Week 1: Response to “The Machine Stops” – Samanta Shi

I am impressed by Forster’s imagination of future technology, as he lived during a time when machine learning and AI, let alone the internet, had not been born.  As I was reading “The Machine Stops”, I could not help but think about the various TV shows that address similar dystopian concerns but through different means, such as The 100 or Altered Carbon.  When it comes to dystopian futures, authors and creatives across the board seem to enjoy the exploration of the following themes:

  • human dependence on machinery,
  • lack of autonomy and independence,
  • the displacement of humans and their homes (underground vs. in space),
  • lack of physical contact, emotional dissonance and even incapability,
  • lack of empathy, imagination, originality, and
  • the significance of a higher power / being / source of guidance to human harmony and function

All of which were present in Forster’s piece.  I was particularly struck by this dialogue:

“You are beginning to worship the Machine,” he said coldly. “You think it irreligious of me to have found out a way of my own. It was just what the Committee thought, when they threatened me with Homelessness.” At this she grew angry. “I worship nothing!” she cried. “I am most advanced. I don’t think you irreligious, for there is no such thing as religion left. All the fear and the superstition that existed once have been destroyed by the Machine. (Pg. 11)

Forster questions the meaning of religion and shows a different way in which it can manifest itself. What will humans turn to when “there is no such thing as religion left”? Will they find another form of religion?  Where or who will they seek guidance and meaning from?   Later on in the text, Forster reminds the reader that [hu]man is responsible for the machine:

‘The Machine is the friend of ideas and the enemy of superstition: the Machine is omnipotent, eternal; blessed is the Machine.’ And before long this allocution was printed on the first page of the Book, and in subsequent editions the ritual swelled into a complicated system of praise and prayer. The word ‘religion’ was sedulously avoided, and in theory the Machine was still the creation and the implement of man. (Pg. 19)

I believe that Forster was commenting on this idea that when humans “play God” by creating something that is perhaps beyond them (“The Machine”), then they must not forget to consider the potential consequences.  The dystopian nature of the story almost suggests that humans should perhaps avoid facilitating the progression of technology to its fullest potential because it will indeed get out of hand.   Unsurprisingly, when the machine stops, chaos ensues and the fate of the characters is sealed.  At the very end, when Kuno says that “Humanity has learned its lesson”, we experience a slight moment of hope only to be followed by the conclusion that humans do not but taint:

For a moment they saw the nations of the dead, and, before they joined them, scraps of the untainted sky.

As we develop ever more sophisticated technology, we need not forget the importance of not only understanding the consequences of the invention or innovation we put forward, but also proposing a plan for how we might deal with that new reality. Regardless of how prepared we might be, I am convinced that we have an unavoidable blindspot. How might we mitigate the implications of that blindspot? Now, that is the question.

Leave a Reply