In the econoiiu’of hiinian li;i]3pine,ssrnat present, tlic scarcest conimoditA of allrnis wliat ])schologists call “]50sitic socialrnfeedback.” Reduced to its correlatedrnbrain clieniical, serotonin, the self-esteemrnand sense of well-being engenderedrnb-posiHc social feedback can be niimiekcdrnby SSRIs such as Prozac and its progcn-.rnEer lonclv, unhapp, dcniorali/rncd soul can finalh’ adapt and cope,rnblisscd out on a custonii/ed chemicalrncocktail. As R.E.M. sings, “Ifs the end ofrnthe world as we know it, and [ feel fine.”rnPsNchic engineers are bus constructingrnthe artificial s()cict^ at liie same timerncomputer engineers are constructing artificialrnintelligence and genetic engineersrnare constructing clones and ecn theirrnown genetic code. We rush eagcrk- tornembrace our own re|3lacenients despiternthe warning signs and danger signals.rnDehmnanization appeals to those forrnwhom the jos of being huniau hac becomernrepugnant—or unattainable.rnWe lie in a decadent time, and whatrnis decadence but antoinnnunit- on arngrand scale, a toxic reaction against whatrnwas once good for the organism? ()crcrowding,rnexcess of success: When humanrnlife seems too abundant, it becomesrnless precious. Reproducing oursebesrnhand oer fist, we seem the opposite ofrnendangered. Human life clicapens correspondingh’.rnThe news and entertainmentrnmedia wallow in die fiUhiest, mostrndespicable aspects of Inmian behaior,rnhirther exacerbating the situation. Andrnexcessie affluence has all but killed offrnthe we’re-all-in-this-together teeling thatrnonce fortified social relations; the mostrninsignificant rare and dwindling srd)-rn.specics seem more worth of preserationrnthan our own oerpriileged seKes. SusanrnSontag infamonsb stated l^aek hirn1967 that “The white race is the cancerrnof human histor”; her sentiment liasrnnow mutated into “The human race isrnthe cancer of the ]:)lanet.’rnIn his 1968 novel Do Androids Divcimrnof Electric Sheep? Philip K. Dick madernthe point that humanoid robots —androidsrn—arc not human (or een alie),rnno matter how the look or act or howrn|)rettil’ the}’ beg for fiicir “lics.” As hernlistens to Nexu.s-6 android Raehael Rosen,rnbountv hunter Rick Ilcckard retlects.rnAt this point he could not discernrnher degree of seriousness. A topicrnof world-shaking importance, etrndealt with faccfiousK; an androidrntrait, possibK, he thought. Nornemotional awareness, no feelingsensernof the actual meaning ofrnwhat she said. ()nl the hollow,rnfonnal, intellectual definitions ofrndie separate terms.rnAs Rick ]3rc]5ares to terminate Raehael,rndiis is what he sees:rnYet, the dark fire waned; die lifernforce oozed out of her, as he had sornoften witnessed before with odicrrnandroids. ‘Hie classic resignation.rnMechanical, intellectual acceptancernot that w liich a genuine organismrn—with {\o billion ears ofrndie pressure to lie and eolc hagridingrnit—could neer liae reconciledrnitself to.rnDespite diese obseratioiis, the bouiitrnhunter is shaken b’ die seeming liumanit”rnof his ictims, albeit not enough tornspare fiiein in fiie end.rnDick’s point was missed oiil a fewrnears later in Blade Runner, the I9S2 filmrnmade posthumousK from his book: Inrnthe film. Rick falls for Raehael and runsrnawa’ with her. In the book, because hernhas let her “lie” while terminating herrnmore dangerous anilroid “friends,” shernmurders his pet. “If 1 had killed |her|rnlast night iin goat would be alic now.rnThere’s where I made the wrong decision,”rnhe funics.rnIn 2001, we liae been treated to StanlernKubrick’s and Sle en Spielberg’s filmrnA.L: Artificial hitelligeiicc. based on Brianrn.A.ldiss’s 1969 short stor “Su|)er-‘l'()s 1 ,astrn-Ml Summer Long.” fhe problem in thernoriginal stor is fiic exact re erse oiBladernRunner, fbc population-controlled humansrnare unable or rehise to respondrnemotionalK to die lieartbreakingK realfsticrnehild-substihite robot, Daid. His ersatzrnmother wonders, “Wli not simjjlyrngo upstairs and scoo]i Daid into herrnarms and talk to him, as a loing motherrnshould to a loing son!'” —but makes nornmo’e to do so.rnDick’s noel was a tough-mindedrnwarning against loing inappropriaternfilings for inappro]5riale reasons, a warningrnthat onl- life is w ortli of human loe,rnand die meaning of .ldiss’ stor is diatrnblood is diiekcr fiian water, more ]30werfidrnand attractixe fiiaii mechanieal perfection,rnbut Kubrick and Spielberg, ofrncourse, hae another agenda; to proerndie- can sucker die audience into lo iugrna robot b- pulling out all the isual, musical,rndramatic and mock-religious sciifimeiitalrnstops.rn.t Hie DreamWorks SKC fansitc, onerniewer worries,rn1 think what disturbed mc most ofrnall was how this nun ic made mernfeel, for instance, I found mselfrneni])adfizing wa too much w itlirnfire tedd’ bear character. I felt bad-rnK for him most of all. 1 can’t truh’rnex|3lain win.rnHe or she shouldn’t feel so bad; Spielbergrngot ]3eople to 1() e a mere ;ilieii ]Duppet inrnii.T. I5ut the weakness humans liaxe forrncreatures that look like babies is ])oignaut,rnnot contcni]:)tible. Holhwood’srnCMiicism cannot dcalne the truh huniaurntrait of tendcniess.rnAlso from die fansitc comes a tpiealrnmoral that iewers lia’C taken awa fromrnA.L:rnIn diis nio ie we learn Uiat humanrnbeings fiiough ;ilu;iblc, arc notrnnecessarih central to the unicrsc.rnSentience is howe”er to be prizedrnno matter w hat form it exists inrn(grc” matter or wires). Once wernget over these ]:)rejudiccs we arcrnmore free to recognize that it is notrnas important who or wliat carriesrndie “torch” of senfienee. What isrnimportant is diat it must confinue.rnWe need to free ourscKes from beingrnhuman centered and considerrnfiiat perhaps our present form is toornfragile to sur i”c die next ice age orrndie next meteor strike, or wlicn ourrnsun bums out in a few billion ears.rnOt course the double edged issue isrnfiiatwe m;i not snr”ie ourscKes.rn. . . While it would be .sad if ourrnspecies eoidd not continue, itrnwould be sadder if we did not leaernsomething behind diat could.rnIn other words, it’s all right for man (asrnwell as all filings traditionalh- defined asrn”liing”) to pass awa’ and for s-ndietic,rninorganic beings to take their place. Werndehumanize ourseKes and, at the samerntime, humanize our mechanical creations.rnThose characters on I’V who weeprnand gesticulate and beseech —do wern”kill” tliciii when we turn off the set?rnDocs die empadiv felt b iewers towardrnthe Daid and TcdcK’ characters meanrndie- must be “real,” not just fiie flickeringrnshadows of actors |)laing a role? Is diatrntwiec-remoxcd pathos as “real” as thern4()/eHRONICI F.Srnrnrn