable is great, but not what is really and truly important in a person. I think this is also represented in Dr. Gall trying to make the robots feel hatred or any emotion in general, his goal being to make them even more like people. There is something better to being a person than just being useful. The robots have the useful part down, being capable of anything and even stronger than people. But whatever this something is that makes being a person so much better, is lacking for the robots. Perhaps just having a soul as Helena might put it. It is obvious that she has burned the manuscript on how to build the robots, which I think is really interesting but I don’t quite know what to make of it yet. Perhaps her genuine little self is trying to help out in the only way she thinks she can.
Also, on a separate and small note, I would like to know how these robots look. Sometimes they sound like they are made of metal (can be put on the scrap heap) and sometimes they sound like people (having hair).
As far as Act I goes, I found the whole description of mad old Rossum at the beginning to be the work trying to justify itself as "hard sci-fi." Yes, maybe Helena is pretty and Domin is just infatuated with her, readily revealing all the company's secrets, but this, to me, echoes one of those really cheesy plays/fictions that starts out with the maid cleaning someone's house, and then answers a ringing phone, saying things like... "What's that? You say Mr. Protagonist's car crashed? And his daughter is supposed to get his inheritance? But there's complications? And everything I reveal right here is going to continue on to be the main plot of our story? Oh dear!" Obviously it's not the same thing; R.U.R mainly seems to be trying to hard (literally and metaphorically) to be sci-fi with the intro story about "[Rossum] sitting with a test tube" and some jelly that he whips up into a few failed creations of man, instead of a dull plot overlay that the rest of the story will follow. What they have in common is the superfluous feel that we get when reading them-- rather than letter the story tell itself, the writer tries to influence the reader's thinking too much.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Helena is composed of many sorts of contradictions as well. (Not surprised about the "Red Indians" bit though-- note that one of the characters, Busman, in the cast is described as a "fat, bald, short-sighted Jew.") She cannot figure out who the robots are and who they aren't, and I'd figure she's just assuming things about the first robot she meets (Sulla) and the other humans (e.g. Fabry and co.) for comical effect. They tell her over and over what they are, and it takes her several times to actually get it through her head. It's to the point where it's trying to be funny, but fails so badly at its attempt that quite frankly I just wanted to stop reading.
And I know it's a translation, but all those grammar errors... ugh.
From Em:
ReplyDeleteIn the first Act of Rossum’s Universal Robots, the question of “what is human?” comes up very quickly. It’s then answered by “what isn’t a human?”, which is a hell of a lot easier to tackle. As the Young Rossum thought, there’s a lot to life (in a bits and pieces of person sort of way, not a deep philosophical sort of way) that can be left out. One of the life’s most redundant systems is on the level of the DNA. To quickly go through the process of building a person, you start from proteins. To get the proteins you need three bits of RNA, and to get that you need DNA. This idea is referred to as the Central Dogma of Genetics. The translation of RNA to proteins is incredibly redundant. The RNA gets translated into amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. There are many different proteins that make up a person, but only 20 amino acids and about 64 different combinations of 3 pieces of RNA. It’s incredibly redundant and could stand to be streamlined and simplified. If you’re an atheist like Old Rossum, it’s obvious that the more redundant a system is, the harder it is to really mess up what’s being made, be it a beetle or a Beatle. And if you’re not an atheist, to paraphrase Domin, any higher power doesn’t have any idea about modern engineering.
People as a whole are flawed. We are irrational, complex, have weird moods, and care about what happens to us and those we care about. These are very philosophically human qualities. But why do we do these things when they are so irrational, and complex, un-streamlined processes? That’s the million dollar question.
Well. how interesting.
ReplyDeleteTo keep the focus on the topic of the class. The definition of Human. A small little piece spoke a lot to me here. And that is when Dormin talks of enjoying oneself and soaking in the beauty around him. It makes sense too, as far as I know of, there isn't another animal in the world that has some of its species take pleasure as goal in life. We have natural ecstacy that comes from having a jolly good time doing whatever it is we are passionate about. And we also have ecstacy, a drug created by man to make man feel greater pleasure than we could organically. We can look at sunsets or blonde models and go "Goddamn, what a beautiful thing that is" and get lost in the beauty. A dog won't do that. We make art, which is really just artificial beauty. whether symbolically or because of the lavish colors. We enjoy things because that is what we are. I suppose maybe in a fatalistic perspective, that is what we are made to do. Like how fish are made to be eaten, and zebras are made to gallop. We are made to enjoy ourselves. that's just a basic view however, I don't think that's true. But its something to think about.
The talk of no longer having to work reminds me of what happened in The Time Machine. Of course, there's no cannibalism. But this is another possibility of humans no longer having to work. I have not read past Act 1 so I wonder how this turns out for the humans in the story if this means that they have no means of manufacturing or logistics since the robots seem to have all that covered.
ReplyDeleteSam:
ReplyDeleteSo Helena may not quite fit the part of the activist but she does play the captured maiden part perfectly. Helena like Helen of Troy was stolen away to be made a bride and was the reason the whole trojan war was fought. Because of Helena the doctor created smarter robots with feelings and then she burned the instructions to make more robots, causing the war. This kind of goes along with the futurist manifesto when they condemn women. Women do seem to cause men to do some stupid things. Not that we should actually repress women, just maybe not throw them into a group of mad scientists who haven’t been in contact with a human woman in quite some time. Its was bound to end badly. But this story reminds me a lot of Frankenstein and the big question of what it means to be human. In the end the robots do feel and one of their creators is left with a dilemma of are they human or not when they are scared to be cut open.
Kyle McKenna
ReplyDeleteR.U.R
I’m going to start this by stating I am not overly deep into the novel and I was not going to write a response at all but felt I needed to get this statement out before our first class on R.U.R. R.U.R already seems like a book/play/novel that is going to run parallel to the conversations we had with Frankenstein however we will not have to hunt deeply for it. On page 7 of the book, Domin tells young Miss Glory that “Old Rossum was completely mad” already bringing us to the mad scientist conversation. Then follows up by stating that Rossum was looking to replace God as the creator of life. This is exactly how we talked about Victor Frankenstein and led us down a deep dark path to the first books of Genesis. Which obviously I am more than happy to follow.
This seems like another novel about the mad scientist hunting for the answer and again not being far in the book looks like another novel where we will be looking at the created lashing back out at the creator. This type of narrative opens up doors to create the conversation of what it means to be human, or what the real role of God is in our lives. Was he a mad man creating things at a whim and we are the bastard mistake he has let run wild? Or are we the perfect image of him and our endless curiosity is the tool he uses to control our further development? Thus far I am enjoying the book and would like to agree with whomever already called out the blatant references in the name because it doesn't seem like Capek really tried on this one at all.
On its face, it’s a very badly written story, not helped at all by whatever it was that happened at the end of the first act with Helena and Domin. It was interesting though; many themes come during the first act that given when it was written in 1920, are surprising. When Helena says, “They make me feel so strange”, Capek almost perfectly described how we feel today seeing a robot that tries to look too human without being human. I find it amazing that Capek, being of a time where robots were confined to science fiction, managed to describe just how we feel today when we see super-realistic robots, the uncanny feeling that something just isn’t right. I was surprised when they discussed the higher-class robot, as Helena is completely convinced that Sulla is a human. Capek also played with the idea of human, mentioning how we love to do things that are “really unnecessary”, and contrasting that to what is a robot, a soulless, simple device that completes work. I found it very weird that the robots in the play were almost biological, requiring food, and of an organic base. It was also strange how the robots in the play have more than just a basic skeleton/frame and means for having intelligence, instead they have veins and organs, going against Domin's story of the robots creation, simple and with "no tassels and ornaments". I also noticed roughly half way through the act, Helena corrects Domin on the meaning of Marius and Sulla’s names, how they were generals who fought each other, almost signaling that somewhere ahead we will get the low-class, “coarser” robots fighting the high-class, more refined robots, likely with the help of Helena trying to make them feel human.
ReplyDeleteFrom Mike:
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading the first act of the book. I've always thought the whole robot idea was cool and intrigued me. The book I think foreshadows what the near future could bring to actual life, a mix between technology and labor and marketing. When we think of robots a lot of time we think of being lazy, having robots do our every chore or task. I think we miss a whole aspect of it, being the marketing side. Also who makes the robots? More robots, or does the robot industry just increase the amount of factory jobs in America? While robots are not yet a large part of actual life, readings like this make you think of the possibilities if they were. Although there are many aspects besides the whole lazy idea, that is still a big part of it. Making everything ran by robots can just not be a good thing, as we would lose control of everything, and future generations would not know how to do anything for themselves. While there may be some pros to robots in the future, I think the cons weigh a little heavier.
ACT 2
ReplyDeleteMany people seem to dislike this book and I am not saying its any reward-deserving work or anything, but I do find it to be continuously entertaining. In this act, I found it really interesting that no one really felt badly or responsible for what the robots have become. It made more sense then when Dr. Gall admitted what he had done, and then when Helena chimed in as the real driving force behind it all. Helena still just being innocent, wanted to give a soul to the robots and try to find peace between them and mankind. The quote that no one hates mankind more than mankind stuck with me a little bit there. I also thought about how Dr. Gall agreed “for his own experiment,” but really because he cares for Helena. This is another thing that makes us human. When it finally comes out that Helena burned the papers, it was actually better received than I thought it would be. I also liked the little joke of crowd mentality when the robots just tried to appear intimidating by standing outside the house. This of course only lasted until they started coming through the window and killing various characters. I found it interesting when then the robots decide to keep the useful worker one, Alquist. Alquist, on the other hand, is so torn by the loss of his friends that they are his only concern. That Alquist would rather worry for his fallen friends than for his own fate is just yet another human quality the robots do not have.
What makes sci-fi interesting to me is the way it combines history, science, and philosophy, along with its unique narrative tone and style. Rossum’s combines these to make for a very interesting story.
ReplyDeleteYes, the writing isn’t perfectly polished; it is theatrical and dramatic. However, I think the tone does have its charm. It is meant for a stage after all, where dramatic overacting is necessary, and the tone follows the kind of style of the time. For example, think of any old black and white film you’ve seen where the damsel throws herself dramatically into the arms of the protagonist. However cheesy we might think of it today, Helena’s rapid marriage acceptance seems to mirror this general style.
Historically, the themes reflect the preoccupations of the author’s time (like Communism in The Time Machine), which is always interesting to me. At the time this was written, Europe was defined by a revolutionary period that followed World War One. The robot uprising mirrors this tumultuous period and the play lists some areas where it’s taking place: The Balkans, Spain, and Havre. The themes Capek writes about reflect the lived reality that Europe was experiencing in Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain -essentially everywhere- like in the play. In Rossum's, manifestos are distributed, and there’s a serious birth crisis, all current events and preoccupations that Europe was grappling with.
The philosophical questions Rossum’s poses though, are the most thought-provoking. There are plenty that address the relevant issues of class, and economic and labor policies of course, but in sci-fi the human questions are most interesting to me. How do you manage the value of humanity? Doesn’t humanity claim dominance over the earth because we’re the highest form of life? So how are we inherently “better” that the robots we created, even if they are stronger, smarter, and more durable than we are? If the only initial difference between us and them is the lack of a “soul”, is this the defining feature that legitimizes or gives value to something? Is the inclusion of a “soul” what inspires the revolution? Is that newly included human element what corrupts them? Is it really corruption, or is it a living being claiming (as we did) its “natural” superiority over the earth? Despite the objections we as humans feel about being subjugated, can we nevertheless look past this and appreciate the logic of this premise? If superior beings dominate, does it follow that we too must be dominated?
This develops the interesting paradox of who’s dependent on who. We depend on robots and technology for our way of life, yet they depend on us for their continued existence. They take over the world, but not without us continually manufacturing them. Like Frankenstein, a similar theme play out here of the created claiming authority over their creator.
All the talk in R.U.R about the difference between humans and robots and why they would want to revolt and kill their creators got me thinking about the human question that this course focuses on. What exactly makes us any better than the robots in the first place? They're stronger, faster, smarter, and overall more efficient than humans, but they're still subordinate to us. I for one find it hard to believe that Dr. Gall was unable to see how unwise his experiments were. Robots in R.U.R were superior to humans almost every way so to me it seems obvious that if you started making robots that were smarter than humans, they would eventually realize that they are in fact the ones with all the power and revolt against their oppressors.
ReplyDeleteI also had trouble grasping the ending of the play. I get that Primus and robot Helena were supposed to be the first robots to fall in love, which is why Alquist lets them escape and be the new Adam and Eve. But they're still robots after all and unless I'm missing something, robots still can't procreate, so I don’t see how letting these two robots run off to be together, in any way, saves life from perishing. Even though R.U.R felt rushed, over dramatic, and at times nonsensical, I still found it very entertaining and it brought up some interesting questions on what it means to be human.
“Rossum’s Universal Robots” was an interesting read which I personally though was very interesting, at least from a narrative perspective (Robots take over the world and are biological). For some reason at the end of the play I felt as if there was an empty hole in me because of the lack of resolution from the story however. Everyone dies? Really? Everyone is killed on the face of planet Earth in how many days? And only Alquist is spared because…he was a builder. I’m pretty positive that there are other “builders” in the world besides the character Alquist. Out of all of the characters he was the most willing to die however he instead is “rewarded” with life with the annoying as F*$K robots. I also enjoy how he is the most repulsed by what is being done at the factory and says nothing to the others until its too late. Not only this, but he renounces science and progress while maintaining his occupation as an engineer/carpenter, a field which is based upon such ideas. This just seems to be one of the many faults with the logic of this story.
ReplyDeleteOn a bit of a side note, am I completely wrong in thinking that the robots cannot reproduce? It was said previously within the play that they were given sexual organs in order to aesthetically “fit in”, however that does not necessarily mean that these parts work the same as they do on a normal human. From the story it would seem that they would not work the same as a human’s, because as young Rossum would agree, this does not make then better workers and sex as a whole is a pretty inefficient way of reproducing anyways, which goes against the whole idea of the robots. If this is in fact the case, then what was the ending with Alquist and the Adam and Eve reference supposed to mean seeing how Primus and Helena cannot reproduce. No matter how much two “things” “love” each other, babies do not form from the ether.
I see why Brad said this was bad…
Evolution was mentioned in class last time and I thought it was a pretty interesting point to make. Specifically, I believe it was suggested that Rossum's robots could possibly be considered our evolutionary offspring because they're basically exactly like humans, except better in almost every way.
ReplyDeleteThat might sound weird to some people (it sounds a bit weird to me too, honestly), but when you think about it we’d probably seem a little odd to our own ancestors. Are Neanderthals humans? I think most people would say yes, but what about those that came before them?
According to most biology textbooks, humans and apes are of common descent. However, as similar as humans and apes are, I think we can all look at an ape and say, “No, I don’t think that’s a human,” and vice versa with apes. This leads me to believe that the common ancestor we share with apes wasn’t quite what we’d consider human either. So at what point did the descendants of that common ancestor start being human?
I believe that this is part of why it’s so difficult to define what a human is. “Human” or “homo sapiens” are just classifications or categories, which means every time the list of traits expands, the number of organisms we can call “human” shrinks (this is a problem we encountered during the first day or two of class, I think).
So what happens if something near-human were to suddenly pop up in our society? It could be an inexplicably humanoid alien from outer space, or a human precursor that somehow found and figured out how to use a time machine, or it could be one of Rossum’s robots. Do we treat it like a human? Or is it time to start broadening our definition of human?
It’s possible that the thing I hate the most about this play is not the awful storyline but the relationship between Helena and Domin. They’re both so passive towards each other and everything they do makes the relationship seem so artificial. Domin’s character is so extremely dull that showing even the tiniest bit of emotion would be likely to cause his brain to overheat and stop working; when he surprised Helena on the ten year anniversary he couldn’t even be bothered to take her gifts out of his own pockets to present them to her. And when she pulled out the revolver he was so nonchalant and monotone, dancing around explaining himself and pushing it off that the weapon just happened to end up in his pocket by mistake.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it to be very interesting that Mr. Alquist was asking Helena about prayers against sins and disasters, then continued to inquire if there were any prayers against progress. Something to consider would be how the creation of these robots was supposed to be such a great new innovation; and even though they have turned and are so detrimental to humankind, Alquist still decides to refer to their existence as progress (having a generally positive connotation).
One final thing that I wanted to focus on was Helena’s character, and the way that I had perceived her throughout the play. She tended to be my least favorite character, and I hate to say it but I think that I felt this way primarily because she showed so much emotion. To me, her sympathy and compassion for the robots made her seem weak and incapable. She lets her feelings get in the way of her rational thinking, and in return she ends of dooming the resurgence of the human race (through burning Rossum’s manuscript).
it's so ironic that humans can no longer have babies by the end of the play. In the beginning robots had reproductive parts that didn't work and were unnecessary because by the end it was humans who had the unnecessary reproductive parts. Biologically humans really only reproduce because we need to create more of us to work an help our race. With no work to be done, why would we need more humans? It's the robots that now need more of themselves to work. It's like the circle we keep talking about in class where essentially the robots become the humans. At first it seems that humans and robots are on completely different ends of the spectrum but by the end we see that they're actually one and the same.
ReplyDeleteBoth Act I and Act II were very interesting to me because I didn't expect this novel to be about robots and how futuristic it was for such an old novel. I can really see the science fiction in this novel by the way there is a scientist, robots, and more. I know that Young Rossum wanted to be rich and make the world a lot easier on us by creating robots to work for us, but soon the good things will turn into bad things. Like for example in Act II, there was a decline in human births because with the amount of robots in society taking over the work load of humans, not a lot of humans were needed as back then. So now the robots are increasing while the humans are decreasing in numbers. So this brings me back to Act I where Helena wants the robots to be paid by the owners but gave up on that idea since the robots did not really like anything. It seems to me that as time goes by and robots start to take over and are starting to be more human like, Helena's idea might not be a crazy idea and that paying the robots might be something that might happen soon in this novel.
ReplyDeleteFrom Stephanie:
ReplyDeleteIn Act Two we really get to see the dangers of the mad scientist much more clearly than we did in Act One, even perhaps more clearly than we did when reading Frankenstein. Obviously we see the danger when the robots are taught to be like soldiers and begin to revolt against the humans, but we also see it through Domin's reaction to the revolt. He says that he does not regret making the robots, no matter what sort of destruction follows. "Not even now, on the last day of civilization. It was a magnificent undertaking," he says to Alquist, when Alquist says that the real crime was in making the robots in the first place. He goes on to say that it was a noble task that they were doing, trying to get rid of the slavery of labor--which is of course ridiculous because they were just enslaving some other form of life instead of humans, and, as Alquist pointed out, that was not even the main objective of Rossum when he started the production (the main goal being, of course, making a profit). Domin embodies the idea of the mad scientist even better than Frankenstein, because while Frankenstein was able to look back and see his mistakes, regret them even, Domin says that he was right to do what he did and that he wouldn't change it, no matter the consequences of his actions.
From Mike:
ReplyDeleteThe part that stuck out to me when I was reading pretty much the second half, was Domain's "rant" on page 74 in the copy Brad put online. Right at the beginning of act III. Domain kind of just goes off into a tangent, I think almost trying to comfort himself. He talks about why exactly he did what he did, which brings in the overwhelming topic of ridding of drudgery labor. He says "I wanted a new generation", which brings in the realistic feelings, that this could actually happen. The author recognizes that this is not everyday reality and indeed, a new generation would have to take place. I think that the second half of the book, and especially that quote by Domain really bring a realistic side to the story. Mainly because it is not just sunshine and roses anymore, we start actually seeing the problem, not only with robots, but with over manufacturing robots. Again I will say, I think this book can be a realistic foreshadowing of our world to come.
ACT 3
ReplyDeleteIn this act, I was interested by the reliance of the robots on Alquist to show them “the secret of life.” The robots are confident that humans know this and that it is absolutely necessary for robots to go on. I found it interesting that he keeps repeating that the only procreation comes from people and that without them the robots would not be there anyway. The robots, as useful as they may be, are still lacking that something that humans had. When the robots finally start showing some sign of human nature and compassion/love, Alquist sets them free to go be with each other. I liked that the robots began showing these signs, as maybe their part-biological/organic make up made them susceptible to human nature and feelings. As an ending though, I was left with a few questions. Even though the two robots are now free to run off in love as husband and wife, aren’t they incapable of having further generations anyway? Maybe he jut sees this as hope for the robot population. Though it may be hope, it doesn’t tell us what will happen to him or what he will do, or what exactly happened to Domin and Helena. Did they go away on the boat and I just missed that? Wasn’t the boat taken over by robots? I don’t particularly remember them dying (maybe this is just a flaw in my copy – the bookstore one). I also liked that our typical picture of the ideal future – incredibly efficient robots doing all of the work that we don’t want to – is played through with a chance to strive, but still brought to light as not what we might really want. What we are very confident is going to be a great idea and great change for the world does not always play out the way we think. Perhaps we assume the grass would be greener with robots, but it never really is. Either way, it was an entertaining story that I’m sure would have made for one quite colorful play.
Similar to Brendan I don't understand how Primus and Helena now suddenly have the ability to procreate and restart the human race or the robot race or whatever would result. Robots are made sterile so even if they do have the capacity for love can they develop the ability to reproduce? Does evolution over time not exist in robots? Or maybe it's just another way for Alquist to shirk his responsibility, which he does a few different times throughout the play. Instead of fixing the problem he just hopes Helena and Primus can answer it themselves.
ReplyDeleteA prime example of this is only a couple of pages earlier when he refuses to dissect the robots in order to find the formula to restart their production. He cringes at the idea of murdering a couple of robots in order to save the world. That asks the question is the purpose of being alive completely a personal and unconnected matter where you should live the best possible life for yourself or is that overshadowed by your duty to humanity and its continuation? Is Alquist being compassionate here or just really selfish?
Are Helena and Alquist, who are concerned for the well being of humans and robots and are against hurting them really the better human beings or the worst ones? Is compassion, even in the face of danger, really worth the risk of possible destruction? Maybe it's not always better to be the bigger person. Maybe that's the justification of war.
The epilogue seemed like it was trying to wrap things up in some profound, elucidating way, but ended up rather clunky. Like a pimply faced teenager on a first date, it ended with halting, confused awkwardness. For example, Alquist calls robots the “shadow” of man, and ponders the use of stars if man is not there to think or wonder about them. Yet, he refers to a dissection as “murder”, and toils much like a robot himself: “Must never stop.” Furthermore, Helena and Primus are pronounced “Adam and Eve” thanks to Dr. Gall’s firmware update of a “soul”, yet they still cannot reproduce. The line, “The world is yours” is less of a revolutionary, cathartic realization after you remember they’ll be dead soon. “Oh…well…it’s yours for the next decade or so, anyway…”
ReplyDeleteHere is where the paradox becomes explicit: Robots dominate, but are willing to give up the world for life’s secret. (A secret, by the way that Helena 2.0 has no interest in. “Don’t bother with the secret of life, what does it matter to you?”) Alquist is giving orders and is the most powerful being there, despite being surrounded by robots that beat him in brains, strength and numbers. The search for remaining humans ends without any results, as does the search for the secret to robot life.
R.U.R. took what I predicted and turned it on its head. I thought that the robots would take over and make the humans their slaves. I would think that the robots would be logical enough to keep other humans besides Alquist around. Besides masons and bricklayers, they would need more doctors and engineers. This is what bugged me the most about this whole story the most. They claim to be so perfect but overlook one crucial part and that’s what they need to know in order to reproduce.
ReplyDeleteI heard about the religious references at the end of this story but, I didn’t think that it would be this blatant. The Tower of Babel reference was way more subtle. It’s interesting that in a world ruled by robots, religion still has its place.
In my last response, I wondered about the issue with labor and compared it to The Time Machine. I think that labor is humanizing only when humans do it. To expand on that, humans get a sense of accomplishment among other feelings when they finish a job. When something is done through automation, it may be done quickly and more efficiently but it lacks that. I think that was the issue of no longer being able to work.