|
Page
4 as
image 
|
|
Socialist
Robots...
In Rossum's Universal Robots (1921), the best workers are the cheapest
ones with the fewest needs, who know only how to work, have no
humanity, remember everything but think of nothing new. In fact, they
are Robots, humanoids genetically engineered for a life of drudgery, as
the Czech word 'robota' indicates. Although the concept of artificial
humans goes back much further than Capak's play, it is since his work
that ideas of mechanical men and women created to serve humanity have
really taken off, and increasingly are no longer restricted to film, TV
and literature.
Modern robots, however, have little in common with Capak's. Bolted to
the floor, they are computer-controlled mechanical arms capable of such
tasks as painting, wedling, riveting, loading and stacking, and are
seen in increasing numbers throughout the
manufacturing industry. Whether they should be classed as robots is
debatable, for they fail utterly to resemble what we commonly
understand to be a robot; that is, a mechanical human.
Such robots have been in development for some time, particularly in
Japan. ASIMO, for example, is Honda's 4-foot tall humanoid robot which
can walk, run, climb stairs and respond to fifty different Japanese
phrases. Sony's QRIO can connect wirelessly to the internet and get up
should it fall. And Toyota's 'Partner' robot can inflate its mechanical
lungs, purse its artificial lips and play the trumpet (The Economist
Technology Quarter, March 12th 2005). But that's about all they can do,
and as yet are a very long way from the C3POs, Datas, and Terminators
of film and TV.
As we move toward socialism, and as technology advances, it is not
unlikely that a sentient, humanoid robot capable of speech,
thought, mobility, and invested with something of a personality (to
ease communication with it and reinforce its 'humanoid'
characteristics), will be created, should present trends continue.
However, they could present something of a problem for socialism, for
in a society where all people are considered equal, what relationship
will we have with artificial people? Will organic humans be more equal
than inorganic ones?
Naturally, science-fiction has much to say on this subject. Isaac
Asimov's robots, featured in many of his short stories and novels, are
programmed to obediently serve humanity, even answering 'master' to
humans, who often address them as 'boy'. This slave class stands in
complete contrast to the ruling class which robots have evolved to
become in Philip K Dick's dystopian futures, and are so lifelike that
they cannot be distinguished from human beings. Indeed, there are
certain strands of evolutionary theory which suggest that inorganic
life will achieve superiority over organic life so that the machine -
if machine is the right word - may indeed become the dominant life form.
Although Marx, in The Poverty of Philosophy, noted that machinery 'is
intended to cheapen commodities' and 'is a means for
producing surplus value', the exploratory dynamic of science is not
always suppressed by the confines and limitations of capitalism and
humanoid robots may continue to be developed into socialism, even
though they are hugely expensive and as yet have no practical
applications. However, it's unlikely that socialists would want a
servant, machine or otherwise, to see to their needs, for it would
clearly necessitate a master and servant relationship. And if robots
were programmed with a consciousness, as well as the capacity to
display emotive behaviour, we can assume it would be a socialist
consciousness and would doubtless object to its servitude. If sentient
humanoid robots are going to work at all, it must be alongside us and
not for us. On the other hand, we may altogether abandon as unethical
the project of replicating human life in machine form and concentrate
solely on the non-humanoid form of robot.
It seems unlikely, though, that such machines could ever perform tasks
with the dexterity, creativity and joy of human beings, and it may be
counter-productive to invest the huge amounts of time and resources
necessary to create phenomenally complex machines if they can only
replicate the mundane work of Capak's originals. For a socialist
society, humanoid robots may be breathtaking
examples of human ingenuity, but little more. ...
and Robochefs
Life hectic? Too much stress? Can't be bothered to cook? Just go to
your domestic organic recycler, tap in the code for 'chicken and
chips', and the appropriate molecules are extracted from your
underground organic waste vault (ugh) and reassembled into piping hot
rosemary-flavoured poule et frites (yummy). What's even better, as this
'chicken' never lived to suffer in the first place, vegetarians might
like it too. Farfetched? Well, just a bit. This kind of molecular
assembly, though theoretically possible, is several horizons beyond the
current nanotechnology horizon, and at present only exists as the
fabulous 'food replicator' seen on the Starship Enterprise.
With the Bush administration's determination to get humans back into
space and on their way to Mars via the International Space Station, one
offshoot technology is exploring ways to make the food available to
astronauts more interesting and varied (New Scientist, August 20).
Since food ingredients in space have to have a long shelf-life without
refrigeration, the challenge is to produce variety out of a limited
repertoire. The new idea is to devise a mathematical language or
'grammar' to describe different foods, and then program a virtual food
machine to synthesise or simulate these foods out of raw ingredients.
While the feasibility of making such a machine compact enough for space
flight is doubtful, with no restriction on size or number of
ingredients the land-based potential is enormous. The machine could be
programmed to develop its own recipes, perhaps by an evolutionary
process, so that unthinkably interesting new foods could be born.
Pathfinders may sometimes give the impression that socialism will
always take advantage of any labour-saving technology that capitalism
happens to come up with, but in this particular case it may well do the
opposite. While the drive to automate tedious, arduous or dangerous
work is clearly worthwhile, what is more questionable is whether we
would ever want to automate enjoyable
social practices. Even if a machine could come up with a recipe we
never thought of, would it be worth it? In capitalism,
where cut-throat competition makes the buck more important than the
buzz, speed, innovation and output are what matter. Capitalism is
always ruining the fun in everything, so that people begin to perceive
almost any creative activity as dreary work to be avoided, or given to
machines. In socialism, with its conflation of work and play at the
centre of the social ethic, there will be some things
people will always prefer to do themselves, and for each other, without
the robots taking over. Sex is definitely one. Maybe cooking is another.
|
Page
4 as
image
To
contents Page 5
To
Socialist Party
Page
links
|
Page
1
|
Page
2 |
Page
3 |
Page
4 |
Page
5 |
Page
6 |
Page
7 |
Page
8 |
Page
9 |
Page
10 |
Page
11 |
Page
12 |
Page
13 |
Page
14 |
Page
15 |
Page
16 |
Page
17 |
Page
18 |
Page
19 |
Page
20
|
|
|
