Human nature, both in thought and existence, is a complexity that can no sooner be summed up in a simple essay than a full blown dissertation thesis. Human nature effectively transcends nature and in its application, attempts to pacify and control nature itself. Technology, simply put is just one elaborate creation resulting from the evolution of human thought and works hand in hand in advancing our nature, but never transcending the nature which created it. Human nature, it appears, is the pinnacle of our existence, not soon to be replaced by the mere technologies we create within that realm. In effect, technology has become very much a part of human nature, but human nature cannot exist as a part of that technology which we create.
In Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, he argues the point that androids are unable to express the human emotion of empathy. The post war dystopian society functions entirely by the human connection through empathy, however androids do not possess the ability to empathize with humans, animals or even other androids. This connection crafted through human nature is embodied in Mercerism, the state religion which seems to hold humankind together. Androids, the height of technological representation in this novel envy this human ability and despite their efforts, remain unable to express empathy. This condition of human nature is unattainable by the technology created by mankind and acts as the barrier by which technology can be segregated from human nature as the subordinate entity.
The representation of human nature being a subordinate part of technology manifests itself in a different manner in this book. The polar opposite to Mercer and the teachings of human empathy that connects humankind and transcends the technology intertwined, Buster Friendly is the representation of technological control over human nature. Buster Friendly is revealed to be an android, calculating and manipulative in his means to discard Mercer as a fraud and discredit humanity with its empathetic superiority to the androids. The ultimate goal of Buster Friendly appears to be the toppling of Mercerism, empathy, and seemingly the only thing that remains to set humans as the masters of technology. This plan backfires and it is discovered that despite knowing the fraudulent nature of their beliefs, humans still manage to connect with each other in this way, maybe even more so than ever.
The failure of Buster Friendly to remove the bond of human empathy emphasizes the subtle undertone that appeared throughout the novel that humans and human nature possess some quality that transcends all other existence. This bond cannot be taken away and remains the superior factor of control that human nature has over technology in the end. As the gap between human nature and technology grows narrower over time, it appears that Phillip Dick argues that human nature will always supersede the technology we create because of features that can never be mimicked into the artificial realm.
This concept of human nature’s superiority to technology due to un-mimicked attributes is also manifested by Lyotard in his statements about artificial intelligence and the inability to preserve human thought into immortality in this way. While Dick argues that human nature possesses attributes of empathy and a communal connection with one another, Lyotard points toward the nature of human thought as the one superior element that defines human nature. Human thought as Lyotard describes it, is a reflexive process which relies on a physical existence connected to the human perception in order to function. Despite the attempts of technology to mimic these attributes, it seems that only a human may truly be human. Further described in connection with gender and the conflict which gender difference creates for human thought to exist, Lyotard essentially argues that artificial intelligence may never effectively mimic the human condition and never achieve the status of true thought as we understand it. The nature of human thought is yet another shortcoming of technology which subordinates it to human nature.
Returning to the many shortcomings of technology posed in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, another prominent point stands out in defining technology as the subordinate to human nature. As with the Voigt-Kampff test as a way to distinguish androids from humans, it is revealed that this test is the fourth revision for identifying the newer version androids. Though the validity of the test holds up in the novel, there is no doubt that it too will eventually fail to keep ahead of the ever advancing technology. There will inevitably be yet another test to replace it however and this cycle persists in such a way that technology is never quite as advanced as the human’s testing the limits. Despite the rapid development of technology, human nature evolves just as quickly and remains ahead of the technology it creates, keeping the controlled balance in the hands of the superior force.
It is also important to note that not only does human nature remain ahead of the technology which is advancing not far behind, but it is also the driving force which develops that technology. As in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the force which develops the technology is the combined efforts from the Rosen Corporation and the demand of human colonists for more convincing android counterparts. Humans are and conceivably will always remain at the forefront as the driving force which creates technology and allows for its advancement. Though the idea is not practical, humans can obliterate every technological advancement of the industrialized world in a matter of years and despite the possible casualties, some subset of the population would survive and an even smaller subset would go without consequence. The existence of technology relies solely on the compliance and drive of human nature to advance its ranks and continue to produce that which drives our technological fantasies. However, as of right now, we are still separated enough to continue survival, no matter how primeval that existence may be, without the aid or existence of technology. Technology may be what defines human nature from the rest of the animal kingdom, but it is certainly not a necessity for the survival of the human population in the most primitive sense. Humans are creators and masters of technology, not slaves to the tools and techniques it defines.
4 comments:
I had some difficulty understanding exactly what you're trying to say in the first paragraph. There are proofreading difficulties that contribute - more to the point, though, it's all very abstract. A more concrete explanation, or even example, would be nice.
Here's a question about your reading of PKD. Do you accept the claim that the androids don't experience empathy? That's what Deckard says, and it *does* seem that they empathize less with animals, but the androids themselves say and do many things which are relevant to this question - I think you should at least ask whether you should accept Deckard's point of view.
Your discussion of Buster Friendly certainly implies that you think the human characters, or at any rate the serious Mercerists, are in the right in this novel. I wonder if there's a way of making that more explicit earlier? There might be a way of reworking your very confusing introduction using some of this material to explain what you're talking about...
Now, you and I don't read the novel the same way, nor should we, necessarily. So I don't want you to emerge thinking what I think. Nonetheless, look at this line: "The failure of Buster Friendly to remove the bond of human empathy emphasizes the subtle undertone that appeared throughout the novel that humans and human nature possess some quality that transcends all other existence." I'd like to see you elaborate on this conclusion through close reading of the text. My reading is that humans and androids fully blur together - Pris experiences empathy, Deckard may be an android, Phil has no noticeable empathy although he tests as human, etc. Again, I'm not saying you should abandon your position - I would like to see it explained, though.
I don't think your reading of Lyotard accomplishes much - you might be better off focusing on DADES, which is where your interest seems to lie.
You bring up the idea that human nature evolves just as quickly as technology. This idea might be a throwaway line, or it might be (in a focused, and succint way) the real argument of the paper - think about what it means to you, and the role it plays.
I found your conclusion to be extremely general - I'd like to see something more focused.
Overall: I found your introduction confusing and your conclusion unfocused. Your reading of DADES does help to clarify things, but I have two ongoing issues with it.
1) I'm not sure *why* you are reading the book in the ways that you read it. Most likely, citing the relevant passages would help. Whether I agree with you isn't important; that I understand your reasoning *is.* Through the paper, you seem to unambiguously accept the argument of the human government (as articulated by Deckard), without asking whether it's right or not. Some of our class discussion is relevant to this issue.
2) I'd like to understand better why you think that DADES is applicable to the "real world," that is, the "real" relationship between technology and human nature. This could be elaborate or relatively restrained, but it's certainly important.
Human nature effectively transcends nature and in its application, attempts to pacify and control nature itself. Technology, simply put is just one elaborate creation resulting from the evolution of human thought and works hand in hand in advancing our nature, but never transcending the nature which created it. For every advancement in technology there is an equal advancement in the manner in which we as humans control that technology. While this relationship can be observed in the production of almost any new electronic gadget that hits the market, the future holds many untold technologies and advancements that for now remain in the realm of science fiction. Many interpretive works of fiction are available; however, more imaginative works such as Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep highlight this relationship in bolder metaphors. Such works of fiction could be argued to be irrelevant, but it is important to note that the future and the technologies it holds are themselves in this realm of fiction too. Through the pacification of androids in this novel, Dick highlights how human nature evolves in such a way to maintain control over each new advancement, particularly through the use of new and more discriminating tests for identifying androids. Human nature, through its rapid evolution and need for control, will always dominate the technologies it creates.
In Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, he argues the point that androids are unable to express the human emotion of empathy. The post war dystopian society functions entirely by the human connection through empathy, however androids do not possess the ability to empathize with humans, animals or even other androids. This connection crafted through human nature is embodied in Mercerism, the state religion which seems to hold humankind together. Androids, the height of technological representation in this novel envy this human ability and despite their efforts, remain unable to express empathy. This condition of human nature is unattainable by the technology created by mankind and acts as the barrier by which technology can be segregated from human nature as the subordinate entity.
Empathy it seems is a barrier which isn’t very clearly defined among particular members in human society or even the android population within the novel. While there is such a bold claim that empathy remains an accurate division between androids and humans, characters such as Phil Resch appear almost android in his lack of verbal empathic response, yet he still manages to test as a human. Phil is a special case which Rick Deckard had never encountered before in which a human openly displays absolutely no empathy for androids and seems non-human as a result. While Rick’s response is to immediately question the validity of the tools at his disposal, we later find that Phil has reason to express this particular lack of empathy toward androids. When talking to Rachael Rosen on page 175, Rick discovers that at the very least, Rachael has in part tried to manipulate Phil’s emotions toward androids by sleeping with him among several others that threatened the existence of androids. Perhaps this is an indication that despite his lack of visible empathy now, Phil did in fact empathize with androids at one pointed and as Deckard describes, became “warped” from his experience.
True to the Voigt-Kampff test, androids remain unable to show empathy throughout the story, especially toward animals. In this post-apocalyptic world that Dick crafted, animals are a rare commodity and are valued as the most treasured of all things to humans. In Deckard’s words, “the empathic gift blurred the boundaries between hunter and victim, between the successful and the defeated” (26). In essence, all things living, especially the most rare and prized animals are seen as equals to humans. This value is what creates the empathetic response that humans feel toward animals and all things living, yet even the most seemingly empathetic androids do not share this connection. Pris, the android that befriends the special, John Isidore, is especially guilty of this. Pris, knowingly hurting John Isidore in the process, cuts the legs off a spider that John attempts to save as a pet. Her response to his anguish is simply that he uses an empathy box. To Pris and the other androids, empathy is simply, “…a way of proving that humans can do something [androids] can’t” (185). While this may be the case, it is an accurate point that androids do not in fact share the same human empathic response to a number of situations including the desecration of animals.
The representation of human nature being a subordinate part of technology manifests itself in a different manner in this book. The polar opposite to Mercer and the teachings of human empathy that connects humankind and transcends the technology intertwined, Buster Friendly is the representation of technological control over human nature. Buster Friendly is revealed to be an android, calculating and manipulative in his means to discard Mercer as a fraud and discredit humanity with its empathetic superiority to the androids. The ultimate goal of Buster Friendly appears to be the toppling of Mercerism, empathy, and seemingly the only thing that remains to set humans as the masters of technology. Buster and apparently all androids who knew of his pitch, believed that revealing Mercer as a fake would topple the beliefs that empathy was a truly human connection. This plan backfires and it is discovered that despite knowing the fraudulent nature of their beliefs, humans still manage to connect with each other in this way, maybe even more so than ever.
John Isidore’s connection to Mercer is actually strengthened by the encounter with the rogue androids in time. Buster’s announcement had little if any impact on him as it appears. “It’s not the TV, It’s the spider,” (186) that upsets Isidore the most. The news of the center of empathy being a fake passes right over him and instead the unconscious connection to the living creature that had just been mutilated by the intruding androids fills his mind. The human empathic connection is so strong that despite Buster’s best effort, it is still natural for humans such as John Isidore to feel more connected to the living spider than anything else around him.
The failure of Buster Friendly to remove the bond of human empathy emphasizes the subtle undertone that appeared throughout the novel that humans and human nature possess some quality that transcends all other existence. This bond cannot be taken away and remains the superior factor of control that human nature has over technology in the end. As the gap between human nature and technology grows narrower over time, it appears that Phillip Dick argues that human nature will always supersede the technology we create because of features that can never be mimicked into the artificial realm.
Continuing with the many shortcomings of technology posed in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, another prominent point stands out in defining technology as the subordinate to human nature. As with the Voigt-Kampff test as a way to distinguish androids from humans, it is revealed that this test is the fourth revision for identifying the newer version androids. Though the validity of the test holds up in the novel, there is no doubt that it too will eventually fail to keep ahead of the ever advancing technology. There will inevitably be yet another test to replace it however and this cycle persists in such a way that technology is never quite as advanced as the human’s testing the limits.
The validity of the previous tests failed with each new advancement in android technology. However, those which seemed unlikely to ever be distinguished eventually were discovered by a newer, more discriminating test. The more specific each test gets, the harder it is for the newer androids to pass the test. The T-14 androids for example were thought to be undetectable for a time and 50-some managed to escape undetected with previous scales. The Voigt-Kampff test which is currently used was able to identify each of them as well as the latest and most advanced Nexus 6 models. While this extreme specificity begins to concern the idea of false positives, it is important to note that no “android” that was retired as a result of the Voigt-Kampff test was ever mentioned to test as a human in the more absolute bone marrow test post-mortem. It’s even revealed that such tests managed to pick up on humans such as Phil Resch with the most diminished empathic response where a false positive would almost be expected. Despite the rapid development of technology to meet the demand, human nature evolves just as quickly and remains ahead of the technology it creates, keeping the controlled balance in the hands of the superior force.
It is also important to note that not only does human nature remain ahead of the technology which is advancing not far behind, but it is also the driving force which develops that technology. As in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the force which develops the technology is the combined efforts from the Rosen Corporation and the demand of human colonists for more convincing android counterparts. It is this demand that led to the Nexus 6. The failures of the Nexus 6 to remain undistinguishable in the Voigt-Kampff test is also the reason for the pursuit of the Rosen Corporation to find the weakness in the system and create newer, better models. The cycle which creates new tests creates new androids to beat the test, and so the process turns in circles. While this process seems circular, it appears that humans are and conceivably will always remain at the forefront as the masters in control of the technology they create.
The future is a realm of fiction and the promises in technology that it provides are best described in this context as well. The nature of technology is such that while it is represented in the past and present, it is primarily the future. While fictitious, Philip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep paints a relatively clear picture of the relationship between technology and human nature in the form of generalizations in his futuristic society. At times it seems unclear which is really in control, but after closer inspection, human nature seems to be on the forefront of technology, remaining a step ahead at all times. The Voigt-Kampff test has evolved as a means to maintain control over technology and despite the efforts of both the Rosen Corporation and such androids as Buster Friendly, the test maintains its integrity as a means to discriminate technology from human nature. While the test remains accurate throughout the novel, it is clear that it will eventually fail when technology breaks that threshold of control in its evolution, but as before, new means of control will be formed to keep human nature in the lead. Empathy may be a highly attested means for distinguishing humans, from the technology they control, but one fact remains true, it hasn’t failed yet and when it does, human nature will adapt to maintain control.
This version of your introduction is pretty incomprehensible, too. Actually, the main argument is pretty clear, but you aren't doing anything to advance it - most of it just reads as filler. This idea "For every advancement in technology there is an equal advancement in the manner in which we as humans control that technology." is a big, complicated idea - you want/need to accumulate proof for it as quickly as you can.
"he argues the point that androids are unable to express the human emotion of empathy." - we talked about this material a lot in class, as well as about the role of perception and self-perception in the book. You are taking the "official" line of the novel, represented by Deckard's initial view (although not by his bad conscience) - and greatly oversimplifying the book in the process.
", androids remain unable to show empathy throughout the story, especially toward animals. " -- Although it seems that many of the mentally ill, as well as you and I, as well as any off-world humans, would also fail. Again, you're treating a complex issue as if it's very simple: you are looking at the official line in a novel that drips with suspicion of authority.
Your discussion of Isidore and Buster Friendly is good - particularly re: the failure of the androids to understand what's wrong with him. On the other hand, you're completely ignoring another, very similar moment when Luba (followed later by Deckard) points out the lack of empathy felt by humans for androids.
"As the gap between human nature and technology grows narrower over time, it appears that Phillip Dick argues that human nature will always supersede the technology we create because of features that can never be mimicked into the artificial realm." -- I don't understand this point. I especially don't understand it, since Deckard himself may very well be an android. That strong possibility (repeatedly raised through the novel) would need to be convincingly addressed or integrated into your argument for it to make sense...
" Despite the rapid development of technology to meet the demand, human nature evolves just as quickly and remains ahead of the technology it creates, keeping the controlled balance in the hands of the superior force." The Rosen corporation, though, seems to think it can eventually make androids which are not, in fact, detectable. Why do you think they're wrong?
Overall: What you've focused on is a close reading of the novel (with much better support than before), and what I've focused on, in turn, is a powerful set of alternative readings. The fundamental issue here, regarding your reading of the novel, is that you're operating under the assumption that everything that Deckard initially believes is true. You ignore all contrary evidence, with the possibility that Deckard is an android, and the lack of empathy generally shown to androids (as well as the fact that all of Dick's readers would themselves test as androids) prominent among them.
Arguably, though, I'm nitpicking unnecessarily about all that material, because something there is arguably a more fundamental difficulty here: you are operating under the assumption that your particular reading of PKD accurately portrays how technology operates in the real world - with absolutely no explanation as to *why* you believe this.
Returning briefly to contrary evidence - is World War Terminus, and its near total destruction of humanity, its works, and (probably) its future, also an example of technology under our control?
Post a Comment