“"Cannot you see, cannot all
you lecturers see, that it is we that are dying, and that down here the only
thing that really lives is the Machine? We created the Machine, to do our will,
but we cannot make it do our will now. It has robbed us of the sense of space
and of the sense of touch, it has blurred every human relation and narrowed
down love to a carnal act, it has paralysed our bodies and our wills, and now
it compels us to worship it. The Machine develops--but not on our lies. The
Machine proceeds--but not to our goal. We only exist as the blood corpuscles
that course through its arteries, and if it could work without us, it would let
us die. Oh, I have no remedy--or, at least, only one--to tell men again and
again that I have seen the hills of Wessex as Alfrid saw them when he overthrew
the Danes” (13-14).
Far flung from the hopeful world Hiroshi Yamamoto would
write about nearly 100 years later, E.M. Forster paints a bleak picture of
humanity’s future with technology.
In 1909, when The
Machine Stops was first published, technology was a much different matter
than it is today. Radio technology was still in its infancy. The telephone was still relatively new, with
Alexander Graham Bell having patented it only 33 years prior. The historic
flight of the Wright Brothers had only occurred a mere 6 years before. It’s
interesting to keep in mind what technologies Forster was surrounded with when
writing this bleak tale of technology killing humanity. He did not need
supercomputers and ubiquitous networking to feel fear for the coming future.
Forster is arguing that technology is seeking to remove us
from the natural world, stripping humans of their very humanity. Human contact,
love, and direct experience are all being stripped away in favor of the mechanical.
This seems like a fear of becoming Transhuman; the fear that if humanity starts
to augment itself with technology, it will become something altogether
different and alien.
The term “transhumanism” was first coined in 1957 by Sir
Julian Huxley, an evolutionary biologist and humanist, and brother of the
science-fiction writer Aldous Huxley. When he coined the term, he envisioned it
as a way for humanity to better itself through science and technology. He left
open the possibility that eugenics may be one way to approach this, but
transhumanism has since come to refer to any science that may help humans
better themselves.
This is something that The
Machine Stops is on the border of, but since the idea had not come to
fruition yet, the story stops short of invoking transhumanism. The humans in The Machine Stops are completely
cocooned by technology from birth to death, which in its own way can still be
seen as transhumanism. They are, after all, using technology to better the
lives of the people, at least in the common person’s point of view. However,
technology has not become a part of their physical bodies, and does not seem to
have augmented their bodies in any way, as we normally think of transhumans.
The question I would like to ask is “Does becoming a transhuman make you less human?” One could argue
about the true meaning of “human,” but the question could be rephrased “Does
becoming transhuman cause the individual to lose certain traits, generally
ascribed to humanity at large, that would hinder them?” Kuno certainly seems to
think so, when he makes the speech above to his mother, Vashti.
Kuno makes it very clear that he believes that humanity is
dying because of its dependence on the Machine. Humans no longer touch each
other now, as is shown in the scenes where Vashti is on her trip in the
airships. She is outright appalled when the flight attended reaches to steady
her and keep her from falling. Kuno also drives home this tendency when he
talks about the Machine “narrow[ing] down love to a carnal act.” We do not hear
much about reproduction in this story, other than the fact that one must apply
to become a parent, and that upon birth a parent’s responsibilities are
officially over. In short, even the process of falling in love, marriage, and
bearing children has now been eliminated and mechanized. There is no more need
for love, and perhaps not even sex, in the new mechanized world.
Furthermore, Kuno believes that humanity is now nothing more
than “blood corpuscles,” serving as part of the Machine as a way to keep it
going rather than the other way around, similar to how humanity is treated in The Matrix. Humans created machines to
serve them, but now they are simply the fuel that sustains them.
In this speech, Kuno references the lecturers, the people
within the society who study various subjects and transmit their speeches to
others. This group of the population is fascinating enough on its own, and, at
points, seems deserving of Kuno’s criticisms. From observing Vashti, we can see
that she is very far removed from the real world (the planet’s surface, ocean,
stars, etc.) though her fellow lecturers are not all as such. She references
that some of the lecturers do get permits to explore the outside land or the
ocean to further their knowledge on the subject. While it’s not illegal, Vashti
makes it clear that is not something “spiritually minded people do” (10). Her
reaction seems like it is most likely not isolated to her, and may be something
that is widely accepted from the academic community. Later, when travel outside
of the Machine becomes forbidden, most do not find this distressing. In fact,
it causes one lecturer to give a speech about how first-hand knowledge is not
needed, but also not preferable. “Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible
tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing
element--direct observation.” (16). This point of view, however, is in stark
contrast to Kuno’s speech, as he believes the only way to restore humanity is
to tell them of his exploits on the hills of Wessex. On one side, direct
experience is condemned, and on the other direct experience is the only way to
become truly human.
The artifact I would like to bring in then is the webcomic
The Dresden Codak; specifically the Hob
storyline. The storyline starts with this comic:
http://dresdencodak.com/2007/02/08/pom/.
I highly recommend everyone read the whole comic, especially those interested
in transhumanism, futurism, or just science and philosophy. However, I’m going
to point out two specific comic strips from the Hob series. The first is
“Metropolis”
http://dresdencodak.com/2007/09/21/metropolis/.
Not to give away too much of the plot, this strip explains things that happen
in the future (or rather an alternate future) relative to the time of the main plot. They explain that humans created technology to meet all of their
needs, and soon they became dependent on it and grew unable to understand it,
as the humans did in
The Machine Stops.
Unlike them, however, in this future world they had the transhumans, humans
that had integrated machines into their body, and were able to speak the
machine language and act as intermediaries. As far as those that were not
augmented were concerned, the machines turned against them, and the resulting
war destroyed the mother computer and left the world in ruins.
The next strip I’d like to bring up is “Eloi”
http://dresdencodak.com/2008/06/07/eloi/.
It explains the story from a transhuman point of view. The humans are coming to
beg for their problems to be solved, but the transhuman alludes to the fact
that humans are dying out anyway. It’s clear though that everything she says
goes straight over the human’s heads, especially when one utters, “Who is
homosapiens? I don’t understand.” The chilling part of this strip, though, is
when the transhuman dismisses the humans with the cold line, “We can give you
anything you want. Save relevance.”
The transhuman in “Eloi” may seem cold and uncaring, but
from her point of view humanity has reduced her role to that of a glorified
babysitter. Think back to the strip “Metropolis” where the story was told from
the point of view of the human survivors who destroyed the machines. Think
about how they refer to the transhumans. They say that they “sacrificed their
humanity” and that their only role was to “ensure that the ever-expanding net
still served humanity.” It shows that the common human did not view the
transhumans as one of them, and only saw them as another way that the machines
would serve them. Not only does that not seem fair, it does not seem to be how
the transhuman in “Eloi” would see herself.
With both works, The
Machine Stops and The Dreden Codak’s “Hob,” we see two differing points of
view on transhumanity. In The Machine
Stops, transhumanity is commonly viewed as a good thing as people even
begin to worship the Machine that gives them everything they could need. In
“Hob,” people still enjoy what machines can do for them, but those that bridge
the gap into transhumanity are seen as giving up something, to become mere
servants to the “real” humans. Both situations end in the destruction of the
world.
However, the question I asked earlier is still valid: Does
becoming a transhuman make one less human? Putting aside the destruction of the
world for a moment, the people in The
Machine Stops had large advantages in technology. It seemed that sickness,
hunger, and poverty had all been eliminated, except of course for those who
were exiled. Their society had lost a lot of what we, and Kuno, might describe
as humanity; love, sense of adventure, etc. all seemed to be missing in the
humans of that age. But does that make them worse off than people of today? One
could argue that love and adventure are dangerous or potential harmful
concepts, and perhaps they are worth trading for technology that could end
starvation and other problems.
As for the transhumans in “Hob,” they are obviously mentally
superior to their human counterparts, and likely superior in other ways such as
physical strength. They were able to understand the changes that were going on
in the evolution of their people, and saw that humans were becoming outdated.
The cold and callous way that they treated the humans may seem inhumane, but
humanity is obviously capable of similar callousness. For whatever reason,
people of today often to prefer not to think about poverty, sickness, and
starvation going on in other countries. The cold manner of the transhumans is
not far flung from that.
The end of “Hob” has a more positive outcome than The Machine Stops, insinuating that both
man and machine are needed in order for the two to advance to something
greater. In a way, this could also be taken from The Machine Stops; the Machine could not run all by itself, and
ultimately needed human’s help in order for both to continue co-existing. The
difference between the two works is that in The
Machine Stops, humanity never got the chance to work past its ignorance and
work in true partnership with the Machine.
Personally, I think humanity can only benefit from the
pursuit of science, and using what we learn from science to better the lives of
people. Certainly, technological advances can cause us to lose certain traits.
Even now, we see diseases like obesity linked with new technologies like
television and internet as people begin to have less reason to leave their
homes for entertainment or information. But the internet is a valuable tool for
knowledge and communication, something that most people would not give up for
anything. Some would argue that a connection to nature is essential to
humanity; farming, hunting, etc. was a way of life for all of our ancestors,
though now a much smaller group participates in these activities. Society at
large no longer has to work for our food. We have been disconnected from
something that was very closely tied to the life of all people in the past, and
that disconnect could be seen as a loss for humanity. But to me, it seems we’ve
gained more than anything we may have lost. The average person may have no idea
the work that goes into bringing food to the supermarkets, but I don’t think
that makes them disconnected from the human condition. If anything, this allows
people to open up to new ways to be human, new ways to express ideas and live
life. But if The Machine Stops is
teaching us anything, it is that we can’t become too disconnected from the
knowledge of these vital roots, or our society could crumble just as easily.