Of all of the discussions we had this week, the one I found to be the most compelling was the discussion of whether or not we in our current state are ready for the introduction of robots into our society. Upon first reflection, I considered the introduction of robots into our society to be at the level of the beings which inhabit Asimov’s worlds, having intelligence to the point that they are able to complete complex tasks and reason on their own as opposed to the robots of today, which perform basic tasks, and only those tasks with which they were initially programmed, meaning that they do not possess the ability to learn.

In terms of the complex robots of Asimov’s world, I think we are far from ready to have them as a part of our world, however I think it very likely that we will get such technology before we are ready and be forced to adjust. One reason that I argue that we are not ready is due to the fact that we currently have too many problems amongst humans alone to be able to reasonably factor in a completely new being. For example, in terms of gender, we are currently in the midst of a heated debate over whether or not there are only two genders, and who is able to identify as what. If we were it add robots to our society, there would be an additional debate of whether or not they should have genders, and if so, what genders they should be, whether they be incorporated into our current social norms of having a binary gender system, or whether they should have their own unique gender. Beyond the argument of gender, there is also the question of rights. Currently not every person has protected and equal rights to everyone else, and if robots were to be added to the mix, particularly if they were able to pass the Turing test and feasibly assimilate to the current society, there would be the problem of whether or not they would have their own rights separating them from humans, or whether they would experience the same rights as the majority of the population, in which case some robots might gain more rights than some humans.

If thinking of the introduction of robots into our society in terms of something more immediately feasible, such as self-driving cars, a whole other slew of problems arises. For example, not everyone would have access to the same level of car, and while the car’s basic form may be programmed to simply limit the overall number of deaths if forced into such a situation, some more affluent people would be able to purchase modifications of upgrades which could prevent their deaths at all costs, or be biased based on other factors such as race or gender. What’s more, such technology could easily be hijacked to serve an ulterior motive, or hacked and used for a destructive purpose. All in all, although there are countless more reasons why we are not ready for such advanced technology and the introduction of robots into our society.

One of the things that struck me so much during our discussions this week is the degree to which the ethical theories we discussed narrow our views of the world and how we react to current events. After this realisation and the discussion in class surrounding the example of the police providing the FBI with access to part of their systems in an attempt to decrease acts of terrorism, I found that some of my classmates were more able to solve the dilemma using certain theories which I myself had not considered, and have since taken it upon myself to attempt to look at dilemmas and conflicts around the Bucknell campus and the world today. While I found that I was able to reorient my personal set of morals and way of thinking in order to think and solve problems using a particular theory, there were several which I found particularly difficult to wrap my head around and get in the mind set of. The most challenging one for me was the divine command theory. I believe that this particular theory proved to be so challenging for me due to the fact that while the moral values laid out in most religions are core beliefs which are consistent throughout most societies, I was unable to justify these morals on the basis of religion. Having studies so many religions throughout my academic career, I found it difficult to think of a religion which was able to resolve the ethical dilemmas I came across without having violated the core moral values for personal gain throughout history. This then lead me to the realisation that, like the laws which govern robots in Asimov’s The Bicentennial Man, there is a hierarchy within moral values, which, more often than not throughout history, has shown to value individual gain above all else. Thus, if people are able to justify their actions in response to the ethical dilemmas they might face by relying on the justification of some ethical theory, and possess a hierarchy of moral values geared towards self-advancement, it stands to reason that we be unable to solve even the smallest problem, let alone an ethical dilemma.

In addition to our discussion of ethics, I found our discussion of the Bicentennial Man to be quite thought provoking. In particular, I thought it interesting how Asimov chose robots and a futuristic society as a medium through which he might comment on the social issues of the time. For example, during the 1950’s, when Asimov’s short story came out, the civil rights movement was beginning to gain momentum, and just as colour of skin was becoming a hot topic in the United States, so was it a topic of focus in the story. Time and again Asimov mentioned Andrew’s “skin”, that being his bronze complexion. And while the story was written sixty years ago, the topics raised are still applicable, not only in the United States, but around the world. One such item is the extent to which Andrew is willing to shed his previous identity and all of who he was, except his brain, in exchange for an organic android body which more closely represented a human form. This changing of appearance is happening all around the world where white is still seen as the superior being to the extent that, particularly women, are willing to change their natural hair and bleach their skin in an attempt to get a leg up in society by seeming more white. As upsetting as this notion is, it is not occurring in isolate cases, and while the United States may claim to be discrimination free with regards to race, that is simply not the case.

Despite the fact that our class only met once this week, I found it one of the most educational experiences. While participating in the walkout, it touched me how many people of the Bucknell community chose to come together and support those who have been and will be effected by the executive order. In the spirit of our discussion on Thursday, and as a continuation of the past discussions we have had, I have found myself further analysing the situations in which I find myself as well as the state of the world today in an attempt to put it all into perspective of this class, and I find the walkout to perfectly encapsulate all of these things. As was the case with Hank Morgan in Twain’s novel, I have noticed a particular transformation of energy amongst the greater Bucknell community. While many people may have tried to make a difference alone, or have felt pain brought about by the executive order, or have been at a loss for what to do, there was always a bit of an aimlessness to the energy spent, not unlike the bowing of the man or the aimless wandering of the knights, whose energy Morgan was able to harness and transform into something useful for him, whether that be a sewing machine or free advertisement. And like Morgan, this walkout was able to harness the energy of many within the community, to educate, to show support, to share pain, and to make a difference. And since the walkouts have begun at this school, I really have noticed a shift in the energy and the atmosphere at Bucknell, shifting away from the individual in favour of a supportive community. Similarly to what was raised in the human motor regarding the increased productivity of workers once the product they were producing was made available to them, it seems as though by making the issues addressed during the walkout more accessible to those not directly impacted by them, there will be in increase in activism and a sense of community and caring around campus, and hopefully around the country.

While the walkout has been able to do so much for those willing to stand in the cold and sacrifice an hour and a half of their lives to attend, it was not just the people who were able to incite change, but the technology they were able to have access to. It was through technology that I was first able to hear about the walkout, and it is through technology that I and countless others am able to stay abreast with today’s news. And yet, as wonderful as this technology is, it is not blameless in the great divide of our country. It was discussed in my walkout that it is due in part to technology that the American news rarely shares impartial stories, and thus few people are exposed to an unbiased truth about the world today. Most people only listen to, watch, or read the news provided by supporters of their party, and thus are only exposed to a biased truth, and sometimes not even a truth at that. As is the case with reading articles or anything else, people ought to question what it is they are being told, and further investigate themselves; however, so few people have the patients to question what they are being told, and instead accept everything and pass it on to the next person. Thus in many cases, people who fight about different sides of something do so because they do not know what it is that the other person holds to be true, and neither do they attempt to know. As wonderful as technology can be, it is at the same time something to be wary of, since it may just be one of the things driving us all apart.

One of the things I was most surprised about this week was really delving into how much technology has and continues to shape our thoughts, behaviours, and societies. For example, in the film about the Chicago’s World Fair, I was shocked by how much of the displays and attractions on which countries spent thousands of dollars were technologically driven to display the superiority of their nations. Even the displays of food and lace subtly showed the majesty of each of the nation’s technological advancement, with the food showing the connectivity of each nation, and the world as a whole; for who could transport fresh oranges thousands of miles without technology, and who could make such fine lance in such bulk without machines and power. In addition to the more amusing and appealing attractions, I found it shocking how many weapons were on display. By seeing the grandeur of the weaponry on display from several of the countries directly involved in the later wars on Europe, I couldn’t help but wonder if the drive to be the greatest at the fair did not contribute to the destruction and millions of casualties during the war which might not have been so great had the weaponry not advanced so far beyond the past war tactics. I wonder this in part due to the fact that throughout my studies of the Great War, one fact has remained glaringly obvious: while the weapons technology had advanced rapidly, the battle tactics had not, and thus even more people were killed. In addition to the massive display of superiority over one another, I found it shocking that nations used people as a part of their attractions, to show their dominance over a ‘lesser’ civilisation and to show a disparity between their wealth and advancement and that of their colony. I found this particularly disturbing not only due to the clear violation of human rights, but also due to the fact that Hank, from the Connecticut Yankee was so appalled with the slavery he saw around him in King Arthur’s time. While I had known that people were still greatly discriminated against after the abolition of slavery, particularly people from other, ‘savage’ nations, after reading Hank’s views I suppose I thought it would not have been so severe; although after having researched more about Twain’s life, it made more sense to me that his characters would share views akin to his own, rather than completely representing the ideals of the general US population, let alone the European population as well.

In addition to the film, I was interested by how much Hank’s exposure to more advanced technology altered his view of the society in sixth century England, and in King Arthur’s court. For example, if I had found myself in his position, I believe I would not try to change the communication and business aspects of the nation, which Hank chose to do – I believe in part due to the massive industrial and technological revolution which was occurring around the time the novel was written – but instead would try to improve the health and medical aspects of the country. I believe this difference to be in part personal differences, but primarily due to the differences between the worlds in which Hank and I have grown up. During his time, in the 19^th century, the industrial revolution was occurring, whereas nowadays, many of the large technological advancements are in the field of medicine. Thus, although I am personally more fascinated by medicine than some of my colleagues, I believe there to be a universal increase in interest in the medical field, more broadly in the increasing longevity of the human race.

Finally, I find it fascinating that the opinion of idleness has shifted over time, from the Grecian view of it being something which one ought to wish to obtain, to its being frowned upon to the extent that it was seen as a great sin, to now, when idleness itself is the goal and is seen as a great success, for which people toil away. The notion of idleness has always seemed hypocritical to me, being a way to oppress the masses, while seemingly not applying to the higher classes, who could elect to do things at their own leisure. Even now, though it is not frowned upon so greatly, it seems as though idleness and leisure are the ultimate goal, for which people ought to work, in some cases practically working themselves to death, rather than having people simply find worth and contentment in where they are and what they have, so that people, particularly in the states, can finally experience that what they have is enough.