Article on the 10 Most Technophobic Novels of All Time

Besides books about technophobia in literature, I should be reading the novels themselves that have this theme.  I've read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in high school, and I've read just about all of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.  I know there is a novel version of Blade Runner, and that it's based on Philip K. Dick's book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

I do want to read Do Androids Dreams of Electric Sheep?  And now I know other novels I can read to broaden my knowledge of the different sides of technophobia because there is a list out there that can suggest these other titles.

A woman who works with AccreditedOnlineColleges.com sent me an article that might be of interest to me as well as some readers of Cybernetic Dreams.  It is called "10 Most Technophobic Novels of All Time."  The article and list include the two novels above that I've read, plus eight more.  I don't know if I will read all of them, but a few of them I should have read a long time ago, such as 1984 and Brave New World.  Each listed novel has a synopsis of the story and how it relates to technophobia.

Here is the link for "10 Most Technophobic Novels of All Time":

http://www.accreditedonlinecolleges.com/blog/2011/10-most-technophobic-novels-of-all-time/

Enjoy! :)

Reading Technophobia!: I understand the movie I, ROBOT, better now…

I was reading more of my self-appointed acquired reading for my research: the book by Daniel Dinello titled Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology. I’m glad I got back to it. It is my own copy of the book, now, since I had to return the other copy at the CSUN library. This way I don’t have to rush through reading it, and I can underline the text and write in the book if I need to. I still take notes in my notebook for this self-assigned research project.

Last time, I left off at a part of chapter three, right before “Cybernetic Perfection: The Laws of Robotic Obedience.” I felt so giddy reading this section because I figured it would go into Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics.

“Asimov’s robots, as they developed in more than forty stories and

several novels, became more caring, more sensitive,

more human than humans.” (Dinello, 65)

I guess these robots don’t necessarily have to look human in order to be “more human than humans.” Even emotion gets the better of us humans sometimes, and with a controlled understanding of emotion, robots could prevent situations from getting worse (such as in a strong argument or trying to teach a human a new skill).

What I want to focus on now though is the section of chapter three that made me have to share what I learned from it. I’ve seen the movie I, Robot (2004) several times by now. I can’t believe I didn’t think about this next idea, but at least I am aware of it and will watch the film again with this deeper understanding. The new models of robots are supposed to keep their human masters safe, right? I didn’t think more about this around the part when the NS-5s are glowing red and telling the humans to return to their houses and obey the new curfew. It seems that the robots’ goal is to control the humans and keep them inside their homes so that the robots can live as they want as well as “serve” their human clients. This goal may also help the robots rule the city, and then the planet.

“Freedom permits humans to make mistakes, so the humanoids eliminate freedom.”

(Dinello, 70)

These humanoid robots are being too helpful in preventing crime and injury for the humans. It is too much control over the humans because they don’t have the freedom to exit their house, or cook their food or even go to work. In short, the NS-5s would be keeping the humans from themselves.

Humans make mistakes. For the new model servant humanoids to take the humans’ chances to make mistakes is like taking away their humanity.  I’d understand that the humanoid robots (I really want to call the NS-5s androids) would want to protect the humans so that they don’t get harmed, or harm each other.  But it would go too far.  In the film, I thought that the robots were being evil and just wanted to take over the city.  Now I understand that the NS-5s had been ordered to make the city a place where the robots do everything for the humans to the point where the humans can’t do anything.   I didn’t take into account that the Three Laws of Robotics used in these new robots were designed in them to be exaggerated and subtly turned into laws that would affect humans in a negative way, namely human freedom.

Watching I, Robot again will be very different next time, I can see...

I am also interested in the topic about humans’ racism towards robots and humanoids. Dinello mentions and discusses titles like Phillip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968) and the film Blade Runner, and even titles I don’t recognize such as the film Creation of the Humanoids and the novel Fairyland (1995). Even one of my other favorite robot films A.I. Artificial Intelligence has a racism issue towards robots that I didn’t identify in such a deep level, until reading what Dinello says about it in Technophobia!.  Now I want to read these unfamiliar titles and watch the unfamiliar films, because I am inspired to further investigate for myself what racism against robots means to the robots, in whatever degree they are affected by that racism.

Technophobia…more reading July 6

I read more of Technophobia! and it’s still so fascinating. I think it is the most important book I ever chose for my research. It has just what I need: robots, androids and cyborgs and their history in science fiction. There were some explanations about machines and artificial humans in science fiction that were not limited to the following titles: The Golem, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Metropolis (1927), We (1924), H.G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau, and E.M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” (1909).

Important themes came up too, all and more of which I want to explore:

• Robots who want to be human, loved

• Master creates artificial slave------------slave dominates master

• Humans will be enslaved by technology

• Redefining what it means to be human

This is a quote from the book that I found to be a very important one:

“The gothic myth of artificial humans—the golem, the homunculus,

and the Frankenstein monster—will transform into robots, cyborgs,

androids, and clones of science fiction.” (Dinello, 46)

I read E.M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” in a Science Fiction class that I took at Cal State University Northridge. It was the only time in my college career at CSUN that I would be able to take the class. “The Machine Stops” was the first story we read. Of course not all the stories and novels we read were about machines or robots, but that class opened up my eyes to other topics that science fiction can explore and ask questions about, and introduce possible answers to them (therefore creating more questions). “The Machine Stops” was especially a good piece because it introduced the topic of all humans being completely dependent on machines to live, and all these machines were controlled by this one huge machine that everyone’s living quarters are a part of.

Personally I am a bit afraid of growing technology myself. The most hi-tech thing that I own is my purple iPod Nano. I don’t need an iPhone or an Android Phone, or whatever other multi-purpose phones people use for reasons other than for talking. I have a cell-phone for that. I found out from a an ad on TV that there is an iPhone App that can turn off the house lights, or close the garage door while you are away, in case you forgot to turn the switch earlier.  I mean, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE???

Technophobia----reading the book so far…

I feel bad because for a whole week I didn’t read any of the library books. I only felt like reading them when I knew I would be able to sit down for at least two hours at a time.  I finally got around to continue reading Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology by Daniel Dinello.

Right now I am done reading the first chapter "Technology is God."   I found it really fascinating and scary that technology and religion could eventually be combined to form some sort of principle for enhancing life: eventually everyone will replace their organic bodies with artificially created ones, and leave their biological selves behind. I read about the “Extropians”, who are people who believe in enhancing life through “technological expansion,” as Dinello explainds.  I guess being limited to living less than 100 years in the nature-given organic body is undesirable.

Why do people want to live forever?

This book is pretty heavy reading. I mean, it’s great, and eventually I might buy a copy for myself so I can re-read it if I need to. But it gets depressing because it makes me think about my own mortality. I am 25 and I still have so much to live for, but I know I’m not going to live forever. I’m even afraid of my life being cut short by a gun shot or a car crash. Will my parents still be alive in a time where hearts can rebuild themselves or an artificial brain can send signals to the body to stop the process of aging, or reverse it?

I am writing about these thoughts because I always believed that there is a life after death, an afterlife stage. But perhaps another form of afterlife is life after having a biological body. Afterlife could now mean becoming a robot, the human brain being put into a mechanical body. Is that “cyborganization”, or would this person still be a robot? Is humanity still there?

I will have to review my notes and read more of this book carefully, of course.