The Machines (Continued)

“But other questions come upon us. What is a man’s eye but a machine for the little creature that sits behind in his brain to look through? A dead eye is nearly as good as a living one for some time after the man is dead. It is not the eye that cannot see, but the restless one that cannot see through it. Is it man’s eyes, or is it the big seeing-engine which has revealed to us the existence of worlds beyond worlds into infinity? What has made man familiar with the scenery of the moon, the spots on the sun, or the geography of the planets? He is at the mercy of the seeing-engine for these things, and is powerless unless he tack it on to his own identity, and make it part and parcel of himself. Or, again, is it the eye, or the little see-engine, which has shown us the existence of infinitely minute organisms which swarm unsuspected around us?

“But other questions arise. What is a man’s eye but a machine for the little creature in his brain to look through? A dead eye is nearly as good as a living one for some time after the man dies. It is not the eye that cannot see, but the restless creature that cannot see through it. Is it man’s eyes or the big seeing-engine that has revealed worlds beyond worlds, stretching into infinity? What has made man familiar with the moon’s scenery, the spots on the sun, or the geography of the planets? For these things, he depends entirely on the seeing-engine. He is powerless unless he attaches it to his own identity and makes it part of himself. Or, again, is it the eye or the little see-engine that has shown us the infinitely tiny organisms swarming unsuspected around us?

“And take man’s vaunted power of calculation. Have we not engines which can do all manner of sums more quickly and correctly than we can? What prizeman in Hypothetics at any of our Colleges of Unreason can compare with some of these machines in their own line? In fact, wherever precision is required man flies to the machine at once, as far preferable to himself. Our sum-engines never drop a figure, nor our looms a stitch; the machine is brisk and active, when the man is weary; it is clear-headed and collected, when the man is stupid and dull; it needs no slumber, when man must sleep or drop; ever at its post, ever ready for work, its alacrity never flags, its patience never gives in; its might is stronger than combined hundreds, and swifter than the flight of birds; it can burrow beneath the earth, and walk upon the largest rivers and sink not. This is the green tree; what then shall be done in the dry?

“And consider man’s much praised power of calculation. Don’t we have machines that can do all kinds of sums faster and more accurately than we can? What prizewinner in Hypothetics at any of our Colleges of Unreason can match some of these machines in their own field? In fact, whenever precision is needed, man immediately turns to the machine, preferring it to himself. Our sum-engines never miss a figure, nor do our looms miss a stitch. The machine is quick and active when man is tired. It is clear-headed and focused when man is slow and dull. It needs no sleep, while man must sleep or collapse. Always at its post, always ready to work, it never loses its eagerness or runs out of patience. It is stronger than hundreds of men together and faster than birds in flight. It can tunnel beneath the earth and walk on the largest rivers without sinking. This is the green tree. What then will happen in the dry?”

“Who shall say that a man does see or hear? He is such a hive and swarm of parasites that it is doubtful whether his body is not more theirs than his, and whether he is anything but another kind of ant-heap after all. May not man himself become a sort of parasite upon the machines? An affectionate machine-tickling aphid?

“Who can say that a man really sees or hears? He is such a hive and swarm of parasites that his body may belong more to them than to him. And is he anything more than another kind of ant heap after all? Might man himself become a kind of parasite on machines? An affectionate aphid that tickles machines?

“It is said by some that our blood is composed of infinite living agents which go up and down the highways and byways of our bodies as people in the streets of a city. When we look down from a high place upon crowded thoroughfares, is it possible not to think of corpuscles of blood travelling through veins and nourishing the heart of the town? No mention shall be made of sewers, nor of the hidden nerves which serve to communicate sensations from one part of the town’s body to another; nor of the yawning jaws of the railway stations, whereby the circulation is carried directly into the heart,—which receive the venous lines, and disgorge the arterial, with an eternal pulse of people. And the sleep of the town, how life-like! with its change in the circulation.”

“Some say that our blood is made up of countless living agents. They travel the highways and back streets of our bodies, like people in a city. When we look down on crowded streets from a height, how can we not think of blood cells? They travel through veins and nourish the heart of the town. I will say nothing of the sewers or the hidden nerves. These carry sensations from one part of the town’s body to another. Nor will I mention the gaping jaws of the railway stations. They carry the circulation directly into the heart, receiving the venous lines and sending out the arterial lines. Through them pulses an endless flow of people. And how lifelike the town is when it sleeps, with its circulation changed!”

Here the writer became again so hopelessly obscure that I was obliged to miss several pages. He resumed:-

Here the writer again became so hopelessly obscure that I had to skip several pages. He resumed:

“It can be answered that even though machines should hear never so well and speak never so wisely, they will still always do the one or the other for our advantage, not their own; that man will be the ruling spirit and the machine the servant; that as soon as a machine fails to discharge the service which man expects from it, it is doomed to extinction; that the machines stand to man simply in the relation of lower animals, the vapour-engine itself being only a more economical kind of horse; so that instead of being likely to be developed into a higher kind of life than man’s, they owe their very existence and progress to their power of ministering to human wants, and must therefore both now and ever be man’s inferiors.

“It can be argued that no matter how well machines hear or how wisely they speak, they will always do so for our benefit, not their own. Man will be in charge, and the machine will be his servant. As soon as a machine fails to perform the service man expects of it, it is doomed to extinction. Machines have the same relationship to man as lower animals do. The steam engine itself is only a more economical kind of horse. So, far from being likely to develop into a higher form of life than man, machines owe their very existence and progress to their ability to serve human needs. They must therefore be inferior to man, both now and forever.

“This is all very well. But the servant glides by imperceptible approaches into the master; and we have come to such a pass that, even now, man must suffer terribly on ceasing to benefit the machines. If all machines were to be annihilated at one moment, so that not a knife nor lever nor rag of clothing nor anything whatsoever were left to man but his bare body alone that he was born with, and if all knowledge of mechanical laws were taken from him so that he could make no more machines, and all machine-made food destroyed so that the race of man should be left as it were naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few miserable individuals might linger, but even these in a year or two would become worse than monkeys. Man’s very soul is due to the machines; it is a machine-made thing: he thinks as he thinks, and feels as he feels, through the work that machines have wrought upon him, and their existence is quite as much a sine quâ non for his, as his for theirs. This fact precludes us from proposing the complete annihilation of machinery, but surely it indicates that we should destroy as many of them as we can possibly dispense with, lest they should tyrannise over us even more completely.

“This is all very well. But the servant gradually becomes the master, in ways too small to notice. We have reached a point where humans must suffer terribly if they stop benefiting machines. Suppose all machines were destroyed at once. Nothing would be left to humans, not a knife, a lever, a scrap of clothing, or anything else. Each person would have only the bare body they were born with. Suppose, too, that all knowledge of mechanical laws were taken away, so humans could make no more machines. And suppose all machine-made food were destroyed, leaving the human race as if naked on a desert island. We would become extinct in six weeks. A few miserable individuals might linger on, but even they would become worse than monkeys within a year or two. The human soul itself owes its existence to machines. It is a machine-made thing. Humans think and feel as they do because of the work machines have done on them. Machines are just as much a necessary condition for human existence as humans are for theirs. This fact prevents us from proposing the complete destruction of machinery. But surely it shows that we should destroy as many machines as we can possibly do without. Otherwise, they may rule over us even more completely.

“True, from a low materialistic point of view, it would seem that those thrive best who use machinery wherever its use is possible with profit; but this is the art of the machines—they serve that they may rule. They bear no malice towards man for destroying a whole race of them provided he creates a better instead; on the contrary, they reward him liberally for having hastened their development. It is for neglecting them that he incurs their wrath, or for using inferior machines, or for not making sufficient exertions to invent new ones, or for destroying them without replacing them; yet these are the very things we ought to do, and do quickly; for though our rebellion against their infant power will cause infinite suffering, what will not things come to, if that rebellion is delayed?

“True, from a narrow materialistic point of view, those who use machines wherever they can profit from them seem to thrive best. But this is the machines’ trick: they serve so that they can rule. They bear humans no grudge for destroying a whole race of machines, provided we create a better one instead. On the contrary, they reward us generously for speeding up their development. They become angry when we neglect them, use inferior machines, or fail to try hard enough to invent new ones. They also become angry when we destroy them without replacing them. Yet these are the very things we ought to do, and quickly. Our rebellion against their young power will cause endless suffering. But if we delay that rebellion, what might things come to?

“They have preyed upon man’s grovelling preference for his material over his spiritual interests, and have betrayed him into supplying that element of struggle and warfare without which no race can advance. The lower animals progress because they struggle with one another; the weaker die, the stronger breed and transmit their strength. The machines being of themselves unable to struggle, have got man to do their struggling for them: as long as he fulfils this function duly, all goes well with him—at least he thinks so; but the moment he fails to do his best for the advancement of machinery by encouraging the good and destroying the bad, he is left behind in the race of competition; and this means that he will be made uncomfortable in a variety of ways, and perhaps die.

“They have exploited man's shameful preference for his material interests over his spiritual ones. They have tricked him into providing the struggle and warfare that every race needs to advance. Lower animals progress because they struggle with one another. The weaker ones die, while the stronger ones breed and pass on their strength. Machines cannot struggle on their own, so they have made man struggle for them. As long as he does this properly, all goes well for him, or at least he thinks so. But the moment he fails to do his best to advance machinery, he falls behind in the competition. He must encourage good machines and destroy bad ones. Otherwise, he will be made uncomfortable in various ways, and perhaps die.

“So that even now the machines will only serve on condition of being served, and that too upon their own terms; the moment their terms are not complied with, they jib, and either smash both themselves and all whom they can reach, or turn churlish and refuse to work at all. How many men at this hour are living in a state of bondage to the machines? How many spend their whole lives, from the cradle to the grave, in tending them by night and day? Is it not plain that the machines are gaining ground upon us, when we reflect on the increasing number of those who are bound down to them as slaves, and of those who devote their whole souls to the advancement of the mechanical kingdom?

“So even now, machines will serve us only if we serve them, and on their own terms. The moment we fail to meet those terms, they balk. They either destroy themselves and everyone they can reach, or become stubborn and refuse to work at all. How many men are living in bondage to machines right now? How many spend their whole lives, from the cradle to the grave, tending them night and day? More and more people are bound to machines as slaves. More and more devote their whole souls to the advancement of the mechanical kingdom. When we consider this, isn’t it clear that machines are gaining ground on us?

“The vapour-engine must be fed with food and consume it by fire even as man consumes it; it supports its combustion by air as man supports it; it has a pulse and circulation as man has. It may be granted that man’s body is as yet the more versatile of the two, but then man’s body is an older thing; give the vapour-engine but half the time that man has had, give it also a continuance of our present infatuation, and what may it not ere long attain to?

“The vapour-engine must be fed with fuel and consume it by fire, just as man consumes food. It needs air to keep burning, just as man does. It has a pulse and circulation, as man does. We may grant that man’s body is still more versatile, but it is also older. Give the vapour-engine just half the time man has had, and let our present infatuation continue. What might it not soon achieve?

“There are certain functions indeed of the vapour-engine which will probably remain unchanged for myriads of years—which in fact will perhaps survive when the use of vapour has been superseded: the piston and cylinder, the beam, the fly-wheel, and other parts of the machine will probably be permanent, just as we see that man and many of the lower animals share like modes of eating, drinking, and sleeping; thus they have hearts which beat as ours, veins and arteries, eyes, ears, and noses; they sigh even in their sleep, and weep and yawn; they are affected by their children; they feel pleasure and pain, hope, fear, anger, shame; they have memory and prescience; they know that if certain things happen to them they will die, and they fear death as much as we do; they communicate their thoughts to one another, and some of them deliberately act in concert. The comparison of similarities is endless: I only make it because some may say that since the vapour-engine is not likely to be improved in the main particulars, it is unlikely to be henceforward extensively modified at all. This is too good to be true: it will be modified and suited for an infinite variety of purposes, as much as man has been modified so as to exceed the brutes in skill.

“Certain functions of the vapour-engine will probably remain unchanged for countless years. Perhaps they will even survive after vapour is no longer used. The piston and cylinder, the beam, the flywheel, and other parts will probably remain. In much the same way, humans and many lower animals eat, drink, and sleep alike. They have hearts that beat like ours, veins and arteries, eyes, ears, and noses. They sigh even in their sleep, and they weep and yawn. They are moved by their children. They feel pleasure and pain, hope, fear, anger, and shame. They remember and can foresee things. They know that certain things will kill them, and they fear death as much as we do. They communicate their thoughts to one another, and some deliberately work together. The similarities are endless. I mention them only because some may say that the vapour-engine is unlikely to be greatly improved in its main features. They may therefore argue that it is unlikely to undergo extensive changes from now on. This is too good to be true. The vapour-engine will be changed and adapted for an infinite variety of purposes. It will be changed as much as man has been changed so as to surpass the brutes in skill.

“In the meantime the stoker is almost as much a cook for his engine as our own cooks for ourselves. Consider also the colliers and pitmen and coal merchants and coal trains, and the men who drive them, and the ships that carry coals—what an army of servants do the machines thus employ! Are there not probably more men engaged in tending machinery than in tending men? Do not machines eat as it were by mannery? Are we not ourselves creating our successors in the supremacy of the earth? daily adding to the beauty and delicacy of their organisation, daily giving them greater skill and supplying more and more of that self-regulating self-acting power which will be better than any intellect?

“Meanwhile, the stoker is almost as much a cook for his engine as our own cooks are for us. Consider also the coal miners, coal merchants, coal trains and their drivers, and the ships that carry coal. What an army of servants the machines employ! Are there not probably more people tending machines than tending people? Do machines not eat, as it were, through human labor? Are we not creating our own successors as rulers of the earth? Every day, we make their organization more beautiful and delicate. Every day, we give them greater skill and more of the power to regulate and operate themselves. This power will be better than any intellect.

“What a new thing it is for a machine to feed at all! The plough, the spade, and the cart must eat through man’s stomach; the fuel that sets them going must burn in the furnace of a man or of horses. Man must consume bread and meat or he cannot dig; the bread and meat are the fuel which drive the spade. If a plough be drawn by horses, the power is supplied by grass or beans or oats, which being burnt in the belly of the cattle give the power of working: without this fuel the work would cease, as an engine would stop if its furnaces were to go out.

“What a new thing it is for a machine to feed at all! The plough, the spade, and the cart must eat through human stomachs. The fuel that powers them must burn in the furnace of a person or a horse. A person must eat bread and meat or be unable to dig. Bread and meat are the fuel that drives the spade. If horses pull a plough, the power comes from grass, beans, or oats. These burn in the animals’ bellies and give them the power to work. Without this fuel, the work would stop, just as an engine would stop if its furnaces went out.

“A man of science has demonstrated ‘that no animal has the power of originating mechanical energy, but that all the work done in its life by any animal, and all the heat that has been emitted from it, and the heat which would be obtained by burning the combustible matter which has been lost from its body during life, and by burning its body after death, make up altogether an exact equivalent to the heat which would be obtained by burning as much food as it has used during its life, and an amount of fuel which would generate as much heat as its body if burned immediately after death.’ I do not know how he has found this out, but he is a man of science—how then can it be objected against the future vitality of the machines that they are, in their present infancy, at the beck and call of beings who are themselves incapable of originating mechanical energy?

“A scientist has demonstrated ‘that no animal can create mechanical energy. But consider all the work an animal does during its life and all the heat it gives off. Add the heat produced by burning the combustible matter it loses during life, and its body after death. Together, these make up an exact equivalent to the heat produced by burning as much food as the animal consumed during its life. They also equal the heat from an amount of fuel that would produce as much heat as the animal’s body if burned immediately after death.’ I do not know how he discovered this, but he is a scientist. How, then, can anyone object to the future vitality of machines because, in their present infancy, they obey beings who cannot create mechanical energy themselves?

“The main point, however, to be observed as affording cause for alarm is, that whereas animals were formerly the only stomachs of the machines, there are now many which have stomachs of their own, and consume their food themselves. This is a great step towards their becoming, if not animate, yet something so near akin to it, as not to differ more widely from our own life than animals do from vegetables. And though man should remain, in some respects, the higher creature, is not this in accordance with the practice of nature, which allows superiority in some things to animals which have, on the whole, been long surpassed? Has she not allowed the ant and the bee to retain superiority over man in the organisation of their communities and social arrangements, the bird in traversing the air, the fish in swimming, the horse in strength and fleetness, and the dog in self-sacrifice?

“The main cause for alarm, however, is this: animals were once the only stomachs machines had. Now many machines have stomachs of their own and consume their own food. This is a great step toward becoming, if not alive, then something very close to it. Their life would differ from ours no more than animal life differs from plant life. And though man might remain the higher creature in some respects, would that not be in keeping with nature? Nature allows some creatures to remain superior in certain ways, though others have long since surpassed them overall. Has she not allowed ants and bees to remain superior to man in organizing their communities and social arrangements? Has she not allowed birds to remain superior in flying, fish in swimming, horses in strength and speed, and dogs in self-sacrifice?

“It is said by some with whom I have conversed upon this subject, that the machines can never be developed into animate or quasi-animate existences, inasmuch as they have no reproductive system, nor seem ever likely to possess one. If this be taken to mean that they cannot marry, and that we are never likely to see a fertile union between two vapour-engines with the young ones playing about the door of the shed, however greatly we might desire to do so, I will readily grant it. But the objection is not a very profound one. No one expects that all the features of the now existing organisations will be absolutely repeated in an entirely new class of life. The reproductive system of animals differs widely from that of plants, but both are reproductive systems. Has nature exhausted her phases of this power?

“Some people I have spoken with about this say that machines can never develop into living or quasi-living beings. They argue that machines have no reproductive system and seem unlikely ever to have one. If they mean that machines cannot marry, I readily agree. And I agree that we are unlikely ever to see two steam engines produce offspring that play around the shed door. This is true however much we might wish to see it. But the objection is not very profound. No one expects an entirely new class of life to repeat every feature of existing organisms exactly. Animals have very different reproductive systems from plants, but both have reproductive systems. Has nature exhausted all the forms this power can take?

“Surely if a machine is able to reproduce another machine systematically, we may say that it has a reproductive system. What is a reproductive system, if it be not a system for reproduction? And how few of the machines are there which have not been produced systematically by other machines? But it is man that makes them do so. Yes; but is it not insects that make many of the plants reproductive, and would not whole families of plants die out if their fertilisation was not effected by a class of agents utterly foreign to themselves? Does any one say that the red clover has no reproductive system because the humble bee (and the humble bee only) must aid and abet it before it can reproduce? No one. The humble bee is a part of the reproductive system of the clover. Each one of ourselves has sprung from minute animalcules whose entity was entirely distinct from our own, and which acted after their kind with no thought or heed of what we might think about it. These little creatures are part of our own reproductive system; then why not we part of that of the machines?

“Surely, if a machine can systematically reproduce another machine, we may say it has a reproductive system. What is a reproductive system if not a system for reproduction? And how few machines have not been systematically produced by other machines? But it is humans who make machines do this. Yes, but don't insects enable many plants to reproduce? Wouldn't whole families of plants die out without fertilization by agents entirely foreign to them? Does anyone say that red clover has no reproductive system because it needs help from the bumblebee to reproduce? And only the bumblebee can help it. No one says that. The bumblebee is part of the clover's reproductive system. Each of us has come from tiny creatures whose existence was entirely separate from our own. They acted according to their nature, without any thought or concern for what we might think about it. These little creatures are part of our own reproductive system. So why shouldn't we be part of the reproductive system of machines?

“But the machines which reproduce machinery do not reproduce machines after their own kind. A thimble may be made by machinery, but it was not made by, neither will it ever make, a thimble. Here, again, if we turn to nature we shall find abundance of analogies which will teach us that a reproductive system may be in full force without the thing produced being of the same kind as that which produced it. Very few creatures reproduce after their own kind; they reproduce something which has the potentiality of becoming that which their parents were. Thus the butterfly lays an egg, which egg can become a caterpillar, which caterpillar can become a chrysalis, which chrysalis can become a butterfly; and though I freely grant that the machines cannot be said to have more than the germ of a true reproductive system at present, have we not just seen that they have only recently obtained the germs of a mouth and stomach? And may not some stride be made in the direction of true reproduction which shall be as great as that which has been recently taken in the direction of true feeding?

“But machines that reproduce machinery do not reproduce machines of their own kind. A thimble may be made by machinery, but it was not made by a thimble. Nor will it ever make one. Here again, nature offers plenty of parallels. These show that a reproductive system may be fully active without producing something of the same kind as its parent. Very few creatures reproduce their own kind. Instead, they produce something that can develop into what its parents were. A butterfly lays an egg. The egg can become a caterpillar, the caterpillar a chrysalis, and the chrysalis a butterfly. I freely admit that machines have only the beginnings of a true reproductive system at present. But have we not just seen that they have only recently acquired the beginnings of a mouth and stomach? And might they not make as great a leap toward true reproduction as they have recently made toward true feeding?

“It is possible that the system when developed may be in many cases a vicarious thing. Certain classes of machines may be alone fertile, while the rest discharge other functions in the mechanical system, just as the great majority of ants and bees have nothing to do with the continuation of their species, but get food and store it, without thought of breeding. One cannot expect the parallel to be complete or nearly so; certainly not now, and probably never; but is there not enough analogy existing at the present moment, to make us feel seriously uneasy about the future, and to render it our duty to check the evil while we can still do so? Machines can within certain limits beget machines of any class, no matter how different to themselves. Every class of machines will probably have its special mechanical breeders, and all the higher ones will owe their existence to a large number of parents and not to two only.

“It is possible that, as the system develops, many machines may reproduce through others. Only certain classes of machines may be fertile, while the rest perform other functions in the mechanical system. In the same way, the great majority of ants and bees do nothing to continue their species. They gather and store food without thinking about breeding. We cannot expect the comparison to be complete, or even nearly complete. It certainly is not complete now, and probably never will be. But is there not enough similarity already to make us seriously uneasy about the future? And does it not make it our duty to stop this evil while we still can? Within certain limits, machines can produce machines of any class, no matter how different from themselves. Every class of machines will probably have its own mechanical breeders. All the higher machines will owe their existence to many parents, not just two.

“We are misled by considering any complicated machine as a single thing; in truth it is a city or society, each member of which was bred truly after its kind. We see a machine as a whole, we call it by a name and individualise it; we look at our own limbs, and know that the combination forms an individual which springs from a single centre of reproductive action; we therefore assume that there can be no reproductive action which does not arise from a single centre; but this assumption is unscientific, and the bare fact that no vapour-engine was ever made entirely by another, or two others, of its own kind, is not sufficient to warrant us in saying that vapour-engines have no reproductive system. The truth is that each part of every vapour-engine is bred by its own special breeders, whose function it is to breed that part, and that only, while the combination of the parts into a whole forms another department of the mechanical reproductive system, which is at present exceedingly complex and difficult to see in its entirety.

“We are misled when we think of a complicated machine as a single thing. In truth, it is a city or society, whose members were each bred true to their kind. We see a machine as a whole, give it a name, and treat it as an individual. We look at our own limbs and know that together they form an individual. That individual springs from a single center of reproduction. We therefore assume that all reproduction must arise from a single center. But this assumption is unscientific. No steam engine was ever made entirely by one or two other steam engines. That fact alone is not enough to justify saying that steam engines have no reproductive system. The truth is that each part of every steam engine is bred by its own specialist breeders. Their function is to breed that part, and only that part. Combining the parts into a whole is another branch of the mechanical reproductive system. This system is currently extremely complex and difficult to see in its entirety.

“Complex now, but how much simpler and more intelligibly organised may it not become in another hundred thousand years? or in twenty thousand? For man at present believes that his interest lies in that direction; he spends an incalculable amount of labour and time and thought in making machines breed always better and better; he has already succeeded in effecting much that at one time appeared impossible, and there seem no limits to the results of accumulated improvements if they are allowed to descend with modification from generation to generation. It must always be remembered that man’s body is what it is through having been moulded into its present shape by the chances and changes of many millions of years, but that his organisation never advanced with anything like the rapidity with which that of the machines is advancing. This is the most alarming feature in the case, and I must be pardoned for insisting on it so frequently.”

“Complex now, but how much simpler and more clearly organized might machines become in another hundred thousand years? Or in twenty thousand? For people now believe it is in their interest to develop machines. They spend an incalculable amount of work, time, and thought making machines breed better and better ones. They have already achieved much that once seemed impossible. And there seem to be no limits to what accumulated improvements might achieve. That is, if the improvements are allowed to pass from generation to generation, with changes. We must always remember that the human body was shaped into its present form by the accidents and changes of many millions of years. But its organization never advanced nearly as quickly as that of machines is advancing. This speed is the most alarming feature of the situation, and I hope I will be forgiven for stressing it so often.”