psamtik071
07-24-2003, 04:31 PM
First off, I'd like to say that I am a fan of science fiction (although in books, mostly) and have a scientist's eye when critiquing science fiction. Frankly, I believe there are few scientists that actually like science fiction because the truth is more interesting. But it is still neat to dream...
I believe this film (The Matrix and its sequels) is flawed, although purely technically. If you saw the second segment of the Animatrix sequence, you have probably known that the robots were forced to create their own place to live. What help did they need from humans then? And although their source of power was the sun, why should it have been? We know now that solar power is very inefficient compared to other, more viable sources of energy like fusion, fission, hydrogen fuel cell technology, or maybe even antimatter (these sources of energy don't run out when it's cloudy). If the robots were advanced enough to essentially defeat humanity, they would obviously have came up with something not as unpredicable as human beings for their source of energy. I mean, their logic software must be advanced and knowledgable enough to research the human attempts at the "perfect" sources of energy (see modern physics' research into negative energy, vacuum fluctuations, and the Casimir Effect). They could have learned enough history to know that humans, when placed in a position of helplessness, would invariably attempt to liberate themselves from that bondage (e.g. the Carthaginians, the Reformation, the American and French Revolutions, the Russian Revolution, the French Resistance in WWII,...) and find something as costly as fusion, for example, vastly more advantagous. Besides, didn't Agent Smith liken humanity to a virus? What better way to stop a virus than to exterminate it?
This may be cruel and heartless in the eyes of human beings, but how do we treat organisms that cause AIDS, influenza, the Plague, and other such "horrible diseases"? They are only "horrible" and "evil" because they somehow threaten our existence as biological entities. Besides, it not like people want to keep the Ebola virus on this planet just to see how it operates and evolves. You can still kill off an entire species and still come to understand enough its mechanisms for living and changing. With this line of thinking, if you were a machine (a machine with no human emotions created from other, "imperfect" machines created by human beings) wouldn't you think it is plausible to destroy something that tries to destroy you? Yes, you may argue that machines, since they lack human instincts, may not value survival. But why the whole "cultivation of humankind" in the first place? Obviously survival ranks high on their list of priorities.
That said, I would like to point out that very rarely do we see science fiction from Hollywood that is scientifically and logically realistic (2001 is the only one I think of right now that is realistic in almost every aspect). They remind me of modern-day '50s films: lacking substance, feeding off popular (and mostly erroneous) ideas of science and philosophy. I am not saying that all movies should be documentaries. Quite the contrary; 2001 wasn't bad, was it? Is intelligent, substantive sci-fi too much to ask?
I would very much appreciate challeges to this post
"Upward and Onward"
I believe this film (The Matrix and its sequels) is flawed, although purely technically. If you saw the second segment of the Animatrix sequence, you have probably known that the robots were forced to create their own place to live. What help did they need from humans then? And although their source of power was the sun, why should it have been? We know now that solar power is very inefficient compared to other, more viable sources of energy like fusion, fission, hydrogen fuel cell technology, or maybe even antimatter (these sources of energy don't run out when it's cloudy). If the robots were advanced enough to essentially defeat humanity, they would obviously have came up with something not as unpredicable as human beings for their source of energy. I mean, their logic software must be advanced and knowledgable enough to research the human attempts at the "perfect" sources of energy (see modern physics' research into negative energy, vacuum fluctuations, and the Casimir Effect). They could have learned enough history to know that humans, when placed in a position of helplessness, would invariably attempt to liberate themselves from that bondage (e.g. the Carthaginians, the Reformation, the American and French Revolutions, the Russian Revolution, the French Resistance in WWII,...) and find something as costly as fusion, for example, vastly more advantagous. Besides, didn't Agent Smith liken humanity to a virus? What better way to stop a virus than to exterminate it?
This may be cruel and heartless in the eyes of human beings, but how do we treat organisms that cause AIDS, influenza, the Plague, and other such "horrible diseases"? They are only "horrible" and "evil" because they somehow threaten our existence as biological entities. Besides, it not like people want to keep the Ebola virus on this planet just to see how it operates and evolves. You can still kill off an entire species and still come to understand enough its mechanisms for living and changing. With this line of thinking, if you were a machine (a machine with no human emotions created from other, "imperfect" machines created by human beings) wouldn't you think it is plausible to destroy something that tries to destroy you? Yes, you may argue that machines, since they lack human instincts, may not value survival. But why the whole "cultivation of humankind" in the first place? Obviously survival ranks high on their list of priorities.
That said, I would like to point out that very rarely do we see science fiction from Hollywood that is scientifically and logically realistic (2001 is the only one I think of right now that is realistic in almost every aspect). They remind me of modern-day '50s films: lacking substance, feeding off popular (and mostly erroneous) ideas of science and philosophy. I am not saying that all movies should be documentaries. Quite the contrary; 2001 wasn't bad, was it? Is intelligent, substantive sci-fi too much to ask?
I would very much appreciate challeges to this post
"Upward and Onward"