Well before Gene Roddenberry arrived on the scene with Star Trek, a chemist in the late 1930s had a spark of ingenuity to ask, what if a robot could resemble a human? How far could that go, and what could result? “I Robot” is a collection of clever short stories addressing that question.
This theme would carry Asimov throughout most of his life’s work, and he never really departed from it, often tying it in with other tales where robots were not even central to the story. In fact, other narratives from different writers had to in sneak elements of what could be called Asimov’s ‘Robotology’ because his robot revolution was so functional in making them real and more than just automated walking trash cans. He leaves what should be the golden age of robots almost completely in the dust in one move by taking “I, Robot” to the next level with laws and sophisticated programming. That is why “I, Robot” is not just essential to Asimov; it is essential to SF. Asimov’s thinking has influenced everything concerning robots ever since, not just in SF, but also in real-world applications.
Asimov introduced a groundbreaking McGuffin for its time. The entire motivating element that exists to drive the plot is the concept of a ‘positronic brain’, a catchall technology to explain how robots can perform human behaviors. The importance of this plot device is that its obscurity and vagueness blurs the line between a human brain and an electronic one, or should we say, positronic one. This is exactly what Asimov wants and needs because he is hitting on a deeper philosophical question about what it means to be human. This is really at the core of everything concerning Asimov and robots even if it appears he is dealing with their interactions most of the time, it is always there between the lines and now and again rears it head by way of a question posed by the author.
Asimov realizes the socioeconomic implications of robots and builds up to the full-scale paranoia of the robots becoming more than human, doings thing we can not. The stage is set for the balancing act of achieving all the benefits robots can bring while simultaneously making sure they can never be dangerous. For humans to be comfortable around robots there must be a failsafe impossible to break or go wrong. This is where Asimov comes up with the fool proof – Three laws of robotics inherent in any positronic brain.
*1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.*
*2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.*
*3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.*
Asimov is very proud of his laws, and he should be because they have managed to hold quite well into the 21st Century. So, in this respect, Asimov’s pride and joy are valid and are all the more appreciated today for being so. However, Asimov is not satisfied just announcing the three laws to make everything good and utopic, he understands nothing made by humans is that perfect and can be open to abuses. So his stories have to be that extra clever in finding ways to exploit his own laws. The scientist within Asimov is trying to falsify his own hypothesis and we join him in his experiments.
Clearly Asimov is well aware that there is no middle ground when the genie is out of the bottle. Either robots are engineered to never go against their makers or if that is omitted then we are at the mercy of an advanced being that can enslave us. It is not hard to see what could have given James Cameron his ‘Terminator’ nightmares. The good news is that Asimov is not so bleak in his outlook. His stories do tackle the three laws and find potential exploits, but never to the degree that their makers can’t come onto the scene to add a patch and save the day or at least explain the rare circumstances under which a robot broke the law.
I will not attempt to answer the question of what it means to be human. All I can say for now is that humans have human DNA, and for Asimov, that is where it all may end when it comes to the larger differences. It is a question he posed but did so with the mirror image of a robot version of ourselves before us. SF doesn’t get more philosophical than this and Asimov knew it. He didn’t just make a career out of it. He established a whole new academic field of thought on the topic.
by TheIrishLoaf
1 Comment
Just to add one last thing I omitted which is sorta important. It is nothing like the film. It is a collection of short stories. The film just borrows a few themes from it (3 laws, etc) and from other Asimov books. So the film spoiled nothing.