I have recently had the pleasure of reading an article from Sherry Turkle, “Loving Technology”. This piece revealed to me great concern regarding the approach of we as people, as humans, have in regards to the technological tools available today in correspondence with human interaction. Turkle poses the question, “What kind of people are we becoming as we develop increasingly intimate relationships with machines?” I began to contemplate what will be considered humanistic qualities both in the near future and for generations that have yet to come.
In 1999 there was such an uproar about the thought of what chaos would be left in the wake of the dreaded Y2K. People eleven years ago, before cell phones even came equipped with a digital camera (an unthought-of component in today’s insatiable media craze) were in complete chaos at the thought of what seems like prehistoric technology shutting down. Within those eleven years the media evolution seemed to grow as subtly as a gnat amongst day old fruit. We are just now beginning to expand into uncharted technological territory.
Presently, we have approached such a technological and gadget oriented global society that those of us without a kick-ass flat screen TV or a phone that’s smarter than the person who stuffs it into their pocket, have been marked as unacceptable. In this technological age, one may consider we as a society to be the most intellectual of our time. Though, with knowledge being so easily accessible, people have lost the value in learning, growing, and developing ones perspective through education. So, in turn, we are left to depend on computers as the only means we have of insight.
The times have changed and with it, so have many ideals across the social spectrum; E-mail rather than postcards, instant and text messages rather than a conversation, and webcams that can actually replace face-to-face communication. These such innovations were initially created in order to provide the almighty consumer with ease of access to virtually every aspect of one’s life in a positive and, most importantly, in a convenient manner. In doing so, however, it has inadvertently eradicated human awareness.
The text provides an intriguing overview of certain computers (or robots) that are presently on the market—robot cats for spinsters and robot infants for the unfortunately barren couple that simulate everything but the poop. Sony has developed a household entertainment robo-puppy, “[AIBO] is better than a real dog... It won’t do dangerous things, and it won’t betray you.” In a section of Turkle’s article, she recalls her daughter mentioning how “realistic” a jellyfish looked in reality but also how “unrealistic” the biological animals look in comparison to the animatronic animals seen at Disneyland. This highlights my concern for the next generations perspective on robots as opposed to humans; will they ever even know the difference, or if they did would they care?
Going back to the topic of infant robots, these robot babies actually have the technology born into it that can mimic infant facial movements and even respond to stimulus. If you rock the baby it stops crying, if you bounce the baby it will react differently depending on the “mood”. It doesn’t surprise me how people, instinctually, would begin to feel a bond growing between this child and the caregiver; but can real love actually be an option in a case such as this?
Turkle researched the popular responses to this idea of upgrading and that “simulated love could never be love.” If one were to really contemplate this gesture, it can be said that this simulated love would be the equivalent to a person lying, being that the love between robo-baby and simu-mom is a complete fabrication derived from a very real emotion. If we put this same notion and advanced it even fifty years, the term “Loving Technology” poses a completely different variation to what one may think it means today. A very literal definition perhaps.
Turkle initiates a debate surrounding the movie, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, so within the same spectrum allow me to bring the movie Stepford Wives to mind. In this particular film, the men have altered their wives robotically to emulate their ideal companion. If given the opportunity in the future, will people choose a robotic soulmate rather than a biological one as a futuristic emotional form of insurance? After all, for years, people have invested in the safety of their homes, vehicles, and even in their lives against the unknown, the dreaded concept of “what if”. If given the option to avoid certain vulnerabilities people encounter naturally within developing social relationships, who would choose to gamble with fate? Most people would go for the more secure option, that is, a mate that has been programmed in which they truly can trust to offer the highest means of happiness or the biggest pay-out, in other words.
We as the people who make up our world today can obviously see the problem with investing in romantic happiness or camaraderie via robotic simulations of legitimacy; however, even the computer I am typing on at this very moment seems to feel part of that very same problem. We are investing more of our precious time into the technology surrounding us, that we are losing sight of what is valuable in a person. We are losing sight of the significance of social interaction.
Presently, it cannot be judged as to what is considered a humanistic quality as opposed to a technological one when we as people have already chosen technological attachment time and time again rather than companionship with our fellow man. It seems we have already lost touch with each other as humans; but "Who gives a shit?" Right? Blah blah irreversible damage to our culture and morality of future generations blah blah. Hey, we can always just Google what it means to replace human interaction... or better yet, just ask a robot!