It is fair to say that I was very impressed with Channel 4’s new sci-fi offering, Humans. And judging by the fact that it was Channel 4’s biggest ratings success in a decade, so were many of you. The critical response, too, seems overwhelmingly positive. (See here, for example. And here. Here too, but less so, though I like ‘conceptual overload’, as I will soon demonstrate.)
I was so furiously tweeting throughout the programme that I almost missed the show altogether. #Humans was the #1 trending topic for some time on Sunday night.
There were some less impressed, of course, but claims that it’s a ‘poor man’s Ex_Machina‘ or Blade Runner I think are wide of the mark. It might not be as glossy, but Humans doesn’t need to be. Without taking anything away from Alex Garland’s film (a review of which I offered here), Humans has terrific performances, and as a series, will have the room to breathe and examine not only its characters in more depth, but also the ideas, issues and concerns we have about robots at greater length and, hopefully, with more ambivalence and nuance.
For example, and by way of introducing some issues you may want to think about for the rest of the series (call it, if you like, ‘Dreaming Robots Study Guide to Humans‘):
- Early in the programme, when Laura (Katherine Parkinson) arrives at the train station, we see many Synths working around the city, mostly engaged in menial tasks: checking tickets, carrying luggage, picking up rubbish. So, as many people are asking today: to what extent might we expect – or fear – robots that are more like humans will take over human jobs? OR, should we welcome these opportunities, letting the robots assuming more of our mundane tasks so that, as it was suggested in Humans, we humans can be less like machines and more like… humans?
(I suspect that this might become a trickier question as the series progresses; it’s already been foreshadowed that we’ll see Synth taking over humans in emotional capacities, too.)
- The man being interview by Krishnan Guru-Murthy says that the ‘Asimov lock in their programming mean that they simply aren’t able to do us any harm.’ Is that enough for you? Do you imagine that, were Asimov’s laws of robotics programmed into machines, you would feel that was enough to keep robots on our side? (given that most of Asimov’s stories are about a failure of the laws in some way or another…)
Was happily watching #Humans having forgotten that I’m in it until I popped up on the telly. But I’m only human, I suppose
— Krishnan Guru-Murthy (@krishgm) June 14, 2015
- Given the apparent inevitability of human nature, that we will take any new technological development and employ it to satisfy our sexual urges, what – if any – limitations or ethical constraints would we wish to put on our use of ‘sex-bots’? Beyond answering the obvious question (Would you? Would you? nudge nudge wink wink, eh?), what are the consequences of more… intimate human-robot interactions on human-human interactions? What effect might the availability of sex-slave robots have not only on human sexuality, but on how we relate to one another as human?
Those are just some questions for now; I have no doubt that subsequent episodes will raise more complex twists to these questions, and/or new issues altogether. And I, for one, am really looking forward to it.
Feel free to post below your thoughts – let’s try to have a meaningful conversation about our future with robots, one that goes beyond the usual scaremongering, misinformed headlines.