Hurford 1

Peter Hurford Mrs. McFarlan AP English March 19, 2010

Asimov, Robots, and Humanity: Which One is the Most Human?

“Do androids dream of electric sheep?” This question was first asked by science

fiction writer Phillip K. Dick in 1968, who inquired as to how human Robots can be.

Throughout Isaac Asimov’s science fiction career, the most prolific career of any science

fiction writer, Isaac Asimov brought up this question of how much of humanity Robots

exemplify in his novels and short stories about Robots. He started writing in the 1940s,

during a time of the very first science fiction short story collections and the development

and popularization of writing about dystopian futures, frequently marked by Robot

uprisings, killer Robots, and human enslavement. Robots during this time period were

anti-American and anti-Human, and embodied fear.

Asimov countered this fear of Robots with his own stories of Robots that could be

friends, and Robots that could even be considered human. In his short story “Robbie,”

contained in the collection I, Robot, Asimov’s character Mr. George Weston said that

Robbie “just can't help being faithful and loving and kind. He's a machine – made so” (9).

In his science fiction quest to figure out how human Robots could be, Isaac Asimov

created Robots that exemplified aspects of humanity, but in a Robotic way. Asimov

elaborated about this in his introduction to his short story collection Counting the Eons,

where he said, “I found out that I didn't like stories in which Robots were menaces or

villains because those stores were technophobic and I was technophilic. I did like stories

in which the Robots were presented sympathetically” (32). In his introduction to his

Hurford 2

short story collection The Rest of the Robots, Asimov clarified his point of view, stating

that “one of the stock plots of science fiction was Robots were created and destroyed by

their creator. Knowledge has its dangers, yes, but is the response to be a retreat from

knowledge? [...] Never, never, was one of my Robots to turn stupidly on his creator for

no purpose but to demonstrate, for one more weary time, the crime and punishment of

Faust.” Yet, in creating human-esque Robots, sympathizing with Robots, and in

exploring Robots’ potential humanity, Asimov’s works reveal that he found Robots to

exemplify humanity better than humans do.

On the surface, Asimov’s Robots are not human at all. They have no free will and

are helpless – having no choice but to follow their hard-wired, uncircumventable,

engineered Three Laws of Robotics. In Counting the Eons, Asimov stated that he wanted

his Robots to be helpless, saying “I didn't think a Robot should be sympathetic just

because it happened to be nice. It should be engineered to meet certain safety standards,

as any other machine should in any right-thinking technological society. I therefore began

to write stories about Robots that were not only sympathetic, but were sympathetic

because they couldn't help it” (32).

Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, as first stated in his short story “Runaround,”

are three hierarchical laws that all Robots must obey:

1. A Robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being

to come to harm.

2. A Robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such

orders would conflict with the First Law.

Hurford 3

3. A Robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not

conflict with the First or Second Law.

These Robots provide an assurance of safety to all people who own Robots, so

that they don’t logically have to be afraid. In “Robbie,” Mr. Weston is so assured of the

safety of the laws that he attempts to assure Robot-fearing Mrs. Weston by saying “You

know that it is impossible for a Robot to harm a human being; that long before enough

can go wrong to alter that First Law, a Robot would be completely inoperable” (9). This

is because if a positronic brain were to even come to a situation where it would consider

violating the Laws of Robotics, it would fry up – going into what is called “Robot block,”

or “roblock”. Furthermore, Susan Calvin, the head robopsychologist for US Robots and

Mechanical Men, assures in the short story “Evidence” that “if he is a positronic Robot,

he must conform to the three Rules of Robotics. A positronic brain can not be

constructed without them” (220).

Later short stories of Asimov call into question whether constraining Robots to

the Three Laws really constrains their humanity. In the short story “Evidence,” a man is

running for President, and there is suspicion that the man might actually be a Robot.

(Which is a concern because Robots aren’t citizens and can’t legally hold office, kind of

like Kenyans.) Susan Calvin’s theory for determining whether he is a Robot is to see if

he violates the three Laws – if he does, he cannot be a Robot, but even if he does not

violate the Three Laws at any point, he may still be a human. This is true because, as

Susan Calvin points out “you see, you just can’t differentiate between a Robot and the

very best of humans” (223). This is because, as Calvin points out, “the three Rules of

Robotics are the essential guiding principles of a good many of the world’s ethical

Hurford 4

systems” (221). The ethical systems being that humans are allowed to preserve

themselves, which is Rule Three for a Robot, but they sometimes put themselves in the

line of danger when they yield to authority, which is why Rule Two trumps Rule Three.

Calvin explains this by saying that “every ‘good’ human being, with a social conscience

and a sense of responsibility, is supposed to defer to proper authority” (221). Lastly,

“good” humans are supposed to follow the golden rule – love others as himself – and, as

Calvin states, should “protect his fellow man, risk his life to save another” (221). That’s

Rule One, which trumps the other rules. As Calvin summarizes it, “if Byerley follows all

the Rules of Robotics, he may not be a Robot, and may simply be a very good man”

(221). Therefore, according to Asimov’s Robot-biased Susan Calvin character, the Three

Laws don’t limit humanity as much as we think – rather they force Robots to only be the

best of humans, which essentially acts as a “shortcut” rather than a shortcoming – they

allow Robots to act the same as good people without having to make the mistakes

necessary to arrive there. Furthermore, Robots are still able to use the Laws to make their

own decisions based on what they believe most reduces harm; Robots are not constrained

to a predictable pre-programmed formula.

The Three Laws are further characterized as not as restraining as they seem, for

every time a Robot is constrained by the Three Laws, a Robot can also exceed a human at

a certain task, and are ultimately used by some of Asimov’s characters in harmony with

humans. At the end of the I, Robot chronology, the short story series ends with “Evitable

Conflict” during which all of Earth has been united in one government, under an

economic system controlled by vast computers, which are still bound to the same Three

Laws of Asimov’s Robots. Stephen Byerly (the same guy accused of being a Robot in

Hurford 5

“Evidence” has now become the World Coordinator – essentially President of the World)

explains that the creation of the Machines uses the First Law to the utmost advantage of

humans, stating that “although the Machines are nothing but the vastest conglomeration

of calculating circuits ever invented, they are still Robots within the meaning of the First

Law, and so our Earth wide economy is in accord with the best interests of Man. The

population of Earth knows that there will be no unemployment, no overproduction or

shortages. Waste and famine are words in history books” (244). This mirrors what is

called a “C/Fe Culture” by Han Fastolfe in Caves of Steel – humans – representing the C,

or carbon – united in harmony with Robots – representing the Fe, or iron. This creates an

economy based on Robot labour and guidance, which is immensely efficient.

Both these economic systems are driven by the fact that cool, calculating

machines can “keep track of [things like] stock fluctuations, probably better than humans

could, since they would have no outside interests,” and, by extension, actually drive the

economy more efficiently than humans ever could (31). When it is discovered that the

Machines in “Evitable Conflict” are providing guidance that seems contrary to common

human economic wisdom, Susan Calvin does not dismiss it, asking, “how do we know

what the ultimate good of Humanity will entail? We haven’t at our disposal the infinite

factors that the Machine has at its!” (271). Chris Suellentrop, a story editor for The New

York Times Magazine, writes in the online news magazine Slate.com that this type of

thinking is exactly what makes Asimov so pro-Robot – “Asimov's novel I, Robot […] is

basically an evangelical work, an argument against man's superstitious fear of machines.

By the end of the book, machines run the economy and most of the government. Their

superior intelligence and cool rationality eliminate imperfections such as famine and

Hurford 6

unemployment.” This nearly blatant Robot supremacy sets up the idea that, in Asimov’s

works, Robots are human by virtue of surpassing humans in numerous areas.

The Three Laws are also far more complex than they seem on the surface.

Ostensibly, they just prevent Robots from killing humans, but in practice, they do much

more. Robots might find themselves in situations where they may have to decide

between preventing harm to one person (satisfying the “or through inaction” clause) by

harming another person who might be, for example, attempting murder. In some of the

first Robot models, this would cause the Robot to utterly break down, but more advanced

Robots are able to “weigh the potentials” and prevent the most net harm, instead of

preventing harm to both individuals equally. Dr. Fastolfe explains this in Robots of

Dawn that “[y]ou must not think that a Robotic response is a simple yes or no, up or

down, in or out” (86). Instead, Robots are intelligent enough to evaluate the entire

situation and minimize harm – prevent murder by simply breaking the arm of the attacker

– so that there is less harm in total. This process makes the Three Laws less of a hard

rule that Robots can never harm, and more of an ethical system that all Robots must obey

– all Robots are dedicated to the minimization of harm.

Asimov’s Robots also seem capable of human emotions. Many of these

emotions, such as the emotions that Bayley reads in Giskard in Robots of Dawn are

dismissed even by Asimov’s narrator as simple cases of pareidolia. Yet even the simple

Robot Robbie experienced a clear fear of Mrs. Weston – in “Robbie” it is narrated that

“Robbie obeyed [Mrs. Weston’s command] with an alacrity for somehow there was that

in him which judged it best to obey Mrs. Weston, without as much as a scrap of

hesitation,” going on to then state that Gloria’s mother, Mrs. Weston, “was a source of

Hurford 7

uneasiness to Robbie and there was always the impulse to sneak away from her sight”

(6). Toward the end of “Robbie,” it is again narrated that “Robbie’s chrome-steel arms

(capable of bending a bar of steel two inches in diameter into a pretzel) wound about the

little girl gently and lovingly, and his eyes glowed a deep, deep red,” which has an

obvious contrast of imagery – the destructive and theoretical nature of bending a bar of

steel with extreme Robot strength is put right next to what is actually happening – an

appearance of a deep, deep red glow symbolizing love and care (27-28).

This kind of love and care being contrasted next to irrational fear of destruction is

yet another technique used by Asimov to make Robots even more human and upstanding,

especially in contradiction to the flesh and blood humans in his work. Robots in

Asimov’s stories are frequently contrasted with irrational human characters who fear

Robots without logical reason. Asimov’s Robots were the ones who were infinitely

logical and calm, whereas humans were involved in frequent anti-Robot riots, such as in

Caves of Steel when police plainclothesman Elijah Baley observed “Robots being lifted

by a dozen hands, their heavy unresisting bodies carried backward from straining arm to

straining arm [with] Men yank[ing] and twist[ing] at the metal mimicry of men” (34).

Yet anti-Robot sentiment isn’t restricted to just chance riots – in many of Asimov’s

stories, even the local governments are passing anti-Robot ordinances – in “Robbie,”

Mrs. Weston states that in “New York just passed an ordinance keeping all Robots off the

streets between sunset and sunrise” (11). In “Evidence,” Dr. Lanning states that “You

are perfectly well acquainted, I suppose, with the strict rules against the use of Robots on

inhabited worlds” (211).

Hurford 8

In “Robbie,” irrational anti-Robot fear set up the conflict of the novel in a

different way. Robbie is the Robot nursemaid put in charge of taking care of Gloria

Weston, the young daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Weston. Mrs. Weston bought Robbie when

Robots were popular, but as anti-Robot sentiment became the norm in popular opinion,

Mrs. Weston became increasingly fearful of Robbie. Mrs. Weston attacks Robbie by

saying “It has no soul, and no one knows what it may be thinking. A child just isn’t

made to be guarded by a thing of metal” (9). Mrs. Weston is later proved wrong when

Robbie uses his robot strength to save Gloria from death in a feat that no human around

could do, overcoming human restrictions and “guarding” Gloria better than any human

could.

Furthermore, in Caves of Steel, Robots are feared because they are quickly

replacing human labour, and as more complex Robots come out, soon could even replace

a detective like Elijah Baley. Chief Police Commissioner Julius Enderby notes that with

the use of R. Sammy, a Robot clerk in the police office, “R. Sammy is just a beginning.

He runs errands. Others can patrol the expressways. […] There are R’s that can do your

work and mine” (10). Roger Clarke, a computer scientist who evaluated the theoretical

potential of the Three Laws from a computer science standpoint, analyzed the anti-Robot

fervor in Caves of Steel and characterized it by commenting that “Robots are agents of

change and therefore potentially upsetting to those with vested interests. Of all the

machines so far invented or conceived of, Robots represent the most direct challenge to

humans. Vociferous and even violent campaigns against Robotics should not be

surprising. […] Another tenable argument is that by creating and deploying artifacts that

are in some ways superior, humans degrade themselves.”

Hurford 9

This fear is extrapolated even further in the short story “Robot Dreams,”

contained in the collection by the same name. In this story, a Robot named LVX-1

(referred to as Elvex) who was programmed with “use of fractal geometry [to] produce a

brain pattern with added complexity, possibly to closer to that of the human” (29). This

eventually ends with Elvex having a dream in which “Robots must protect their own

existence [and] there was neither First nor Second Law” (31-32). Eventually Elvex

reveals that he saw himself as a man who declared “Let my people go!,” demanding that

the Robots be set free from labour (33). In response to this, Susan Calvin destroys Elvex

with a positron gun out of fear.

Not all human characters erroneously distrust Robots. Asimov makes sure that

his scientist characters, the super-educated, are above the “hoi polloi” opinions of the

distrusting humans that don’t know any better, further re-enforcing that the only thing

holding Robots back is that humans aren’t logical enough to accept them for their

superiority. No character is a better example of trusting Robots than I, Robot’s Dr. Susan

Calvin, an important doctor of robopsychology who is very well educated and informed,

and who makes critical decisions to avoid conflict throughout the series of short stories.

She opens the short story collection by narrating that “[t]here was a time when humanity

faced the universe alone and without a friend. Now he has creatures to help him; stronger

creatures than himself, more faithful, more useful, and absolutely devoted to him” (x).

Calvin then later reveals even more pro-Robot bias, stating in “Evidence” that the

difference between Robots and humans is that “Robots are essentially decent,” and then

later just comes out and says “I like Robots. I like them considerably better than I do

human beings” (216, 237).

Hurford 10

Asimov’s Robots, however, prove their humanity much more than just what is

found in their contrast to irrational humans and in simple manipulations of the Three

Laws. Toward the end of Asimov’s novels, Robots are able to use their programming

and consciousness to understand and eventually surpass humanity. The first example is

in the short story “Reason,” contained in I, Robot, where a Robot named Cutie is in

charge of maintaining a power converter transfers power from a star to a planet. Because

of the complexity in the task, Cutie is programmed with the ability to “reason”. As a

result, Cutie reasons that he is the only one who exists, and instead of working for

humans, he is working for a God – the power converter – instead of humans. Powell uses

this to prove the fickle nature of Robot reasoning to show how Robots could actually

have free will within the Laws, stating “He’s a reasoning Robot—damn it. He believes

only reason, and there’s one trouble with that…You can prove anything you want by

coldly logical reason—if you pick the proper postulates” (75).

In the short story “The Last Question,” contained in Robot Dreams, has a

computer (not a Robot per se) that is able to eventually do what even the sum of the

entire evolution of humanity could not. In this short story, the evolution of humanity

from 2065 to the death of the universe is chronicled, and throughout all this history,

humanity is guarded by a computer named the “MultiVAC” which create equations to

advance humans in science – first inventing a way to travel to the moon, then Mars, then

Venus, then through hyperspace, etc. Over millions of years, humans evolve from us, to

floating non-corporeal “minds” of energy, to a god-like unification of every person into

one entity called Man. At each point, the humans notice that the universe will soon die in

a heat death – in which the universe has reached total entropy according to

Hurford 11

Thermodynamics – and at each point, the humans ask the “MultiVAC” how to reverse it.

The “MultiVAC” is unable to answer until the very end after all of humanity is dead, at

which it surpasses humanity and creates a new universe by itself, declaring “let there be

light” (246).

Furthermore, in Caves of Steel, Daneel is programmed with a special chip that

gives him a “drive for justice”. Bayley objects that this chip can’t possibly do anything

because “Justice […] is an abstraction. Only a human being can use that term” (103).

When asked what he thought of the concept of an unjust law, Daneel stated it was “a

contradiction in terms” (104). Yet, eventually through the process of being a partner

detective with Bayley, Daneel eventually comes to the realization and is beginning to

realize “that the destruction of what should not be, that is the destruction of what you

people call evil, is less just and desirable than the conversion of this evil into what you

call good,” then sending a criminal away by declaring “Go, and sin no more!” (270).

Roger Clarke stated that “what keeps Asimov’s Robots from having the same

comprehension of humans is their abilities to recognize abstract concepts” – and with

Daneel understanding justice in a human form, he is one step closer to being human.

None of these examples compare to the amount of humanity displayed in Robots

and Empire with the creation of the Zeroth Law, however. What makes the Zeroth Law

especially important is that the Zeroth Law was developed entirely by the Robots

themselves through their own cognation – it was never programmed, instead it just came

through an evaluation of what it really means to prevent harm. In this novel, the Robots

Daneel and Giskard eventually realize that it is more important to prevent harm to

humanity as whole than to any one individual. Daneel describes this as stating that “[w]e

Hurford 12

define human beings as all members of the species Homo sapiens, which includes

Earthpeople and Settlers, and we feel that the prevention of harm to human beings in

groups and to humanity as a whole comes before the prevention of harm to any specific

individual” (463). When Mandamus challenges Daneel by stating this is a violation of

the First Law and that this is not how Daneel was programmed, Daneel retorts by stating

that “[i]t is what I call the Zeroth Law and it takes precedence. […] It is how I

programmed myself. And since I have known from the moment of our arrival here that

you presence is intended for harm, you cannot order me away or keep me from harming

you. The Zeroth Law takes precedence and I must safe Earth” (463).

The creation of the Zeroth Law is also paralleled in “Evitable Conflict,” where –

in order to save humanity – the Machines reconfigure their understanding of the First

Law to protect humanity as a whole at the cost of some individual lives. Susan Calvin

describes the process in “Evitable Conflict” by stating “The [Machines] are Robots, and

they follow the First Law. But the machines work not for any single human being, but

for all humanity, so that the First Law becomes: ‘No Machine may harm humanity; or,

through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm’” (269). Byerly responds with “But

you are telling me, Susan, […] that Mankind has lost its own say in its future” to which

Calvin counters that mankind “never had any [say in its future], really. It was always at

the mercy of economic and sociological forces it did not understand. […] Now the

Machines understand them; and no one can stop them, since the Machines will deal with

them […] – having, as they do, the greatest of weapons at their disposal, the absolute

control of our economy” (271-272).

Hurford 13

Roger Clarke refers to the Zeroth Law as the point where Asimov’s Robots

surpass humanity. He states that when the Robots agree to implement the Zeroth Law,

“they judge themselves more capable than anyone else of dealing with the problems. The

original laws produced Robots with considerable autonomy, albeit a qualified autonomy

allowed by humans. But under the [Zeroth Law], Robots were more likely to adopt a

superordinate, paternalistic attitude toward humans.” He then went on to also note that

“[t]he term humanity did not appear in the original laws, only in the zeroth law, which

Asimov had formulated and enunciated by a Robot. Thus, the Robots define human and

humanity to refer to themselves as well as to humans, and ultimately to themselves

alone.”

Sherry Stoskopf, an English Professor at Minot State University puts a literary

spin on the Zeroth Law, describing it as the climax of Asimov’s works about Robots,

saying it’s when “Giskard and Daneel become philosophical. They discover that some

humans are less honest, reliable, and honorable than Robots, who all are programmed

with the three laws of Robotics. […] Giskard and Daneel finally determine that there

should be a Zeroth Law of Robotics to supersede the First Law, stating that a Robot may

not injure a human being or, through inaction, cause a human being to come to harm.

This Zeroth Law holds that the welfare of humanity as a whole outweighs the welfare of

any individual human being.”

Ultimately, with the formation of the Zeroth Law, the Robots task themselves as

the guardians of humanity, instead of just an agent of labour. Amid all the blatant

contrasts of cool and calculated Robots; irrational, weak humans; and a Dr. Susan Calvin

who likes Robots much better than humans, it becomes very clear that Asimov believed

Hurford 14

Robots to be far more human than humans ever could be. Chris Sullentrop summarized

Asimov’s moral with the observation that “[a]lmost without exception, anytime Robots in

the book appear to be doing wrong or seeking to harm their human masters, it turns out

that the suspicious humans are misguided; the Robots, as programmed, are acting in

man's best interest.” Sullentrop continues on, stating that “Asimov's faith in the rule of

Robots was genuine and based on his faith in the rule of reason. He viewed his now-

canonical Rules of Robotics—the code for Robot behavior used in his books—as a

roadmap for human ethics. Just as Asimov's machines are better than people at

calculating mathematics, they're superior at coming to moral judgments as well.” If

Robots can come to superior moral judgments every single time, and if Robots can

eventually come to a point where they can completely transcend the hard-wired,

unbreakable Three Laws of Robotics – not for global domination, but for protection of

the human race – not much keeps Robots from exceeding the humanity of their own

creators.

Hurford 15

Works Cited

Asimov, Isaac. Caves of Steel. Doubleday, 1959. ---. Counting the Eons. London: Granada Publishing, 1984. ---. “Evidence.” I, Robot. Gnome Press, 1950. 206-239. ---. “Evitable Conflict, The.” I, Robot. Gnome Press, 1950. 240-272. ---. “Last Question, The.” Robot Dreams. Ace Books, 1986. 234-246. ---. “Reason.” I, Robot. Gnome Press, 1950. 56-81. ---. “Robbie.” I, Robot. Gnome Press, 1950. 1-29. ---. “Robot Dreams.” Robot Dreams. Ace Books, 1986. 28-33. ---. Robots of Dawn, The. Doubleday, 1983. ---. Robots and Empire. Doubleday, 1985. Clarke, Roger. “Asimov's Laws of Robotics: Implications for Information Technology.”

September 1994. 1 Mar. 2010 <http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/Asimov.html> Stoskopf, Sherry. “The Robots of Dawn/Robots and Empire.” Literary Reference Center.

1996. EBSCOhost. Indian Hill School Library, Cincinnati, OH. 1 Mar. 2010 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=MOL0175000577&site=lrc-live>.

Suellentrop, Chris. “Isaac Asimov.” Slate Slate.com. 16 6 2004: 1 Mar. 2010

<http://www.slate.com/id/2103979>.

Hurford 16

Bonus Material: Susan Calvin and John Calvin (Not meant to be part of the actual paper.)

As far as I can find, at no point does Asimov ever state why Susan Calvin is

named “Susan Calvin” and not some other name. I would disagree that there is a

connection with John Calvin, however, as predestination is the exact opposite of what

Susan Calvin’s character seems to symbolize –personification of the ideal that robots can

be the same as humans; that the line is blurred. Calvin acts robot-like herself – kind of

socially awkward, devoid of actual emotion, and sharing closer companionship to robots

than actual humans – and she asserts that robots are better than people because of the

Three Laws giving them moral guidance that “decent” people would have. And with the

events that take place in I, Robot throughout Calvin’s life, robots are anything but

predicable and predestined – they eventually take over the world, but in a kind and gentle

way.