Week 1: Response to “The Machine Stops” by E.M. Forster – Taylah Bland

Throughout the piece “The Machine Stops” by E.M. Forster, the general discourse pertains to establishing a societal climate riddled with interesting perceptions of priority. The piece in the initial pages sets out the reliance that humanity has developed with technology. For example, it is stated “she knew several thousand people, in certain directions human intercourse had advanced enormously” (1). This example speaks to the power of communication and its rapid development has had expansive consequences on the ways in which we interact and with how many people at a time. Technology has now become an ‘absolute’ in the piece, whereby individuals are no longer able to speak ill about machinery in fear of “homelessness” (10) as evidenced in “you mustn’t say anything against the Machine” (2) (further note the capitalization on Machine, just like God in the succeeding sentence). We begin to see the discrediting of the natural world as everything is likened to man – seemingly placing mankind in a position of power, dominance as they create machinery. It seems as if individuals happiness depends on the presence of buttons in order to provide food, clothing, water and music for convenience. 

What I noticed throughout the remainder of the piece, and what struck me was that individuals on the airship were foreign to the natural occurrences of the world such as rising of dawn and the stars in the sky. Instead of being beautiful natural phenomenon, these phenomena instead became feared and hated. This thought is applied to the way in which natural places like Brisbane and the Himalayas are no longer recognizable with their “unmechanical names” (9). 

What gave me some sort of hope for humanities restoration, or rather change in priority was the persona of Kuno who states “it is we who are dying, and that down here the only thing that really lives is the Machine” (15).

The take away from the piece to me and what made me think was that this could be a social commentary being made on a prediction for what our life will become if we continue our technological dependence. The attendant on the flight states “we have indeed advanced, thanks to the Machine” (9) but have we really advanced? We have lost human connection, care, regard for others, natural landscapes and appreciation for natural beauty. The collapsing of the ‘world’ at the end of the piece provides both a nihilistic and optimistic approach. One in which we rid ourselves of a mechanical world but now are left to potentially reconnect with the world we turned such a distrust towards. Advancement is certainly the question but I am not entirely sure that yes is the answer.