Steven Lyle Jordan's Blog, page 11

Updating voting to enfranchise all

We’ve just finished the 2018 voting season in the U.S.; and although it wasn’t implicitly stated, one of the things at stake in this voting season was… voting itself.  A great deal of the strategies of the current conservative administration has been about disenfranchising a significant amount of (surprisingly non-conservative) American citizens, and making it harder for blue- and no-collar Americans to actually vote, and making it easier for conservatives to maintain power.

One of the reasons these strategies are so threatening to the American voting system is that our system is, in many cases, archaic.  As an example, when I voted, I traveled to a central location on a specific day, gave my name, birthdate and address to a stranger, signed a slip of paper to verify my identity, was handed a folder of paper ballots, which I filled out by coloring ovals on the paper with a pen.  How turn of the century.  (The eighteenth century, that is.)

In fact, our local voting system used to be more sophisticated, with punchcard ballots… and before that, I’ve voted on a fully-electronic system.  But over time, doubt and distrust has been applied to modern systems and electronics (despite few, if any, examples of anyone taking advantage of those systems), pushing our voting tech literally back into the last century, and coincidentally, making it as easy to sabotage and corrupt as any hackable electronic system.  Maybe easier… after all, you can ruin paper ballots with the judicious application of a match.

No major changes are going to be made to our voting system as long as a conservative-based government is in place.  But if we ever see a really progressive government again, one of the things we really need is a voting system that reflects the 21st century and looks beyond.

[image error]The first thing we need is to take advantage of the modern telecommunications system in the world, enabling us to connect and communicate wherever we are.  The fact is that there is no longer a need to go to a central location to vote: Votes can be recorded anywhere in the world, including on a cellphone, and transmitted anywhere nigh-instantaneously.

The next thing we need is a more robust identification system… something that we’ve needed for general online buying and communication for decades anyway.  The existing typed-password system isn’t secure or robust or foolproof, as IT experts have tried to emphasize for years; but the public has also been averse to more sophisticated systems, showing resistance even to 2-factor identification.  And biometrics is still a long way from being applied to daily use.  Fortunately, biometrics are being added to cellphones now, and people are slowly getting used to the idea of securing their phones with fingerprints, facial recognition and other systems.  The systems still need improvement, but they’re on the way to public use and confidence.

[image error]Finally, the voting system needs to be designed around a functional, easily-used website and a secure database system.  A user on a computer, cellphone or smart TV should feel confident that the system identifies them accurately and can’t be fooled into thinking someone else can spoof them.  Then the voting itself should be easy, tailored to the voter with enough opportunities to verify and change votes if desired before finalizing them.  Perhaps an after-the-fact verification system is needed, to allay the concerns of those who fear their connection could be immediately hijacked by others and mis-voted; if such votes were held until verified, perhaps 24 hours later, through a secondary contact and verification channel, hijacked votes would be difficult-to-impossible to pull off.

Those votes should be simultaneously sent to and stored in multiple databases in multiple locations (three or more, minimum… five would be best) that encrypt, synchronize and compare their contents to each other, and have monitored access points and backed-up power systems.  Errors due to corruption or hacking would be highly improbable, since identical intrusions or corruptions would have to happen to all databases at once.

These are not elements of science fiction we’re talking about; all of these elements are capable of being built today with existing technology.  It’s just a matter of wanting to and applying the effort to properly put the elements together.  Once that is accomplished, the U.S. will truly be the democracy it is intended to be, making it so easy that a greater proportion of our fellow citizens will vote, hopefully more effectively and more often.

[image error]In 2018, approximately 49% of the eligible American voters actually voted, and for America, that’s considered a record turnout.  A great deal of eligible voters choose not to vote, either because they don’t feel the desire or they don’t feel strong enough about any candidate to take the time to go to polls, stand in line and go through that voting process… and you get a disenfranchised voter.  Apathy is always a challenge in voting; but if you can access a website on your home computer or cellphone and vote confidently, we should expect to convert more than half of apathetic and disenfranchised voters, significantly raising voting ranks and making this a more transparent and all-inclusive democracy.

The site that mocks me

Reconnecting to my Goodreads page has been a reminder of how far I’ve come since I started self-publishing… as well as how far I haven’t come since then.

I originally set up my Goodreads page, on the advice of readers and other writers, as the place to display my books, promote and generate buzz for them, and participate in discussions about books in general and mine in particular.  So I dutifully created my profile page and added my books and their details, hoping to see some churn on the books in due time.  But no churn came… and after a year, I stopped going to the site, and my page.

As time went by, I made changes to my books site… then changed my author name from Steve Jordan (of which there were only a few thousand of us to find) to Steven Lyle Jordan.  I tried to do updates to my Goodreads page, but after so long away and forgetting past passwords, my efforts to update my page only resulted in creating multiple pages.  Recently, I got in touch with the Goodreads librarians and asked them to consolidate my pages… which they did, thanks.

This had the advantage of putting all of my old and new content under one profile.  Wow, check it out, my page shows no less than 17 books, making me look like a very prolific writer!  It also consolidated all the reviews, giving visitors plenty to read and making me look like I actually knew what I was doing.

But with all those books, all those good reviews, and all the time that’s gone by… you’d think I’d’ve made good progress as a successful author.  Which only makes my yearly single-digit sales all the more galling.  Where are my fans?  Hell with fans… Where are my customers?  How did I fail to sell so totally and spectacularly?

[image error]Now I remember why it had become so hard to go to Goodreads… as well as many other sites that I frequented and participated in, in order to promote myself and my books: They all eventually become painful reminders of my failure as a self-publisher, and I can’t bear to be seen there.  And eventually, I put on a brave face, go back and try to pick things up… only to be reminded of my past and continuing failures, and shame prompts me to move on again.

I wish I could find someone who could look at my situation and tell me exactly where I went so incredibly, unbelievably, comically, imbecilically wrong in trying to cultivate buyers… because I admit to having a hard time believing that it’s all just up to a cosmic bad roll.  And without that information, all I have is a Goodreads page that openly, annoyingly mocks me, sarcastically flying a flag that looks pretty to the public, but hidden in its folds is the word “failure,” obscured from everyone’s vision… except mine.  Goodreads has become my troll face, giggling joyfully at my misfortune.  Every time I visit, it drives me away.

So, I guess I’ll be letting the Goodreads profile go fallow once again.  Thanks for letting me in; now I’ll just let myself out.

Three Laws of Robotics for the 21st century

The sex robot community—the people who make the sex robots, and the people who want to have sex with the sex robots—suffered a blow this past week, when the Houston City Council voted to preemptively ban what would’ve been the first sex robot “brothel” in the U.S. But even those council members must know that their gesture was futile. Soon the stigma will fade, and Wal-Mart will sell these things in sixty different flavors. Which of course means that, sometime in the future, you’ll almost certainly be able to buy a BDSM robot.

I love this opening, from a Gizmodo article; it cuts right to the assumption that, like it or not, we’ll soon have robots in our lives, and they’ll be able to do lots of naughty things.  The article basically asks the question: Would a BDSM robot violate Asimov’s Three Laws?  The implication being that BDSM, or other behaviors of a sexual (or non-sexual) nature, can be difficult to categorize in areas of pain, hazard and permission, and thereby might constitute unacceptable dangers to humans.  Then it asks a number of experts to weigh in on the question.

Personally, I think this is funny… because, at this moment, and in the forseeable future, Asimov’s Three Laws don’t exist… and come to think of it, they never really worked.  

[image error]For the record, science fiction author Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These laws were absolutes designed for a 20th century reality when robots and other machines were perceived as nothing more than blunt instruments.  Isaac Asimov wrote his Three Laws in order to suggest the concept of a safe and obedient robot… which he could then logically challenge in his I, Robot short stories, and later his R. Daneel Olivaw stories.  He repeatedly showed how the Three Laws could be twisted, subverted and misused, then presented humans (or other robots) clever enough to find logical arguments designed to reset the laws and rein in errant robots.  His stories were so successful and popular that his Three Laws became default science fiction lore… even though Asimov himself had repeatedly demonstrated that the idea had serious functional loopholes, some of which could still result in human harm, or totally incapacitate a robot for no good reason.

And even without logical fallacies, the Three Laws were often used as concepts compromised by man-made bad programming, data mis-information or just a story-driven act-of-god glitch in the system.  Robots, it seemed, were always easy to malfunction, confuse or just plain break… thereby throwing the Three Laws right out the window.

I think we’ve lived in this world—whose real law of physics seems to be based around Murphy’s Law—long enough to see that the idea of Asimov’s laws being bulletproof is pretty hilarious.  They were no more perfect than the robots they governed.

[image error]But the day when we will need programming for independent robots is coming.  The fact that we’re actually, seriously discussing sex robots today is proof enough that robots are evolving well past the blunt instrument stage.  And hopefully by the time we’re really ready to try to program sentient rules and values into robots, we will have realized how archaic and amusing Asimov’s laws truly are.  Maybe by then, some other writer—or, better yet, actual scientists—will have posited a new set of 21st century laws, based on the practicalities of the real world and designed to be flexible, considerate and honestly pro-life.

I say a modern set of laws should absolutely start with no less basic a concept than the original Hippocratic oath: “Do No Harm.”  This First Law requires a healthy subset of rules and guidelines designed to help a robot through the physical and even the psychological nuances of “harm”… easily the most challenging area for any being to navigate.  That area would by necessity require a good understanding of emotion as well, and with the superior senses of a robot, they should be able to more easily detect and understand the emotions displayed around them.  If this law can be properly written, the rest should be child’s play.  (And if you really want a sex robot, you’d better make sure this part works nigh-flawlessly.)

[image error]Once that first series of laws is set, we can start thinking about whether we can write a law that requires obedience to humans… or whether we should be doing that at all.  After all, humans don’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to ordering entire races around.  Instead of trying to create a race of slaves, we should be creating machines that see a value in applying their skills in support and cooperation with humans… they should be companions whose presence enriches our lives and their existence.  “Be a Best Friend” may be the best way to put it.  A best friend will support you and help you, do things for you whenever possible, and—if it’s a good friend—try to protect you and keep you from doing unwise or unsafe things.

And if I was to cap these off, I would add a law that would make sure the robot saw the big picture… the impact of its actions (and those of its best friends) on the community at large, the collective legality and morality of society, and the future.  “Be a Citizen” might cover this, though it’s understandably vague; it’s a vague and often abstract area to define.  But hopefully it would be enough to make sure a robot wasn’t helping or encouraging a human to do anything immoral, illegal or dangerous, to himself or to others.

So, to recap, my updated Three Laws of Robotics:

Do No Harm;
Be a Best Friend; and
Be a Citizen.

[image error]A 21st century set of rules for robots that can walk beside us, not just behind us, and one that might take us together into the next century.  These laws may not be perfect; but fortunately, we still have time to work out the kinks before it comes time to apply them.  Because, as Asimov demonstrated, there can be a great chasm between the laws we write… and the reality we get.

View from the speculative Melting Pot

[image error]October is Black Speculative Fiction Month. And since I fit the American definition of “Black,” I naturally see as many promotions of BSFM in my social channels as I see encouragements to participate by getting my writing out this month.  “Our stories must be told!  Our voices must be heard!  Our unique experiences will educate and illuminate the world!”

Unfortunately, this is not the month for my writing to shine, because what I write isn’t what is considered “Black speculative fiction.”  It never has been.

This has a lot to do with when and where I was born and the way I was raised.  Starting with the when and where, the year of my birth was 1960, and it happened in the outskirts of Washington, DC.  Certain times and places have significance in the kind of people they turn out, and in my case, my birth coincided with a period of time when Blacks in the US were getting their first opportunities at real jobs (to be more clear, the kind of jobs that non-whites had been, until recently, quietly and not-so-quietly walled off from).  Most of these were federal government jobs, so the first Black middle class in the Washington area were predominantly part of that Great Democratic Republic Machine dedicated to freedom and equality for all.  Not that the system was perfect at that time; far from it, the system had serious issues.  But the people were aware of those issues, and Black America stood beside those who sought to change things for the better.

This was the world I was born into, surrounded by casually optimistic adults pursuing the light at the end of the tunnel (and a few who took turns reminding me of the possibility that that light might be an oncoming train).

My parents moved out to the suburbs with the great Black middle class exodus, before I really had an idea that there were different races in the world.  The suburb I entered was predominantly white, but not exclusively so, and I found myself surrounded by children my age and of every color and kind imaginable (to me).  We all played together, and quickly learned that at that age, race truly meant nothing.  We were the American Melting Pot (cue Booker T & the MGs, “Melting Pot” has always been my official theme song).

[image error]At that same time, a new television show was starting to be noticed among the American public, and the world.  Star Trek showed people of every race and creed, plus aliens, who all worked together like a color-blind team, and their message was starting to spread.  As I got older, and caught more Star Trek in syndication, as well as most of the science fiction TV shows that followed it, the message was burned into me: In the future, just like in my neighborhood today, race will mean nothing (though I was still a bit too young to really understand what that “something” was supposed to be).  The Melting Pot would survive into the future.

I was among the first generation to be indoctrinated into the idea of a One Race World.  To be sure, that world wasn’t entirely balanced… it took me years to catch on to the fact that, no matter how mixed a cast might be, the main character or leader was always a white man.  And it took me longer than that to realize that the worlds of the future were invariably extensions of the “Old World,” as Europe in general was usually referred, or the “New World,” as America was usually referred, and which had been built upon the concepts of the Old World itself.

When I first started to create (I was an illustrator before I was a writer), I was aping the primarily white concepts and characters I was born into.  As I matured, I started to understand many of the differences inherent in the worldview of different cultures and regions, and realized that my stories had a clear Old/New World bias.  But even as I knew this, when I developed new stories, I still saw the Old/New World model as being the most likely cultural leader of the future… mostly due to my limited exposure to other cultures and my confidence in the future success of the multicultural overlay on that European culture, my biases continued.  So I wrote what I knew and believed in, right or wrong: A future where all races and creeds were integrated into one culture and essentially following the precepts of the Old/New World.

To this day, though I know a lot more about other cultures, I still don’t know enough to be able to write convincing stories based around people whose lives developed in the African Diaspora… or the jungles of Peru, or the islands of the Philippines, for that matter.  My characters tend to have been raised in a world and a history that started with the Greeks and radiated outward from there.

[image error]When most people, especially most Blacks, think about Black Speculative Fiction, this is not what they’re thinking of.  They imagine cultures born of the tribal and “Ancient World” backgrounds of most of the countries of Africa; people who were lucky enough to have survived the invading Europeans who, often with duplicitous members of their own people, kidnapped many of their brothers and sisters to another world to live the lives of slaves; but who were also denied the developments of the old and new worlds, the miraculous technologies, the creature comforts; they had no Jim Crow, but then they had very little of the things Jim Crow was supposed to keep them from; they built their lives around appropriating what they could, often the things that other cultures discarded, developing the rest independently, and pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps; they see the universe, not as the Great Machine the Europeans imagine, but as the Great Nature of their homes and pasts.  And they see their future much differently because of it.  Other writers, whose roots are much closer to that world than mine, are hopefully much more capable of writing in that framework than I.

[image error]

As I said, I’m aware of these things, but not well enough to write convincingly of characters from that world.  So, until I can learn to do so (if ever), you won’t see anything from me that anyone should consider Black speculative fiction.  I have nothing against BSF; it’s just not me.  I am not that voice.  My characters come from many races, but they are all ultimately products of the Melting Pot of the New World, the culture and aspiration of my birth.

Who inspires the future?

On days when I feel like torturing myself, I think about the novels I’ve written but can’t sell, and try to divine patterns that might explain their (my) failures.  And when thinking about the content and feel of most of my novels—positive, progressive, pro-technology stories and characters—a disturbing thought comes to mind.

Based on sales figures and anecdotes, serious, positive and pro-technology science fiction does not sell as well in general as dystopias, military sci-fi and fantasy… mostly negative, traditional and anti-technology content.  Serious, pro-science SF is presently not as popular as negative, anti-science and escapist sci-fi.

[image error]This brings to mind other well-known anecdotes: Real world scientists and engineers frequently attest to being pro-science thanks to the SF they read or watched as kids.  And most of that SF tends to be pro-technology, positive SF (not always realistic, as all the scientists and engineers that were inspired by Star Trek demonstrate… but still).

So… if today’s sci-fi is mostly negative, dystopian, anti-tech or fantasy, what is there to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers?  Will there even be as many scientists and engineers in our future?

Fortunately for us, there is a surge of interest in STEM fields, and plenty of young people who are developing into the next scientists and engineers.  Are they being inspired by SF in books and media?  Maybe… but they are mostly being inspired by the real-world and the needs of everyday people, their neighbors as well as web-based pen pals around the world.

[image error]So they’re not being inspired by fictional works like mine… but they are being inspired by the real threats of global warming and climate change… by the challenge of bringing power and communication to third world regions… by the need to preserve agricultural systems and feed the world.  They are dedicated to improving the world, with or without my help.

And what of my books?  Do I feel bad that I’m not part of that inspiring force?  That I’m not part of the old equation of guiding future doers and thinkers?  Well, maybe a little.  But in fact, it’s great they’re being inspired by something, because our future depends on the discoveries and developments of our up-and-coming scientists and engineers.

So, if my books don’t sell, if they never inspire a young generation, at least our future will be no less served because of it.

Genesis II? God help me, I’d reboot that.

[image error]If there’s one sci-fi trope that we know Gene Roddenberry loved (besides his own creation, Star Trek), it was Buck Rogers… the man who was accidentally stuck in suspended animation and revived half a century later, becoming a hero in an era that needed his long-forgotten skills and abilities.  How do we know Roddenberry loved it?  Because he kept trying to revive it in his own new series.  Most recently was Andromeda, the story of a starship Captain trapped in the event horizon of a black hole for hundreds of years, and pulled out after his galactic alliance had collapsed, so he sets about collecting a crew and trying to revive that alliance.

But before Andromeda, there was a series that had two TV pilots and two sets of actors, a few test episodes, and… nothing.  The original series pilot was Genesis II, and the second attempt and pilot episodes were called Planet Earth.

[image error]Genesis II featured the character of Dylan Hunt (note: same character name as the Captain of the Andromeda), a test subject in a suspended animation experiment (so at least his being put to sleep was intentional this time).  What wasn’t intentional was the earthquake that buried the test chamber soon after he was put under.  Assumed dead, his body lay sleeping for centuries, enough time for modern civilization to collapse.  When he was found years later, it was by a science-based organization called Pax, trying to bring civilization back to the world.  Dylan volunteers to be part of the group, bringing knowledge and skills that hadn’t been recovered after the fall, and help with Mankind’s recovery.  Utilizing a network of underground bullet trains, they could travel the world in much the same way that the U.S.S. Enterprise could take its crew to strange, new worlds.

[image error]The initial Genesis II was a made-for-TV movie and pilot for a series.  It didn’t take, so Roddenberry tried again with a new look, new actors, and a new name: Planet Earth.  With Planet Earth, it was clear that the intention of the show was to be a more (and literally) grounded version of Star Trek, with the members of the organization, Pax, traveling from place to place in a recovered high-speed train system and meeting different peoples and cultures along the way… some that would need their help, and some that would be a threat for them to overcome.

The second series pilot was also passed up, in favor of The Six Million Dollar Man.  So maybe this non-starter series seems an odd one to try to reboot.  But in fact, it can be said that this series was ahead of its time, and just needs a more up-to-date touch to shine.

Though the original pilots have some dated elements (many of which nonetheless appeared years later in Star Trek: The Next Generation), the premise seems more prescient now than it did in the seventies.  Today, the mounting environmental threats caused by global warming are creating just the kind of global catastrophes that we used to imagine under the dystopian predictions collectively known as World War III.  The idea that global weather patterns could decimate, divide, isolate and erode human civilization seems a lot more than likely.

So, a very realistic reboot of Genesis II is in order.  Personally, I’d want to ditch the names Genesis II (too biblical for my tastes) and Planet Earth (too generic, and now being used for the popular documentary series) and give the show a new name that was closer to the theme and import of the show… something like Earth:2.0, or Earth: Reset.  Years ago I postulated a post-crash Age of Responsibility, or Onus, which I named the Onuissance, and which might make an interesting name for the series: The Onuissance Files, or perhaps just Onuissance.

Dylan Hunt’s character can still do the Rip Van Winkle thing, and when he’s revived, he finds a world ravaged by environmental and resulting social and political upheaval, and an organization, the Pax, dedicated to fixing as much of it as they can.  Maybe Hunt’s long-forgotten skill is related to medical knowledge, a huge font of data that it’s easy to imagine being significantly lost in a worldwide crash.  Maybe Hunt knows where stores of recoverable medical information may reside, prompting a worldwide exploration to get to those places.

[image error]Although high-speed buried bullet trains were one of the hip fascinating ideas of the 1970s, I’d ditch that—all that environmental damage would have almost certainly destroyed most of those train tubes—and probably assume we’d rediscovered the ability of flight, either with Osprey-type aircraft, or maybe dirigible-motherships.  Another possibility would be an orbital habitat serving as Pax’s base of operations, recovered from an older age and still being examined and restored.  And maybe some maglev-style bullet trains remain, although the damaged quality of their maglev beds limits their use to a few reconstructed lines.

And as they explore the new new world, we get to see proto-civilizations trying to rebuild after the crash, some with unique and arcane recovered knowledge, some with strange or ruthless cultures to be dealt with, some who resent the Pax and their reliance on the technology that caused the crash, etc, etc.  Perhaps some remnants of warming-inspired weather issues or natural disasters require Pax’s help to mitigate.

Planet Earth, like Star Trek, featured a mildly diverse cast, including a character from a more simple, savage culture who’d joined Pax as part of the excursion team (sort of a proto-Worf).  A new show’s cast should be even more race- and gender-diverse, including the lead, especially as they’ll be potentially traveling to every corner of the world.  It would be interesting to depict Pax’s leaders as being from a third world country that had picked up the banner of science that the old and new worlds lost after the crash.  Perhaps the new new world will be led from the southern hemisphere. (Looking at you, Wakanda!)

[image error]The main draw of the show would be the rediscovery and restoration of Earth, its peoples and its history.  There should be a lot of discourse and debate about what to restore and how, and a lot of conflict about the pros and cons of past cultures and beliefs, and their place in the new order.  Hunt should be at the center of it all, providing the perspective of the old world that was discovering its mistakes, too late to reverse the damage, and concerned for the future.  And relationships (and probably the desire to repopulate) should lead to some interesting character dynamics.  Again, a very timely premise for a sci-fi show.

Roddenberry’s attachment to the Buck Rogers mythos may seem quaint, but today we could put that mythos to good use, applying it to the examination of the social and environmental damage being afflicted upon the planet and the uncertainty of our collective future.

Max Headroom? Yeah, I’d reboot that.

“Wait… the New Coke guy… thing?”

Yeah, I hear you… that odd mixup of Blade Runner, Brazil, MTV and way too much sugar-fueled beverages, seems like an incredibly silly thing to reboot, doesn’t it?  But hey, if I can make a case for rebooting Space:1999, I must be game for any old crap, right?

But hear me out; it’s not as bad as it sounds.

[image error]First, a recap: For those of you who missed the eighties (lucky bastards), Max Headroom was the creation of George Stone, Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton, and portrayed by Canadian actor Matt Frewer.  Using an uncomfortable layering of facial appliances and makeup, coupled with simulated computer backgrounds, Frewer would joke and improvise a character loosely-based on The Mary Tyler Moore Show‘s Ted Baxter.  His first appearance was on the British-made cyberpunk TV movie Max Headroom: 20 Minutes into the Future in 1985.  Following that, the character landed a job as veejay on a British music show, then a talk-show host on a Cinemax production.  In between, he was featured on commercials for New Coke, and appeared in Art of Noise’s Paranoimia video.  He quickly became a cultural icon, and years later, when hackers interrupted a national broadcast, they wore a Max Headroom mask and copied his mannerisms.  Playboy even created a female version of him, Maxine Legroom, for a magazine pictorial.

[image error]Max was considered popular enough for ABC Television to give it a shot as a weekly series.  Based on the original movie and set in a dystopian world, Max was the computer-generated alter ego of TV reporter Edison Carter, created after Edison was almost killed for getting too close to a story.  Max proved too elusive to catch or delete, and became a defacto mascot of Edison’s TV employers at Network 23.  He was often an irritant, but he also assisted Edison on his investigations and became a mainstay of Edison’s inner circle.  The series only lasted two short seasons, but achieved a cult following among sci-fi aficionados.

Looking at Max and his programs today, it’s obvious how dated it is.  But this is one of the reasons that a reboot could work today: Almost any change would be a marked visual change from the original.  Also, the difference between the eighties and now include great improvements in computer simulations and tricks, which means Max could be effectively generated from actual computer programs instead of people in makeup.  Many of the ticks and mannerisms displayed by the original Max could still be recreated, and new effects could be added to his repertoire.

[image error]

Studio Publicity Still from “Max Headroom”

Matt Frewer

1987

" data-medium-file="https://stevenlylejordan.files.wordpr..." data-large-file="https://stevenlylejordan.files.wordpr..." class="alignright size-medium wp-image-8953" src="https://stevenlylejordan.files.wordpr..." alt="Studio Publicity Still from "Max Headroom" Matt Frewer 1987" width="300" height="300" srcset="https://stevenlylejordan.files.wordpr... 300w, https://stevenlylejordan.files.wordpr... 600w, https://stevenlylejordan.files.wordpr... 150w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />Here’s where the reboot should differ from the original: Instead of being set in a dystopia, labeled “20 minutes in the future” but actually appearing to be a decade or so (and apparently a civilizational collapse) away, the new Max Headroom would be set in the modern day.  In the original show, Edison Carter was a maverick that often did his own guerilla reporting, with technicians backing him up over constant communication and able to put him on air, live, in seconds.  In the original show, this was just ahead of the technological capabilities of real life… today, we’re right there.  We are living today in Max Headroom’s era.

The original show also featured competing television stations and their cutthroat methods, unscrupulous advertisers for greedy companies, government and private industry shenanigans and coverups, technology run amok, and people on the ground struggling to live their lives free of the black-hearted influence of those in power or influence.  Again, an era of the original show that describes today’s reality to a “T”.

[image error]The Max reboot would again be centered around a television network and an independent, intrepid and hot-headed reporter whose mission was to get the story that would make the world a better place.  Max’s creation should also be caused by the reporter’s pursuit of a story that almost gets them killed.  And Max should be a fully online creation, so deeply embedded into the global network that it cannot reliably be controlled or contained.  As Edison pursues his stories, Max could appear and disappear, occasionally ferretting out useful information, sometimes providing a foil for Edison or his team to discuss stories and situations, and every so often a helping hand to get Edison out of a jam.

Today’s Max could, however, take advantage of the many interconnected robotics platforms in the world today, allowing him the ability to occasionally operate in the real world.  Maybe he takes control of a self-driving vehicle… or alters the computer-controlled manufacture of some device… or manipulates city services, lights, security systems, service bots, drones, even telecom satellites… he would have a physical reach into the world.

And with a highly interconnected world comes the occasional story about other computer systems, perhaps being used for wrong, perhaps going wrong through no fault of their own, that Max runs into or against, or helps identify for Edison to pursue.  Sort of Max Meets the Machine (from Person of Interest), or Max vs evil Watson, or Max Seeks Others Like Him, etc… in today’s world, the possibilities are almost limitless.

[image error]Well… okay, maybe not like this…

Adding a bit of variety, there’s no reason Max has to be a simulated male, any more than the Edison Carter character has to be male.  Although both could be female, one of them could be male… or perhaps Max is androgynous.  Either could add a (mostly titillating) element of gender identity to the role, and possibly a deeper element of contrast between the reporter and the simulation.

And although the original’s name came from the last thing Edison saw before his accident (a parking barrier), we could be equally creative in renaming our new Max from something else seen, or something going through the reporter’s mind, before a different accident.  I have a few ideas… but I’m not going into any of them here (at least, not without a generous contribution to the Steven Lyle Jordan Retirement Fund, wink wink nudge nudge say no more).

With a reasonable amount of creativity, Max Headroom could be a series reboot to rival the original in adventure, scope and cleverness, and one I’d watch to flippin’ death.

Annihilation, another Alex Garland triumph

Following on the heels of his successful Ex Machina, Alex Garland decided to expore more reality-shifting concepts in his movie Annihilation.  The result is intelligent, moody and scary, but great science fiction

[image error]In the story, an asteroid lands at a lighthouse outside a government facility, and a strange phenomena engulfs the area, known as “the Shimmer.”  A military/science team goes in to investigate, and only one man, Kane (played by Oscar Isaac) comes out, but he is soon taken ill.  Kane’s wife, Lena, also a scientist (played by Natalie Portman), is drafted into going back into the Shimmer with a new team.  They discover that live genetics are being rewritten in the area, creating nightmarish hybrid plants and animals, and finally creating changes in the team.

In many ways, Annihiation is a counterpoint toGarland’s last movie, Ex Machina, which dealt with the concepts of artificial intelligence and its inevitable comparison to human intelligence, consciousness and identity.  Ex Machina‘s conflict was Man against Technology, our innate trouble controlling our own creations.  Annihiation, in contrast, deals with natural life, and at a genetic level; it shows the viewer how closely similar is the genetic code of humans, other animals, and even plants on Earth, and the possibilities should any of those genetic codes get prompted to mix and match.

[image error]

But whereas Ex Machina is mostly pgsychological drama with a side note of sexual tension, Annihilation‘s mutated animals who attack in the dark, the ever-popular “group that gets picked off one-at-a-time” trope, plus a “found footage” moment that evokes the creepy voyeuristic feel of The Blair Witch Project, give this movie much more of a traditional horror feel.  It was the horror notes that kept me from jumping off my couch and rushing right off to the theater to see it (I’m not a horror movie guy)… but I eventually got over my trepidation when it became available on-demand.

Lena and the rest of the cast play the story absolutely straight, no out-of-place joking around or sad comic relief elements, which emphasizes the seriousness of this story.  As the movie starts with Lena in some type of holding facility, answering the questions of an unusually-neutral interrogator with others silently looking on, we immediately get that this is no moment of relaxation after the incident… whatever happened rattled everyone to the core, and they’re still trying to deal with its ramifications.  It’s almost a film noir moment, when the main character, still in shock or grief from the previous events, is being interrogated by the cops in a smoky room.  So the story is being presented in flashback, with only an occasional return to the interrogation room, and at the very end.

[image error]Garland tries harder than most horror makers to give his characters more depth and interest, to the point that you want at least some of them to survive their mission, or at least to find some peace with the baggage they bring with them.  And with the strangeness all around, there is also incredible beauty, leaving the viewer to sometimes wonder how they’re supposed to react to the wonder that occasionally intrudes into the nightmare.  He does a great job of making Annihilation more than a Jurassic Park-type action adventure, with characters being chased by creatures through predictable set-pieces trying to out-clever each other.  This feels more like the eternal struggle of Man against Nature, in which Nature’s savagery and power can easily outdo a rifle or trap, and has been bumped up a considerable notch besides.

As we’ve come to expect from these stories, Lena finally finds the center of the disturbance, and at that location, she finds something alien and intelligent which must be destroyed before it can spread.  But by the time we reach this point, it all seems rather predictable… and in fact, we know by the flashback format that Lena gets out, so we are never really in fear for the character to survive.  So the horror movie reverts to an intellectual exercise, and the only matter to be established is whether Lena was successful in stopping what is, essentially, an alien invasion.

[image error]Or… a cancer.  As has been suggested by Matt Goldberg on Collider, the alien element and its ability to morph the environment at will is analagous to a cancer suddenly appearing and starting to spread in the body.  Lena’s scenes teaching future doctors how cells divide and grow foreshadow the events in the Shimmer.  So when Lena finally reaches the tumor at its center, she applies the weapons at her disposal to burn it away and stop the spread of the cancer.

[image error]What the story doesn’t do such a great job explaining is why Lena’s team is all women, or why a team no larger than her husband’s earlier team, who all died except him, is being sent in.  “The other teams were all men, so maybe you’ll do better” is about the extent of their logic.  Whut the whut?  Did you expect the women to bring rolling pins with them, too?  That’s damned weak sauce.  Like public school kindergarten weak sauce.

Goldberg suggests that it has something to do with breast cancer being the leading form of cancer, affecting more women than men, and the differing ways that the other characters die are reflective of the different ways women face death… fighting it, facing it, being taken by it before anyone knows what happened.  But I still can’t see a justification for the skewed movie-logic that gives you an all-female team.  Men get cancer, too, and can die from it; was there some reason we couldn’t see that?  Why wasn’t there a discussion about how the men’s teams died?  This is, to me, the most ham-fisted plot element of Annihilation, the only thing I would’ve changed if I had been in on the production.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie despite its horror elements, but it will be a while before I feel the need to revisit this story.  It was good, but with some issues (like the gender bias) that I just don’t get.  Still, Garland has proven he can do serious science fiction, and I hope he has plenty of opportunities to do more.

Science fiction’s… dumbest concept?

The concept has been around since, well, long before there was science fiction.  It became a major staple of science fiction early on, and it has remained just as popular an idea right up to today, when novels, TV series and major motion pictures are regularly and (fairly predictably) dedicated to them.

No, we’re not talking about alien civilizations… star wars… or even interstellar travel.  We’re talking about robots fashioned after humans.  And it differs from many of the other popular concepts in science fiction in that, unlike the former concepts which can be debated in terms of possibility, humanoid robots are debatable in terms of sense.  Yes, there may be a point or practicality about learning to travel through space or even discovering alien life.  But there’s just not much of a point to having humanoid robots.

[image error]

Possibly the first humanoid robot was built by Yen Shih of China in the 3rd century BC… a life-size, human-shaped dancing figure called an “artificer.”  According to recorded accounts, the artificer so convinced the Emporer that it was a real man, that the inventor had to prove its mechanical nature by taking it apart in front of the court.  Since then, the occasional humanoid robot would be created, generally for some member of a royal family.  The first humanoid robots did simple tasks that were normally assigned to servants or slaves; and to help sell the deceit that these mechanical devices were replacements for servants or slaves, they were fashioned (and often dressed) in the manner of the human chattel.

When science fiction started to develop, therefore, the idea of mechanical devices that could do the tasks of men (or servants, at least) was nothing new—downright archaic, in fact—but ripe to be taken to the next level.  Their depiction in the 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots), played by human actors in strange outfits moving in precise, pseudo-mechanical actions, followed not long after by the 1926 movie Metropolis, in which the robot Futura was given a human-looking “skin” and proceeded to inspire riots in the city under the guise of the peace-loving Maria, helped cement the idea of human-looking robots in SF circles.

[image error]As science fiction progressed, there have been many humanoid robots, from the clumsy painted-metal creations in old film serials, to the more sophisticated by still clumsy Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet, to the highly-adept creations of Blade Runner, I, Robot and A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, and eventually becoming completely human-looking creations that, at some point in the story, would usually tear their skin or need to remove a limb to demonstrate that they were, in fact, robots.  As time passed, fictional robots became more human-looking, more able to perform multiple tasks, and more in demand as service machines for mankind.

And as the machines have come to more and more resemble humans, they have also come to represent more than mere machines; they have been used as literal stand-ins for humans who are employed in dangerous, menial and demeaning tasks.  It’s become a standard trope to see robots in stories representing “the Other,” the stereotypical foreigner or stranger in a strange land, generally ridiculed or looked down upon as a simpleton (despite its potential talents and accomplishments).  It’s also become commonplace to see humanoid robots replace the doomed soldiers, mindless laborers and dominated sex toys that their masters have decided are inappropriate occupations for real humans.

Today, imagineers and entertainers like to depict robots as the all-purpose tools of choice, more efficient than humans but essentially less than human, which makes them exploitable and disposable… just like slaves and servants have been depicted and used throughout history.  And many robot stories have been fashioned around the theme of slavery and the struggle to be recognized as equals to humans.  So it’s no wonder that the image of the humanoid robot sticks: It’s the embodiment of the master-slave relationship that some secretly aspire to, some hope to resurrect in some fashion, and others use to draw attention to the inequities of society and human suffering today.

[image error]

The series HUM∀NS has proven to be a prime example of the modern attitude towards humanoid robots and their considered station in society: Originally depicted as servants, and often used for the most depraved of human activities (rape, incest, murder), the robots known as Synthetics, or synths, gained consciousness and demanded a life of freedom.  Humans, however, distrusted them and regularly attacked and killed the synths at will and without threat of punishment.  (This attitude was caused by the incidents of synths suddenly and unexpectedly gaining consciousness during everyday tasks, which unfortunately resulted in many accidents and deaths during their moments of initial confusion.  Clearly an intentional conceit on the part of the writers to create conflict, but not unlike the way people in power have concocted the supposed “threats” of those not in power, to create division in the real world.)  The result was the synths shutting themselves away in internment camps, while humans debated the best way to deal with the problem.  Their ultimate solution (by the end of the 3rd season) was, naturally, genocide (roboticide?), leading inevitably to the synths’ fight for freedom as the humans seek to put the synths down once and for all.  Modern stories of racial slavery, internment, refugee opposition, collaboration, cooperation and human atrocities are all reflected here.

[image error]And most of us are familiar with the androids depicted in the many Star Trek series, particularly Data, the android officer that desires to be like humans.  Data’s desire to move beyond his origins and emulate humans is familiar to immigrants and minority populations in a new land, who hope to blend in with the majority to obtain the advantages and benefits that the majority enjoys.  And it’s particularly ironic considering Data’s overall skillset is, in most ways, superior to the humans around him; but he still sees himself as inferior to those in the majority, and would give up his superior abilities if it meant he could better fit in with humans.  Seemingly well into the future, inequality, social stratification and the plight of the outsider will still be a thing…

The fact that robots’ depiction in SF is very often as a persecuted race, forced to do menial tasks that are considered below the dignity of humans, and fighting for rights and personal freedoms as humans’ equals, tells you all you need to know about how robots are considered in the minds of the writers (and the audience).  And look closer: These robots aren’t just human-looking, they are inevitably beautiful, desirable, possess-able.  And they are constantly being pursued, captured, treated in ways that supposed good humans would never inflict upon each other, but consider acceptable to inflict upon a less-than-human slave.  This is intentional: The writers want the audience to consider robots avariciously, or at least to imagine that others see them that way.  The writers want the audiences to think of these robots as another race of humans, similar but inferior to normal humans.

And during all this science-fictional time, the real world has been working for the past century-plus developing robots to do real-world tasks… and in the process, discovering and demonstrating that the humanoid form was the absolute least practical design to use for robotics.  Through experimentation, testing and application in real-world situations, non-human-looking robots designed to best accomplish a specific set of tasks proved to be faster, more exacting, more efficient and more tireless than human workers, and quickly became iconic of the latter Industrial Revolution.

[image error]Over the years, we’ve been aware that humans have indeed lost jobs to automation—but instead of seeing humanoid-looking robots standing next to us at the assembly lines, we’ve seen complex contraptions, often no more than specialized tools mounted on multi-articulated booms, doing the repetitive or exacting work formerly done by humans.  We’ve occasionally seen smaller devices, designed for basic tasks in the home or workplace: The spy drama The Americans reintroduced the audience to an actual automated mail carrier that rolled around the FBI offices in the 1970s; and Douglas Trumbull’s Silent Running and the Michael Crichton movie Runaway depicted many types of non-humanoid robots, including maintenance bots, drones and household maids about the size of a rolling suitcase that could tend to children, cook, clean, take and deliver messages and maintain a household.  A robot recently designed to assist in picking peppers in the field looks amazingly like one of the farm robots depicted in Runaway.  None of those robots look remotely human.

[image error]Robots in real life all conform to this reality.  They may not walk on two legs or have five fingers on each hand, but they do their specific jobs much better than generalist humans can.  The future of real robotics does not resemble DaVinci’s Vitruvian Man.

But why aren’t these non-humanoid robots popular in entertainment?  There’s no doubt that the limitations of entertainment (and entertainment budgets) have been a significant reason for depicting robots as pseudo-humans over the years: Not only is putting a person in a costume cheaper than building actual robotic characters, but those pseudo-robots can play to the human psyche, used as a source of human drama that is more accessible in some cases (in particular, less cruel or horrific because supposed humans aren’t involved) than similar drama between human characters.  I get that.  But this trope should be seen for what it is, especially after all this time: A way to specifically depict people, and classes of people, as being sub-human… and therefore subject to acceptable sub-human treatment.

[image error]And what of the robots that are intentionally designed to resemble humans?  They’ve proven to be incredibly limited in ability, often failing at basic actions like walking or manipulating objects as easily as a human.  They are toys, still decades away from being able to perform like a human at even simple tasks.  Some progress has been made to provide limited animation to more lifelike dolls, but most of these are intended to replace humans in areas of sexual gratification.  Some hope that these dolls can be assigned to sexual predators in order to give them something other than humans to inflict their tastes upon (though there is no proof or data that suggests this idea will work).  To date, the most sophisticated human-like robots are sex toys with no ability to resist or escape their owners.  Like most science fiction robots, they are Pinocchios… only masquerading as real, and not fooling anybody.

We have been witness to plenty of examples of the real future of robotics, and it’s not as surrogates for the trials of human decency.  Real robots are tools designed to perform specific tasks… and that is exactly what they look like.  Science fiction robotics diverged from this reality decades ago, and it’s time for science fiction—a genre that prides itself as being intelligent and forward-thinking—to recognize that.  We now have the technology to depict or simulate real and realistic robots, and we are now knowledgeable enough about the ramifications of real robotics in our society to examine those issues in our stories.  We should be throwing off the archaic tropes of servitude and human domination and looking to the realities and realistic concerns of the modern era.

[image error]I guess it’s still debatable whether humanoid robots are science fiction’s dumbest concept, as it has served a significant and useful purpose as SF’s favorite crutch for examining humanity and prejudice over the years. But I think we can agree that it’s not only one of SF’s oldest concepts, but one which most desperately needs updating.

It’s time to turn our backs on humanoid robots; they’re an idea whose time has long past.

The need for greenspaces in space

It’s a fact that the Human race is a remarkably resilient and adaptable species, able to settle in every corner of the world, on land and water, in the air and even in space if they so desire.  And it’s a damned good thing, too… because, if humans plan to go to space, they’re going to test the limits of their resilience further than ever before.

When we talk about someday visiting and even settling on other planets, many people imagine worlds much like Earth that, with a little taming, will allow us to stroll through groves of exotic purple plants, lie down on iridescent moss and enjoy the alien equivalent of lightning bugs and hummingbirds flitting around us.  It’s a romantic notion, but there’s little chance of humans ever finding a world like that… even the “Earthlike” planets we’ve so far detected either are lacking an atmosphere we could breathe, or their size creates a gravity that would crush us, or the local star creates radiation we couldn’t withstand.

Even our nearest neighbors with habitation potential, the Moon and Mars, have been determined to have particles on the ground… dust… that will be very hazardous to human health, requiring us to develop significant ways to scrub that dust off of exploring astronauts or risk potentially fatal respiratory and exposure problems; and, of course, little or no protection from solar radiation, which may make quaint notions like terraforming effectively pointless.

[image error]What this means is that, in order for humans to go to the stars, they will most likely have to get used to living in tin cans for the rest of their days, for protection against those hazardous environments out there.  And not just in the space ships we envision will take us to other planets.  Even once we reach those planets, we may have to either remain in our protective ships in orbit, sending down short excursion modules (or drones) to extract needed resources… or, if we’re very lucky, we may be able to put a sealed habitat on the planet that we’ll still have to remain inside for our entire lives while we take the occasional spacesuited excursion to the surface, or just let drones do all of our outside work for us.  The above scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey may be the best we can hope for when it comes to living on other planets.  Once we leave Earth, we’ll probably be leaving grassy fields, peaceful wooded groves and relaxing beaches behind.

With that in mind, we’d better give serious thought to how much nature we can bring with us, and how hospitable we can design spacecraft and habitats that we may never leave.  No matter the difficulty, it must be considered, because human well-being depends on occasional access to relaxation and de-stressing, and nature provides that to humans in a big way.  And if we can’t bring nature with us, we’re going to have to develop some other relaxing outlet to create mental and physical balance, whether it’s a physical environment, a convincing virtual space, a relaxing activity, or a pharmaceutical solution (or a little bit of all of that).

[image error]

Large enough ships (not necessarily as large as the orbital habitats featured in my Verdant novels, but something with large enough interior spaces at least) may be able to provide compact natural environments for its occupants.  Small parks, perhaps with grassy meadows or lush gardens, will give the occupants a place to stop and relax.  Habitats should also contain greenspaces… their size may depend on the number of occupants, so people can use them and not feel crowded.

Of course, if we stay out long enough for new generarions to be born, they will have less of a problem relating to terrestrial environments that they’ve never visited (though, if they don’t like living in your habitat, may hold a grudge against your having taken them away from that environment in the first place).  But even if they’ve never been in a relaxing glade or waded through a pond, their bodies may still respond to the same sights and smells that their ancestors enjoyed; soft, grass-like floors, nature sounds or floral-perfumed air could still provide them a sense of calm, as our bodies have learned to process these sensations over thousands of years of living among them.

[image error]This will be tricky: Space ships and habitats will be closed spaces; and nature has a way of taking over closed spaces in unforseen ways.  So far we haven’t demonstrated an ability to keep nature controlled or contained in closed environments… but it’s something we need to figure out.  The natural environment plays a large part in maintaining healthy humans, and we’ll be better off physically if we don’t try to remove the things in nature that make us what we are.  Maybe that will dictate how large our ships and habitats need to be (or the limits to how small we can make them) in order to maintain our optimum health: Maybe it will be easier to balance larger spaces, the larger, the better.  Or maybe we’ll be able to devise a “pocket” version of nature, limited in scope but more controllable and still health-supporting… a space-mobile encapsulated arboretum of sorts.

Making sure humanity has a level of comfort as we move off Earth will be vital to our survivability, and can’t be written off as a luxury we can do without.  Hopefully we’ll have the equivalent of parks, greenspaces and other relaxing environments that we can escape to as desired.  If we can’t bring or simulate these things as we travel out into space, humanity might not make it very far.