Category: Midterm

Judging Androids and Ourselves

Throughout history, there are records of attacks, battles, and wars based on the different beliefs of each side. The Civil War, modern day terrorists’ attacks, and even the Revolutionary war are/were fought to protect beliefs and freedom. Those people judged others to an extreme, and people of the same community judged them for their extreme views as well. In any culture, they will judge the ones who do not fit into their normal standards of society. It’s often those who cannot fit others’ way of living; judging them for their own misfortune. This idea is better understood through the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, by Philip K. Dick, by showing comparisons between the main character’s lifestyle, and common societal differences.

It’s often whenever you study a different culture you will find a tradition, or another way in which they live that different from your own lifestyle. Many times you think that it is strange, or bizarre, but to them it is normal. Do you judge them? You may think that they are weird. The same thing occurs to people within the same community, just not as obvious. Differences in a community can mean judging your neighbor, your friend, even maybe a family member. The things they own, how much money they have, how smart they are, and many other conditions are factors that everyone is judged on. People in the community could be jealous of your success, or disgusted on how you live badly you live in comparison to them. Truthfully, that is how communities judge others, by their own traditions and way of life. They compare you to themselves; that is how they determine whether you are normal, if they should be jealous, or if they should be disgusted, or just feel bad for your situation.

The differences usually leads to just judging others. A community would most likely just judge others in their community or society. However, when it involves a different society living alongside another society things tend to become more violent. Two different ways of living that exist together in an area can pose a threat to each other because both societies do not like the different lifestyles living together.

Now, many people would believe that the world would be a better place if we could just live in peace. As much as that is true, it is not human nature to be completely accepting and peaceful towards each other. Also it is much more difficult to keep peace between a few cultures let alone the whole world. Each culture would have to be happy with the terms of peace, which would most likely include trade, military, and foreign affairs. One other fact is that each culture would have to trust and accept the other, and this would be extremely difficult because as a society we judge those who live differently than us. If a culture halfway around the world, is to be trusted with life threatening weaponry, and we know nothing about their culture we would be uneasy because we don’t understand their way of life. Looking throughout the history of civilization, there are countless battles, wars, and other instances of domination and conquering other land. Why is that? Look at the Roman Empire for example; The Roman Empire took over a huge amount of territory from already present societies and cultures. However, they still took it because for a lot of the land it was owned by barbarians, and other lesser countries. Although the Romans could have kept peace they, decided to conquer.

Judgment towards others occurs in the past and in the present. It will also be around in the future, maybe in different ways. The novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, by Philip K. Dick has many of these judging characteristics in a community within its main plot. The main character, Rick Deckard, faces many troubles between killing androids and trying to be accepted into his community. Many of Rick’s troubles are about how he can live with himself in this world. His job is to find and “retire” androids hiding on Earth. The real problem is that there are peaceful machines trying to live among the humans without problem. However, he must kill them, not because he wants to but because he has to, in order to get paid to live better. He strives to earn this extra money because he wants to buy a real animal, because he only owns a mechanical one. In his culture it is frowned upon to own fake animals and not real ones. He would be judged if others knew he owned a mechanical animal. He told his neighbor it was mechanical because he was trying to buy a real one. He neighbor later responded, “Um, I won’t say anything to anybody here in the building” (Dick 13). Most people would think of him as their lesser. He also said, “But they’ll look down on you, Not all of them, but some” (13). Owning an animal is a sign of wealth, and owning a fake animal is a sign of less wealth. It is a way to have different wealth class in a post-apocalyptic world. Many people will judge think lesser of Rick if people found out that he was incapable of taking care of a real animal. It is a reflection of the present day wealth distribution. Many people will judge others who are less fortunate, and blame them for the misfortune.

A large portion of Rick’s adventure is trying to decipher how to tell the difference between a human and an android. Androids are just as smart as humans, but lack empathetic abilities. Some of these androids are so human-like it is difficult to decide whether he should “retire” them or not. The human population judges the androids for not being like them, human, although they are extremely close. They become scared and violent to this different culture. The judge the androids for being different even though they have no control over it, and even try to live like the humans. Once the humans began hunting the rogue androids, the androids only to chance to survive was to run, hide, and attack back if necessary. Now both sides are violent towards each other, because of few differences.

However, not all of the population are judgmental and violent towards the androids. John Isidore, an outcast, has found an android and has become friends with her, and tries to protect her. He knows that she is an android but they have gotten to know each other and have become friends, and they ignore the differences they have. John believes in Mercerism, so he uses empathy towards any person or thing, including androids. He accepts them as his equals, which is what other people would need to do, and also ignore a single difference that is not easily noticeable.

During several parts of the novel, you question whether different characters are truly human or if they are androids and even the characters don’t know. This theme is an example of how humans and androids are so similar yet, they still try to kill each other. Although they both live in the same community, and live harmoniously, the second they find out one of them is different, whether it be an android or a “chickenhead”, like Isidore, then they become judgmental and violent towards them. The culture is that they are not to live among the normal humans. Even humans are judgmental towards each other, just not violent. Most of the humans don’t even realize that they are living among androids until something happens to expose them.

It all connects to the humans’ level of empathy towards another living thing. How you treat other living things is a huge way of living. Mercerism, the main religion, teaches this important ideology. Not being able to take care of another animal goes against it, which is why others will judge someone. “Living things” is also a key word in the religion, because androids are not considered alive, which allows them to hate and destroy them. This culture from the book, reflects the culture of today’s world. People will judge others if they cannot live to their own standards. Also like the androids that escaped from Mars to seek freedom on Earth, many people do not like illegal immigrants, or other groups from other cultures come out of nowhere and live among them.

Additionally, empathy is taught better through experience, however, some situations just cannot happen. That is why reading books, and novels allow you to be put in that situation. In the article, “Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy, Study Finds”, by Liz Bury she quotes David Kidd, “In literary fiction, the incompleteness of the characters turns your mind to trying to understand the minds of others.” By not knowing everything about the character, and what the character is feeling you try to fill in those blanks, and in the end begin to learn what the character is feeling. You learn about the character better and you also learn what characters are feeling also. The article continues to say, “…proved that reading literary fiction enhances the ability to detect and understand other people’s emotions, a crucial skill in navigating complex social relationships” (Bury). Maybe if people were able to learn what others are feeling, and what their situation is like then they would not be as judgmental or violent. That is a major part of the novel’s religion, where people have an empathy box that shares memories of other people. They are all connected and they feel physically and emotionally what others felt in that memory.

Continuing the idea of empathy, from the website, Cyborgolgy, they have an article called “What Becomes of Empathy” by Tim Recuber that describes what empathy really is. The author quotes a great point by Jesse Prinz of how empathy is limited. He says, “Empathy is partial; we feel greater empathy for those who are similar to ourselves.” Those that live in our culture, share similar characteristics and living style help of feel better empathy. The article used the Orlando shooting as their first example. The author knew someone from that event that had died, he felt empathy for the family because he knew the person, he feels some kind of grief and can somewhat relate to the family about how they feel. However, there is one major thing to know about empathy, and that is the difference from sympathy. Empathy is when you know exactly what another person is feeling because you have experienced the same situation to a certain extent. Sympathy is only when you feel grieve for another person because they have to deal with a situation you have never experienced yourself.

Empathy is a way to better connect with others. From Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the relationship between humans and androids is based on differences. They judge them and are violent towards the androids because they don’t considered them alive, therefore they don’t need to be empathetic towards them. The humans don’t understand the androids and think of them as only machines, even though they are highly intelligent and are so close in comparison to humans. If one day, the humans decided to accept the androids for them and empathized with them, there would be more peace on Earth. Even though people cannot tell the difference between humans and androids except for a single test looking for empathy, there is still a large gap between the two cultures. Police would be able to focus on the real criminals that are terrorizing everyone. Wealth status would be the only other way to judge others, mainly from what kind of animal they have and whether or not they are alive or mechanical. Humans today are judgmental and violent towards each other because of different cultures or beliefs. Wealth and their way of living are other forms of separating people and judging them. Empathy is a way to unite people together if they can understand what others experience, and also what other people believe in.

 

Worked Cited

Bury, Liz. “Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy, Study Finds.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

Dick, Philip K. Blade Runner: (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep). New York: Ballantine, 2007. Print.

Recuber, Tim. “What Becomes of Empathy? – Cyborgology.” What Becomes of Empathy? – Cyborgology. The Society Pages, 20 July 2016. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

Human Self-Identification

There are a multitude of things in this world that do not receive the amount of thought that they might deserve. This doesn’t seem entirely inappropriate, considering that human beings, on the whole, are very busy and are therefore forced to prioritize what does or does not deserve their time. All the same, there are certain labels that are used on a fairly regular basis for which the average person could not explain the meaning. And one such word must surely be Human.

When asked what makes a human being, most people will give you the same, boring, biological definition. Two arms, two legs, a head with a brain in it, the disgusting package. But this is a very rudimentary definition, and will be rendered void the moment that the androids arrive and make their way among the populous. What if, As Phillip K. Dick says in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, the androids are so advanced that they are physically impossible to distinguish from the rest of our human society? Would they, at that point, be considered human beings, even if their goal was to crush humanity under it’s foot? The mind doesn’t even have to stretch that far: the traditional definition of the word human barely applies to society now. The idea of personhood existing in those who are not readily identifiable as people is extremely prominent. There is fervent support for the rights and well-being of animals, which are defended for having consciousness and having the capacity to feel pain. Artificial intelligence grows more and more prominent in our everyday lives with every passing year, and is made to seem more and more human with every new iteration. There was a movie just this year that imagined a world where, unbeknownst to humankind, food was sentient and felt doomed to the demise of being consumed by humans. That is where we are right now. Any conversation, humorous or otherwise, about whether or not our food has humanity is a world that has worn out any literal definition to the word human. Nothing has to even be human: humanity will be projected onto it by other humans.

No, it seems the literal definition as to what constitutes a human being has failed. Could an answer to the human question possibly found in a more figurative manner? Does being human mean having empathy towards fellow lifeforms? That seems to be the answer most people come to at one point or another. But this is not the case. Because even though empathy is endlessly touted as being the crux of human nature, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of humans throughout history for which empathy is virtually nonexistent. Human reptiles of every kind, be they dictators or rapists or murderers or pedophiles or anything of the sore. But the reality is that this lack of empathy is not enough to negate the title of human being. If the father of a rape victim walks into the courtroom and shoots the attacker in the head, ending his life, he is not viewed as innocent of the crime, or at the very least not in the eyes of of the law, because he has killed a human being. Despite the intolerance and disgust held for the most vile of humans, it is the known truth that the vile must be human first.

So what exactly makes a human being? Is there even such a thing as a human being still?

The answer is actually very simple, believe it or not. There is one real, true way for a human to prove that it is a human: by identifying itself as one. If a person shaped mass says that it’s a human, no one has any right to argue.

At first suggestion, this may understandably be seen as absurd. Humanity’s great thinkers have come up with hundreds of longwinded explanations of humanity that involve great statements about society and prejudice and the singularity of the human experience and all sorts of things that sound very smart.  But it really isn’t that far-fetched of an idea that something can declare itself human and, in doing so, make it the truth. There are similar ideas that have been brought up over the last few years and are still being brought up to this day.

This is particularly apparent when it comes to the issue of gender, a subject that, bare in mind, had previously had far more specific parameters than the word human ever did. Wind the clocks back a decade and you will find that the idea of transgenderism, while having some proponents, was largely rejected by society. People wouldn’t stand for hearing the idea that someone born a male could consider themselves anything other than a male, or that a female could consider themselves anything other than a female. And while there are still those today that reject this idea, there is now massive support for transgender people that could very easily make it to the point of actually being permitted by law.

Who’s to say this idea couldn’t be applied to personhood? It’s not going to open the gates all that far. It sets the bar high enough that Dogs, cats, lizards, bees, cows, pigs, and the rest of the animals can still be considered non-human; and if one day they do suddenly say “We are humans”, then they will have thoroughly earned the right to be treated as such. It also bars computers until we get to a point when they can declare for themselves; for now, they can only do so when programmed to, at which point they are merely being used as a tool by a human to declare.

This does unfortunately bring up a more questionable aspect of this self-declaration argument: traditionally defined human beings who may not be able to physically say the words “I am a human”. Ultimately, this is not going to be the barrier one might think it would be. As long as it can be communicate the idea at some point, it’s purveyor is a human, whether or not they have to communicate it by non-verbal means (deaf or mute people), learn how to communicate it (babies, the mentally impaired), or have it be proven about them from previous experience (the comatose). There are multiple ways it can be proven.

There is no reason whatsoever to reject anything that chooses to identify itself as a human. It is so puzzling that human has never been a well-defined term, and yet so many people have such strict ideals as to what constitutes a human being. Just like “the problem is the way that normalcy is constructed to create the ‘problem’  of the disabled person”, the human norm is all that excludes those who would theoretically be considered human beings (Davis, 3). It is completely unnecessary. It is a hoop that should not require jumping through for something as important as being identified as a human.

There’s a reason as to why the methods of detecting the humanoid androids in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? are so faulty and unreliable. The truth of the matter is, a subject’s humanity can not, with any accuracy, be accepted or rejected by an outside source. It can only be determined by it’s own subject. I know that I am a person because I am inside of myself. I know my memories and the names of all of my friends. And while you can tell me that you are inside of yourself, that you know your memories and the names of your friends, I can only take your word for it. You could be relaying someone else’s memories or friends. You could be creating them in your head seconds before they emerge from your lips. You could be my own imagination, bursting from my sub-conscience, rattling off repressed memories of my own and naming people who have been my thoughts had abandoned years prior. I can believe you, but there is ultimately no proof that when you leave the room i’m in, you disappear from existence.

Even in 1968, the fluidity of the standards of a human being was very apparent. Phillip K. Dick saw it when he wrote the final chapter of Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? when the protagonist, Rick Deckard, who formerly saw no issue in eliminating the humanoid replicants that roamed Earth, exhibits a change of heart. He brings his wife what he at first thinks is a real frog, only to find out that it is just an artificial one. However, he decides not to kill it it, conceding that “The electric things have their lives, too.”, and instead keeps the frog (Dick, 240). While he is talking about a toad, not a person, it stands to reason that if Deckard, and by extension the author and/or audience, sees the electric frog as legitimate as the real frog, than he must, by extension, see the android as a legitimate human being.

It could even be theorized that the newcomers to the human identity could very well improve the image of humans altogether. Studies have shown that empathy, to a certain extent, can be effectively taught to students through the use of narrative fiction (Surugue). This could easily be used as a transitional tool of sorts to help instill a sense of decency in the new humans. In fact, it could be easier to teach them than it is currently to teach ourselves, seeing as they have no conflicting views of empathy to interfere with their understanding of the concept, which unfortunately is the case for several traditional humans whose views on empathy may be severely limited, twisted, or otherwise hindered. For example, who would more easily learn about empathy: an android, who has no concept of empathy, or a white supremacist, who may have an incredibly twisted concept of empathy? Most would be inclined to say the android, and there is a very strong reasoning behind that decision. 

It’s not a perfect system: there will always be a few cases that fall through the cracks, but that should not be a long term problem. Even though it may not seem like it at times, human beings have a knack when it comes to advocating on behalf of each other. However, for the time being, this seems like a solid basis for further analysis of what constitutes a human and what does not. Human is a word that can mean different things to different people, but in the brave new world we are entering into, a more concrete definition is necessary. Hopefully, the one presented above will be considered suitable, or at least serviceable until someone more qualified can present with a stronger, more fitting definition of the concept. We’re certainly going to need one, and as soon as humanly possible.

Ultimately, the foundation of humanity is comprised of exactly one thing: the desire to be a human. Not necessarily a good human or a successful human, but a human of some sort. It means that their is some deep and intrinsic motivation to be a part of the human community, the human experiment, the human experience or whatever the preferred nomenclature may be. Everyone wants the feel of their soul, to be themselves and think and feel as only they would, and exercise their own free will in ways that other people may not. Everyone wants to be part of the great game of life and be top of the food chain, literally and figuratively. Everyone wants their tangents on crazy subjects like androids or talking food or being a militant communist feminist cyborg woman or whatever it is that appeals to the deepest caves of the psyche. To be a human, one has too be willing and able to stand up and declare their humanity loud enough for the whole world to hear, and so defiantly that there can be no doubt. Humans create themselves.

WORKS CITED:

Surugue, Lea. “Reading Books and Watching Films Makes You Kinder in Real Life.” International Business Times RSS. N.p., 2016. Web.

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?London: Gollancz, 2011. Print.

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?  Print.Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy.”<https://eng28105fall15.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/constructingnormalcy_davis.pdf>. Web.

Midterm: What Makes Us Human?

 

Technology is an ever-growing and imperative part of today’s society and culture. Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, is a thought-provoking novel that highlights the ideology behind using and misusing the technology that is created by humans. The novel’s protagonist Rick Deckard, is a bounty hunter who kills androids. Given that these androids are killed based upon the fact that they are machines lacking empathy, one would also have to give thought as to whether humans today can be considered as simply human or whether there is some matter of cyborg within all of us given how reliant we are upon technology. Our dependency on the latest technological innovations ranging from the cell phone to modern medicine opens a broader level of thinking to the possibility that humans would be unable to survive if the technology we overuse today were unavailable to us at any given point. Have humans evolved into a generation so consumed by modern machinery that we ourselves have crossed a boundary in which the ability to empathize is no longer enough to serve as the only distinction between humans and the androids that Rick kills? Essentially, I believe that this is enough. Regardless of how far humans progress with the latest technology, as long as humans alone remain in control of their identity, which largely involves the ability to empathize with others and feel emotions, I believe that that is what makes us human; the ability to feel emotions and empathize with others.

The development of technology has increased at an alarming rate throughout the 21st century. In the post-apocalyptic time period of Dick’s novel, technology has developed so much so that Rick and his wife Iran are able to “dial in their emotions” using their Penfield device (Dick, 3). In some ways this idea of being able to control one’s emotions at will provokes the topic of programming. Seeing as there is nothing naturally occurring from an android, it is ironic that Rick and Iran also program themselves to feel the emotions they do, leaving no room for natural thought and feeling. Our current society and culture also promote the same level of submission from humans to technology. For instance, Donna Harraway’s A Cyborg Manifesto places emphasis partly on the relationship boundary between organism and machine. This emphasis is substantiated by her belief that very little material is still deemed “natural” in today’s society given how dependent humans find themselves upon technological innovations (Harraway, 300). Granted such innovations have helped improve the modern world, there are a plethora of “natural” materials that have lost its authenticity due to our technology dependent culture. For example, Harraway states that even the natural process of reproduction can now be halted and prevented through technological means such as the use of protection (Harraway, 301). However, while many may find a human’s reliance upon new innovations as bothersome, the evolution of time and environment calls for such reform in regards to the safety and practicality of human life and preservation. The distinction between humans and androids lie with the reality that no matter how dependent we may find ourselves upon technology, what makes us human is our identity: the ability to empathize.

This ability to empathize was the key differentiation between android and human in Dick’s novel as well. Referring to Chapter 18, where Isidore found the spider which was thought to be extinct, the androids suggested cutting off its legs. Even as Isidore pleaded with them to not harm the creature they continued to do so (Dick, 206). This lack of empathy was also shown as Rachael killed Rick and Iran’s goat. Although Rachael was manipulating Rick the whole time by seducing him in order to prevent him from killing more androids, as soon as she saw the plan had failed, Rachael did what humans in Dick’s novel regarded as the ultimate act of evil: killing animals. “Rick I have to tell you something… the goat is dead…[s]omeone came here, got the goat out of its cage, and dragged it to the edge of the roof… [and pushed it off],” (Dick, 226). As Iran informed Rick that their goat was dead, Rick slowly began to realize that Iran’s description of the woman who killed their goat was Rachael. The disability to feel no remorse or emotion regarding the actions they commit separate humans from androids. This is what separates us from the technology that we use every day. Although humans are reliant upon it, natural emotion and feeling and personality all come from within, contrary to what occurs in Dick’s novel. This remains as the common attribute to an individual’s personality, thus giving them identity. Ultimately, Rick ended up hating what he did for a living due to the fact that he began empathizing with androids. This empathy was never prevalent amongst any of the androids because they were not programmed to empathize.

Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy recently published an article discussing the human ability to empathize called Empathy written by Strueber. As Strueber continues to analyze the depth of empathy found within humans, she refers to Batson’s various experiments on the matter. “Batson assumes… that empathy/sympathy can be manipulated either by manipulating the perceived similarity between subjects and targets or by manipulating the perspective taking attitude of the subjects… according to these assumptions [empathy] can be increased by enhancing the perceived similarity between subject and target or by asking the subject to imagine how the observed person would feel in his or her situation rather than asking the subject to attend carefully to the information provided,” (Stotland, 1969). Batson’s studies prove that empathy is a defining trait of humanism. No matter how engrossed an individual may find themselves with the technology available to them, the concept of conforming to a matter of cyborg will not be possible given that our identity and individuality lies within our power to feel and experience the pain, happiness, sadness, etc. of others.

Personally, I find our increased use of technology to act as a catalyst in further developing emotions and empathy for others. For instance, social media remains as an outlet in which voices and opinions are heard. In this digital age, our use of technology to access social media is a direct reflection of our individual self-identifying traits as humans. The use of high speed internet is why people around the world can connect with each other to make positive changes. Mission trips to third world countries suffering from civil war and poverty, charitable funds and organization, community outreach programs, and various other programs are created by humans through the use of technology. Thus, although we may be overshadowed by the technology surrounding us, what makes us human is the ability to control the technology we create to make a positive change that further confirms our own individual identity. This identity is found through the human ability to empathize and make an impact through the natural emotions we feel.

The new technological era that came with the dawn of the 21st century is an ever-growing fast paced culture that will only continue to grow and further develop. One will not be able to tell whether in the future new technology will be created that will program empathy and other emotions into new inventions. However, until this time, it is safe to assume that no matter how far humans consume themselves with the latest technological devices available, our ability to feel naturally occurring emotions and empathize with others provides us with identity and purpose thus, distinguishing us as humans.

 

  Work Cited

  1. Stueber, Karsten, “Empathy”,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL  http://plaoto.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/empathy/
  2. Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?p.: Del Ray, 1968. Print.
  3. Harraway, Donna M. “A Cyborg Manifesto.” (n.d.): n. pag. The Cybercultures Reader. Routledge, 2000. Web.

Does It Take Empathy To Be Considered Human?

The physical similarities between humans and androids are quite plain. Both of them are capable of thinking and acting upon people’s will. Yet we are always reminding ourselves of the obvious. In the end, we just are not the same. Because androids lack empathy and they are not capable of producing emotions the same way we humans advocate them. Some take this argument to mean that we actually have much more in common with mammals than androids despite our physical resemblance. That is because both humans and mammals are both subject of our cultural values: sex, menstruation, pregnancy, birth, feeding, defecation, urination, bleeding, illness, and dying, traits where that androids are incapable of doing. But androids have higher standards of critical thinking, they are deemed superior to the mammal. Because we humans are capable of all the things listed that we have in common with mammals and are also capable of critical thinking, we place our species as the highest authority. Therefore, we, as a society, would deem it perfectly normal to terminate an android. And because the android is not capable of having human emotions, there is no case for a crime to be had. One could simply commit even the most heinous crimes against an android and not found guilty of murder on any case. Also, since the android is a product of the human, the android is designated as property and does not retain any reasonable right. But we should accept that there are those who would argue that androids are, in fact, capable of being side-by-side with humans. Proponents of the idea that androids and humans are not all that different tend to point to human history, as well as how the process of empathy works. Here, we will use the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? to gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be human.

Even though the obvious answer as to why humans are justified in destroying an android is that we are the ones who have two arms, two legs, a body, and a brain that can do math, understand language, and work a computer. Yet, this does not quite hold up when you point to human history. Look specifically at colonial times. Not even 200 years ago, a vast majority of Europeans and Americans considered Africans to be less than human and therefore had no empathy towards them. Why, because most of them thought they lacked empathy, even though they still had two arms, two legs, a body, and a brain which, as time has proven us wrong, can do math, understand language, and work a computer. Even in the present, there are plenty of us that act as though people who live in different countries or lower lifestyles are deemed less than human. Many would argue today that empathy is a topic that cannot be taught in schools since humans generally are not fully empathic in their everyday lives. People who work in a city usually pass by homeless people without handing them money, often because they are too rushed to get to work on time. But the counterargument is literature, since fiction focuses on the psychology of characters and their relationships. The fiction genre helps the reader imagine the characters’ introspective dialogues, which in turn carries over into their psychology in the real world especially since it is full of problematic individuals that contain inner lives some might deem complicated. After all, most humans would agree that Harper Lee delved into what it takes to be empathic in To Kill a Mockingbird: “You never really understand another person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it”. Thus reading can be a valuable influence on people’s sociability. Philip K. Dick’s novel offers a parallel between the relationship between whites and blacks in colonial times and the relationship between humans and androids in its futuristic setting.

In the novel, androids are deemed as property and do not hold any rights. The reason for this is because they supposedly lack empathy, which is the main theme of the novel and the crux of Dick’s metaphysical reflection on the meaning of life. Humans are taught to express no empathy towards the androids, which may have caused them to possess fewer feelings in general, something they are fighting to preserve.  Each and every character deals with what it means to be empathetic and whether that allows someone to be valued as a living thing. Deckard hates his electric sheep only because he believes it cannot feel any love for him even though he cares for it. This feeling allows Deckard to perform his work as a bounty hunter because he is of the prominent belief that androids are incapable of true human emotion and are not worthy of life in a society in which life is the highest ideal. He even notes early on that herbivores or omnivores are the only creatures with the empathetic impulse and that empathy is what allows humanity to survive. John Isidore, the most empathic character in the novel, on the other hand, has an incredible sense of empathy for the androids. Not just because he finally has someone to talk to when the escaped androids move into his apartment, but because to him it’s clear that the androids strive for freedom so that they can live their own lives like humans are free to do. Since the androids killed their masters, the androids are seemingly capable of understanding the concept of freedom. But later on in the story, their beliefs are challenged.

Deckard soon learns that androids can, in fact, be capable of empathy and humans may be able to be devoid of empathy upon his encounter with Phil Resch who enjoys killing simply for killing’s sake; causing a severe shift in Rick’s understanding even of himself. Rick finds that the lines between what one can call living or what once can call not living are blurred. Androids find their empathetic abilities with each other just as humans find the ability to be empathetic in a collective group. Humans are also capable of a loss of empathy. Whereas John becomes horrified that the androids show disrespect towards a spider, which humans value greatly after all living things nearly became extinct in World War Terminus. The fact that androids tarnished something that humans greatly value shakes Isidore’s empathy for the androids heavily. Such concern for animals would seem to distinguish the humans from the androids to be sure, given the way in which they torture the poor spider, but there is nothing essentially human about such a caring attitude.

Dick’s science fiction is not deeply rooted in philosophy. He was interested, from the time that he read Plato when he attended Berkeley High School, in the core problem of philosophy: Is the world as it appears, or is it a mere appearance? Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? can be seen as a product of the author’s skepticism about the apparent world. For the novel imagines a world in which androids and humans are apparently the same, so that much of the novel is concerned with the problem of telling them apart from reality. That is because the implication of the novel is that the distinction between the two kinds of being, android and human will eventually become if not unreliable then at least undetectable. That can mean robots are very much like humans after all. But it can also mean that humans are very like robots.

The ability to empathize is imagined as being an exclusively human faculty. The Voight-Kampf Test is designed to determine whether the tested subject is an android look for an empathic response to questions that typically involve the mistreatment of animals. The reliability of the test depends on human attachment to animal life following a war that caused mass extinctions. With living animals harder to find, humans grew more and more fond even for living organisms such as toads and ostriches, chickens, sheep, even spiders. This love of animals is linked to the religion of Mercerism, which is believed to be some kind of cosmic entity, one apparently exposed as a fraud by Buster Friendly, a popular TV host. But to Rick and John Isidore, Mercer is actually neither a cosmic entity nor a mere fraud. Furthermore, we are told of other humans who might make the task of distinguishing between human and android quite difficult. These humans who might be mistaken for androids if given the empathy test exhibit what is called a flattening of affect; they have a diminished empathic faculty, which means that they are humans with some form of mental disorder such as schizophrenia. If they were stopped by a routine police check, they could very well be mistaken for androids and be killed mistakenly. But this is only one of the more obvious ways in which Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? broaches the problem of determining the difference between human and android. There is also the question of Deckard’s response to the problem of empathy. He starts to feel empathy for the android Luba Luft, and feels nothing for Phil Resch. At one point, the novel briefly raises the possibility of Deckard himself being an android, when Luba asks him if he has taken the empathy test. But the novel does not really pursue this possibility; it does not so much question whether Deckard is human as much as it questions whether the fact that he is biologically human is enough to distinguish him. The androids lack empathy, but they do not seem to be wholly without any emotional responses in the novel, and they do not seem to be wholly without desire either. The answer to the question that the title poses is unclear. When the last three survivors meet at Isidore’s apartment, their conversation is full of passion because they experience a range of emotions, including joy, shock, and fear. Yet, Isidore senses that there is something different, something “peculiar” or “malign” about these characters. It means that in the end, we do not know if the androids experience desire after all.  More important still in terms of the difference between androids and humans is the fact that the androids’ lack of empathy is not something that androids inherently lack. Quite the opposite. It’s the result of a built-in defect.

The built-in defect is a lack of empathic ability. This is important because it means the one attribute in the novel on which the distinction between human and android is based, even it is a reliable distinction for the moment, is only artificially missing from androids. If the defect were not created, the implication is that the androids would have an empathic faculty just as healthy humans do. So the deprived condition of the androids cannot be said to be a natural condition. And if that is the case, then the distinction between android and human cannot be said to be a natural distinction too. Consider the novel’s opening. We find human characters having an argument about the use of the Penfield artificial brain stimulator. Humans might want to call androids artificial, and to see their lack of empathy as a measure of their distance from being human, but with the brain stimulator, one can never know if the emotional responses of even apparent human characters are natural or just a product of artificial stimulation.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? looks at the issues of human versus non-human and hypothesizes that empathy, not language or the number of arms and legs, is the key trait determining humanity. But how far does that humanity extend? Is Phil Resch still human despite his lack of empathy? Is Luba Luft a human in her ability to empathize through art despite being born factory-made chattel? Deep down, we really believe that the people that make our products are full human and act as though they are. For if we do not, that makes us less than full human.

WORKS CITED

  • Dick, Philip K. Blade Runner: (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep). New York: Del Rey, 1996. Print
  • Bury, Liz. “Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy, Study Finds.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 2013. Web.
  • Krznaric, Roman. “Can You Teach People to Have Empathy?” BBC News. N.p., 29 June 2015. Web.
  • Paulsen, Kyle. “Is Empathy Only A Human Ability? – Kyle Paulsen.” Kyle Paulson. Web.
  • Chiaet, Julianne. “Novel Finding: Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy.” Scientific American. Springer Nature, 04 Oct. 2013. Web.
  • Anonymous “The Meaning of Being Human In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? And Blade Runner (I)” Essay Judge. N.p., 1970. Web.

True Empathy: How Androids Can Show Us the Way

As a species, we like to think of ourselves as empathetic beings. We protest injustices, we take care of wounded animals, and we donate money to charities. Overall, we see ourselves as the saviors of the needy and the unfortunate. However, this really isn’t empathy that causes us to reach out a helping hand, not completely at least. In fact, we humans have a flawed sense of empathy; we condemn terrorism while we drop bombs on innocent villages, we are disgusted by world hunger and homelessness but we refuse to glance at the stranger on the street begging for money. Most of us only express empathy towards the people we think are deserving of it. The less fortunate have to relate to us on some basic level, but they can’t be completely unlike us. This flawed reasoning can be expressed through the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick. Although the world they live in is more dystopian, it is not unlike ours. By using this novel, the true form of empathy will be realized—understanding other’s plights and choices no matter how different they are from any of us.

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick, humanity is divided. Most humans emigrated to Mars due to a catastrophic nuclear war that ruined the Earth, while everyone else stayed behind. The most important plot point in the book is that when a person would emigrate to Mars, they were rewarded with an android to be their slave. The only way for an android to escape and live their own lives was to kill their master and run away to Earth to hide. In this world, androids are modeled just like humans and have all of their characteristics, except for one: empathy. Androids are the villains feared by all the humans; they’re stronger, faster, and in some cases, smarter. In order for humans to feel human and to show to others that they are not actually escaped androids, they buy an animal. This is their ultimate form of empathy. They dedicate their lives to taking care of their animal and, if their animal is an android, they strive for the moment they can actually afford a real one. It is an unspoken rule to not discuss whether they own a real animal or not. In fact, Dick states that to ask if an animal is fake is “a worse breach of manners than to inquire whether a citizen’s teeth, hair, or internal organs would test out authentic” (8). In other words, asking if an animal is fake is the same as implying someone is an android. The two go hand in hand.

The protagonist of the story, Rick Deckard, struggles with the concept of empathy throughout the entire novel. He himself owns an electric sheep and he struggles with that reality. He actually only cares for it of out habit and has no feelings of affection towards it. He hated the thought of owing a false animal but “from a social standpoint it had to be done, given the absence of the real article” (Dick 9). Deckard had no choice to care of his electric sheep or else people would think he was an android. The empathy that is sought out by the citizens is actually completely lost based on this aspect. They aren’t caring for their animals because they have empathy, they care for them for social status. They can’t stand the thought of being scrutinized for possibly being an android.

This is similar to how we sometimes interact as humans on an everyday basis. People all around the world post pictures and videos of themselves doing good deeds for others. Now this necessarily doesn’t mean that none of those people actually care; however, the fact that it has to be gratified and shown to the world shows that there is more than empathy driving them. True empathizers would carry out their good deed anonymously because that isn’t the point. The point is to just help. If Deckard and the rest of the citizens truly empathized with the animals, there wouldn’t be a competition. There wouldn’t be android animals to begin with. The citizens would just take care of the real ones that were left and try to repopulate the Earth with those surviving creatures.

As the readers continue to follow Deckard’s journey as a bounty hunter “retiring” escaped androids for the police department, they begin to see Deckard empathizing with androids more and more. The first instance of this is when his temporary partner Resch thinks he might be an android with false memories. Deckard struggles with the thought of telling Resch. In the novel he thinks, “I’ve got to tell him… It’s unethical and cruel not to. Mr. Resch, you’re an android… You got me out of this place and here’s your reward: you’re everything we jointly abominate” (Dick 126-127). He felt bad for him regardless if Resch turned out to be an android. In fact, at this point in the story, Deckard really thinks that Resch is an android. However, he still struggles with the thought of telling him because he knows what has to happen if he really is one.

Deckard again shows empathy for the next android he “retires,” an android named Luba Luft. Luba Luft lived out her days as a beautifully talented opera singer. And Deckard felt genuinely upset that he had to end her existence. He wonders what the world truly gains from losing her. After Deckard and Resch deal with her, Deckard asks Resch, “Do you think androids have souls?” (Dick 135). This question completely puzzles Resch; however, it weighs heavily on Deckard’s mind. This is because unlike Resch, Deckard actually starts to question whether or not what he’s doing is right. Now this instance of empathizing with Luft may be tied to his sexual attraction toward her; however, this is just a stop on Deckard’s journey to fully being able to empathize.

When the novels gets closer to its end, Deckard invites Rachael over to a hotel room. Rachael is an android that showed an interest in helping him “retire” the rest of the androids. Deckard makes a proposition to Rachel that if they “do something else,” he’ll forget about the other remaining androids (Dick, 182). Deckard requests this of Rachel partly because he doesn’t want to find the other androids and partly because he wants to sleep with her. He doesn’t like his job anymore and he just wants something to distract him from his reality. After Rachael and Deckard sleep together, Deckard learns that it was in Rachael’s plans all along. She wanted to sleep with him to get him to stop hunting the androids, and he wasn’t the first. Deckard doubts that her charms worked on him; however Rachael seems to know otherwise. She says, “I already know… When I saw that expression on your face, that grief” (Dick 198). Deckard eventually flies into a blind rage, threatening to kill Rachael, but he can’t go through with it. Just as Rachael had predicted, it did get to him. He didn’t want to kill androids anymore, and he certainly didn’t want to kill her.

At the end of the novel, Deckard is completely broken. He finished off the last three androids he was after and Rachael, the one android he let get away, killed his goat. The goat he saved up for just so he didn’t have to take care of an electric sheep anymore. He’s delusional and almost seems like he has a death wish. Until he finds a toad. In this novel, a toad is a holy symbol of sorts and Deckard sees finding it as a sign from Mercer, the novel’s Jesus-like symbol. When Deckard returns home, he is delighted to show his wife Iran that he found a real, live toad. To his dismay, Deckard discovers that the toad is actually artificial; however, he has a much different reaction to it than the old Deckard would have. “I’ll be okay,” he says “But it doesn’t matter. The electric things have their lives too” (Dick 241). At this point, Deckard doesn’t care anymore about what’s real and what’s artificial. He will take care of the toad and it shows by him acknowledging that electric beings have their own lives. This is something that the old Rick Deckard would never dare to think. He hated his electric sheep. He despised it so much, he spent all his bounty hunting money on a goat for it to only die. And now that he has this electric toad, he’s gone full circle back to a false animal, but this time he’ll actually take care of it fully because he doesn’t care anymore if it’s real or fake.

The entirety of Deckard’s experiences and journey relate to how we, in this world, can truly learn to emphasize. As stated before, we only empathize when we find we have something in common with someone less fortunate. Deckard was the same way. He didn’t emphasize with his sheep because he looked upon it as wrong, he emphasized with Resch because Resch was just like him, and he emphasized with Luba and Rachael because he was sexually attracted to both of them and thought of them as vulnerable. At the end; however, Deckard was revealed to truly show empathy when he encountered the toad. The fact that he didn’t care whether the toad was real or no showed he didn’t care whether people were human or android.

That revelation is the most important because it was the hardest to achieve. In fact, in an article posted to Cyborgology, it was stated by philosopher Jesse Prinz that “empathy is impartial; we feel greater for those who are similar to ourselves” (Recuber). Recuber goes on to state that many experiments back up that claim, especially when it relates to race. There is an empathy gap in our society that is making it harder and harder for people to truly emphasize with one another because we can’t see past our differences (Recuber). This is exactly what Deckard did in the novel by going through all the problems that found him. He found a way to emphasize with androids even though they were nothing like him. So how can we as a society in the real world do it? How can we close this gap and find a way to truly emphasize with one another no matter the differences?

This answer goes back to our flawed system of empathy itself.  We need to stop seeing empathy as partial. We shouldn’t put up posts about saving Syrian refugees while we bash the countries who choose not to. We can’t decide who’s right and who’s wrong. That is not how empathy works. With true empathy, there is no good guy or bad guy, whether or not you agree with the choices made. There has to be a level of understanding. A moment when you truly place yourself in their shoes and try to understand why they chose what they did. And maybe getting to that point begins with books. There has been extensive research into whether or not reading fiction improves ones capability for empathy (Surugue). It is suggested by a researcher named Oately that fiction novels stimulate “a social world which prompts empathy and understanding in the reader” (Surugue). Fiction novels seem to bring the reader into a complicated world and forces them to look through the main protagonist’s eyes, which actually forces them to emphasize with them on a certain level (Surugue). Interestingly enough, Surugue also states “Some studies have shown that fiction can even make you feel empathy for people who live very different live than you.” And that is our main problem. That is the solution for the gap that Recuber was talking about.

If we have such a problem emphasizing with people who are different from us, then why don’t we force ourselves to learn by reading fiction novels? And what better novel to start that journey on than Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The novel that centers around what empathy truly is surely can hold answers for many struggling to see both sides of any problem. If reading it can cause myself to empathize with beings I don’t see as “good,” then why can’t it do the same with anyone else that decides to delve into it?

Works Cited

Dick, Philip K, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 1968. Print.

Recuber, Tim, “What Becomes of Empathy?” Cyborgology, 20 Jul. 2016, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2016/07/20/what-becomes-of-empathy/, Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.

Surugue, Lea, “Reading Books and Watching Films Makes You Kinder in Real Life”International Business Times, 19 Jul. 2016, https://via.hypothes.is/http:/www.ibtimes.co.uk/reading-books-watching-films-makes-you-kinder-real-life-1571434#annotations:_MOsQlpyEeaiesf9ed4wVw Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.

Midterm Essay- The “Superior” Race: How Empathetic Is Our Society?

Midterm Essay- The “Superior” Race: How Empathetic Is Our Society?

In Philip K. Dick’s novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the author gives us the question “what makes us human?” to ponder. During many moments while reading this novel, we start to think we have an answer, but are thrown for a loop throughout and more questions are generated. Throughout this novel, we are introduced to a post-apocalyptic version of San Fransisco set in 2021, where a great nuclear war has destroyed much of Earth as we know it. Animals have either gone endangered or extinct, most humans have migrated to Mars, and a whole new species called androids has been introduced to our world.While the lines between human and android tend to blur, Philip K. Dick uses empathy to differentiate the two by giving humans animals to care for and androids a life of servitude. The idea of humans being the “superior” race is not only a major theme in this novel, but also in real life today. One race, all humans in the case of the novel, being seen as somewhat better than another, or androids, is something we see today in our world through the media, so it is not very difficult to see where the book relates to modern day life. But like the characters in the book, we are blinded by the unspoken rules of society that allow us to see where these concepts intersect. And in order to understand this, we must ask ourselves: how empathetic is our society?

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, we meet two very unique characters, whose stories we follow throughout. First, we are introduced to Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter on Earth who earns a living from “retiring” androids. Within the first few pages, we get a feel for his world and the environment he lives in with his wife, Iran, a world where they are fortunate enough to rely on a Penfield mood organ to control and convey their emotions. This is already a strange concept to deal with, the idea of being able to control your emotions through technology, causing us to question their humanity. Philip K. Dick counteracts this a little later by showing us how Deckard cares for his sheep, which he reveals to his neighbor to be electric. Though this knowledge is looked down on, he is so insisted upon proving how empathetic he is, he wants to buy his neighbor’s colt, even going as far as saying he would pay her “ five hundred dollars a month for ten months. Full catalogue value,” to which she still denies due to scarcity (Dick 10). Deckard’s desire to have a real animal is his motive to take on his mission to retire six Nexus-6 units, but the fine line between what is the morally right thing to do gets confusing. Throughout the novel, he begins to question his own morality as he does care for his electric sheep like a real one, while also hunting its “humanoid” counterparts. This is Deckard’s struggle throughout the story. Though it seems like the author is reaching for a lot with this idea of owning an animal to prove one’s self worth, it is not too far off from how we hold ourselves today. We, as a society, are so invested in being better than each other that we will use our wealth, intelligence, and even looks as leverage over others, but make excuses for why it is done, much like Deckard’s neighbor’s denial.

In the chapter following, we meet John Isodore, a “special”, sitting in his apartment while watching a government propaganda commercial, attempting to convince those remaining on Earth to move to the Mars colony. During the commercial, those remaining are offered their very own humanoid servant robot, customized to their specific needs, referring to it as “duplicates of th halcyon days of the pre-Civil War Southern states!” (Dick 17). The government is basically giving away their most human-like androids to cater to the whim of every human migrators needs, telling us as readers that it is basically their form of slavery. This also provides a reason for Deckard’s mission, as many androids, as about as aware as they can be, would want to escape and migrate to Earth. It also is revealed to us that Isodore has distorted genes due to the nuclear dust left after to war, which prevents him from ever possibly emigrating to Mars. He leads a simple life, working to pass the time and living alone in his very vacant apartment building. It is in Isodore we see a blurred line between humans and androids, or at least a sense of how being different is not a good thing. Though as a spoken rule, it is looked down upon to outcast people or groups of people for their differences, only a side glance is casted towards it, but nothing is truly ever done about it.

We again find ourselves asking a question on whether or not empathy is only a human emotion. In the book, the lack of empathy was something that differentiate the humans and the androids, even though androids were capable of empathising. But the bigger question of whether or not common similarities overthrow people’s differences is something we also must focus on. Without looking at the major themes of the novel, many will fail to see how similar our society is today to that of the book. In today’s society, we as individuals often look for for ways to separate ourselves from each other, while still blending in, much like the androids in the novel. Though Philip K. Dick goes to drastic measures to say this, he was not far off. The creation of the Nexus-6 units is shows us how it can be extremely hard to tell and makes one question their own humanity because we are all so desperate to be similar, yet different.

It is often argued on whether or not empathy can be taught, and if it can, to what extent. In the novel, the Nexus 6 “have the ability to [learn] empathy, [and] the distinction between human’s and android’s empathy is difficult to understand,” (Is Empathy Only A Human Ability?). This difficulty to understand ties back into the idea on how empathetic we, as a society, can be. We often find ourselves relating to those who are similar to us in one way or another, or even those who appeal and interest us, much like how it is revealed that Deckard only has empathy for female androids. Humans as a whole will only empathize with other humans, unless we look further into what makes us different from one another. This is where that distinction comes into play. In the novel, humans are seen as the “superior” race, while androids are seen as lesser. This idea speaks to the racial divide we face everyday in our own world.

The divide between the humans and the androids is a major theme in the novel, even going as far having “important” figures like Buster Friendly to help portray this idea. This is similar to us because we are constantly dividing humanity in our media as well. Androids are “not like us” and therefore, that makes them bad. We live by this idea everyday, that those who are not like us must be the enemy in a way. Take the presidential campaign for example, one candidate basically ran their platform on this concept of “different equals bad.” However, that is not the case because we are also teaching people to embrace their own differences. So how can we be empathetic to one another when we can barely make up our minds on whether or not to embrace each other? That is the largest question of all that we are faced not only while reading the book, but also in real life.

Empathy, as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, is the feeling that you understand and share another person’s experiences and emotions or the ability to share someone else’s feelings. But if we force ourselves to empathize with one another or to even “out-empathize” each other, we are not an empathetic society at all. Empathy is not created by mankind, a message that Philip K. Dick really tries to push throughout his novel, but can be taught or at least learned early on. We later learn that Officer Resch is actually an android who cares for a squirrel, and all that we knew before about androids becomes unclear. There is a blurring line of how empathy comes about and what we define as humanity. Androids have actually become more human than we initially thought. A Cyborg Manifesto, by Donna Haraway, touches on this idea that we as humans will eventually evolve much like the androids have done.

In Donna Haraway’s A Cyborg Manifesto, Haraway introduces us to a new way of thinking about cyborgs and how androids may actually be the “superior” race. We are presented with the idea that gender, race, and class are just social constructs forces on us to follow as beings due to the course of history. This, in term, makes us weaker than androids because we are always so quick to categorize, whereas labels do not define androids and cyborgs alike. Haraway hopes we are able to move past this way of thinking, but we have yet to see change. Through our society, we let these labels define us and dictate who is above all of the others, much like how Mercerism in the novel does. Philip K. Dick uses this to expand of that idea of making excuses for why people believe that they are be better than each other. Like religion, we see faith as a way to prove ourselves. Those who are able to experience what Mercer felt, have reached the “highest” level of empathy. In our society, this notion of one-upping each other is something we experience everyday. But with this in mind, we see that everything is only done to be better than others and that we never truly better ourselves.

Through the way the world is portrayed through the media, we are basically given, first hand, the issues that we should care about. This makes it hard to differentiate whether or not our feelings towards something we see online are truly our own. Like our society, the novel’s “media” is portrayed the same way. Nothing is ever our own and we do not realize it because we are bred that way. Our identity is taken away when we let others dictate how we see things, and though we like to believe that we are different, we led to believe the same things, or variations of the same opinion. But if we really begin to pay attention to what is going on around us, we will eventually see the world for what it really is. We could even possibly move towards a world like the one Haraway created, to a more realistic extent, where we do not judge people by their differences or let society tell us what is best. Only then can we truly be seen as an empathetic society. Philip K. Dick’s novel is a perfect example of what our world will be like if we do not evolve past our ideals of what makes someone more human than another. Even though we are not nearly as complexed as androids, our nature to do and say what we are told dominates our life. If we began to “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes”, we will learn how to empathize with the people around us, and actually care for what is going on in the world. And though it may seem like a hard task to accomplish, we can start by having our own opinions on things, while also letting ourselves see something from someone else’s point of view. Empathy is not something we can force or try to outdo others in, it is an emotion, capable of being felt by humans, and even androids alike. So are we really an empathetic society? Through time and willingness to change, we could possibly learn to care about something or someone other than ourselves, not for praise or a reward, but because it will be human nature to do so.

 

Dick, Philip K., and Philip K. Dick. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.  “Is Empathy Only A Human Ability? – Kyle Paulsen.” Is Empathy Only A Human Ability? – Kyle Paulsen. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. A Cyborg Manifesto. N.p.: n.p., 2009. Print.

Kerman, Judith. Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State U Popular, 1991. Print.

Tim Recuber on July 20, 2016. “What Becomes of Empathy? – Cyborgology.” What Becomes of Empathy? – Cyborgology. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.

 

Midterm: What Makes Us Human?

What really makes us human? This question has been asked for centuries and yet we still do not have a definite answer. The question at hand is more complex then it seems, not only are there biological aspects that could define us as human, but there are also actions and emotions that we express that need to be taken into account when defining someone or something as human. Empathy is defined as “the feeling that you understand and share another person’s experiences and emotions: the ability to share someone else’s feelings” (Empathy). Many people believe that empathy is what truly makes us human and without empathy you would be considered an android. Androids are human-like; they walk, talk, and even look exactly like humans however they lack a certain emotional connection that humans are known to have. As humans in the 21st century, we have an addiction to technology. Technology is the basis of our culture and it runs our daily lives. You can’t even walk into a grocery store without technology being present in some way. With technology running our lives we have to wonder if our reliance on technology makes us less human; makes us less empathetic. The novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, by Philip K. Dick, shows how the line between human and android can be blurred further making the question, what makes us human, an anomaly.

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Rick Deckard is a bounty hunter of androids, it is his job to hunt down androids and “retire” them (kill them). During his quest to hunt down and retire highly intelligent androids, Rick starts to realize that androids just might not be any more non-human than Rick himself. This realization comes from Rick’s ability to realize that the androids he is hunting do indeed exhibit empathy, however they exhibit in a way that does not necessarily follow the norms of Ricks society. In Ricks world, empathy is established through the caring of animals. If you own a real animal then you are considered more human, more empathetic, than someone that owns a fake electronic animal. Androids are even hunted using a specific test, the Voigt-Kampff test, which uses scenarios involving animals and the reactions of the one in question. The test proves somewhat effective however, Rick starts to notice that the androids might not have empathy for animals per-say but that they do in fact have empathy for other androids. We know this because “andy’ Rachel Rosen sleeps with Rick in the hopes that he would gain even more empathy towards the androids and stop the killing. Rick starts to wonder what defines true empathy. Does it make the androids less empathetic then Rick if they only care about other androids? Is Rick more empathetic then the androids because he only has empathy for animals and other humans? This is where the line between human and android begins to blur in the novel. Rick however is reminded by fellow bounty hunter Phil Resch that “This is necessary. Remember: they killed humans in order to get away” (Dick 136). Rick is also reminded by androids themselves that they lack certain human qualities. When hunting down Luba Luft, Rick has doubts about retiring her because he has developed empathy for the androids he even gets Luba Luft a book. Luft goes as far as to say to Rick that “There’s something very strange and touching about humans. An android would never have done that” (Dick 133). Luft admits to Rick that androids indeed lack certain emotional aspects that human’s poses. Rick goes on to terminate the remaining androids on his bounty list and on his way home he finds an electric toad, an animal though to be extinct, and although the toad is not real Rick realizes that “the electric things have their lives, too. Paltry as those lives are” (Dick 241). Rick has realized that caring for an electric animal versus a real animal makes neither more empathetic than the other. The electric animals need just as much care if not more than the real animals and that their lives matter too.

Like our society today, Rick and Iran Deckard both have an addiction to some form of technology: the mood organ. Iran deliberately tries to contradict the norms of society by not following the proper etiquette when it comes to using the mood organ, a machine that is programed to make someone feel a certain way based off of not personal choice, but how someone is expected to feel in certain situations as well as a schedule of emotions for each day. Iran refuses to rely on the mood organ and chooses to dial in as depressed as a form of rebellion. We have many similarities between the mood organ and today’s society. The mood organ is used to help someone wake up, be happy, get through the work day and has many more functions. Although our “mood organ” might not necessarily be a machine, we have tools in which we use that act as a mood organ. To wake up in the morning one might drink a large cup of coffee, to become happy one might listen to upbeat music or watch a funny YouTube video. All of these thing seem natural to us, but Dick presents the mood organ just like a cup of coffee, it’s natural to them. Waking up and dialing in to the mood organ is a daily occurrence however, Dick presents it in such a way where we can start to question whether our actions are “android like.”

Many believe that we are too dependent on technology. Everything we do has technology integrated into it in some way and it is almost impossible to go a day without using a smartphone. However, we have people in our society who think that society is not addicted to technology. These people claim that technology is something we can disconnect from and is a tool we use to aide in our day to day lives. But it can be supported that technology has become a norm in society. If someone does not own a smart phone they are ostracized and made fun of. Lennard J. Davis’s article “Constructing Normalcy” puts this into context: “We live in a world of norms. Each of us endeavors to be normal or else deliberately tries to avoid that state” (Davis). Many people believe that relying on technology is a necessity, something we must do in order to function properly in today’s world. However, there are those that defy that norm and believe that technology is turning us into androids. In the lengthy “A Cyborg Manifesto” Donna Haraway creates a dichotomous key focusing on “the rearrangements in worldwide social relations tied to science and technology” (Haraway 300). Her list includes things that were once controlled by society are now influenced by technology. For instance, she lists things such as sex, labor, and mind followed by genetic engineering, robotics, and artificial intelligence (Haraway 300). Everything fist listed comes natural where as those things she counter-listed have been touched by technology in some way and are what is present in our society to this day.

 

We in fact could consider ourselves androids. Our day to day lives center around technology so much that it’s virtually impossible to go more than 24 hours without a smart phone. Many people claim that this reliance on technology has made our society less empathetic. Tim Recuber talks about this empathy gap in his article “What Becomes of Empathy?” Yes, our technology does have the ability to make us more empathetic due to “increasingly timely and intimate forms of news gatherings in the digital age” (Recuber). However, technology limits us from experiencing other cultures and immersing ourselves into other situations. We are addicted to viewing instead of immersing ourselves in the situation. In their article “Is the Internet Killing Empathy?” Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan claim that our “brains [have] become so desensitized by a 24/7, all-you-can-eat diet of lurid flickering images that we’ve lost all perspective on appropriateness and compassion when another human being apparently suffers” (Small). We are constantly exposing ourselves to “shocking and sensational images and videos,” this constant exposure can result in “desensitization of neural curcits to the horrors we see online” (Small). When looking at current situations in the world things like the Syrian refugee crisis, the Orland shootings, and terrorist attacks are all effected by technology. We have become desensitized, many people don’t sympathize with the Syrian refugees however, many people sympathized/ felt empathy for those involved in the Orlando shooting. This is because our empathy is selective these days, studies have shown that “even on a sensory level, people experience more empathy for the physical pain of those with the same skin color” (Recuber). This is how the gap is formed, we are uninformed and uneducated in situations involving those different from us. We create a barrier that to this day is hard to break. One might look at a picture of a Syrian refugee lying dead on the beach however like stated before we have desensitized ourselves from what we see online. This creates a lack of empathy among the technological age again making us more like androids.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? can be somewhat confusing to someone if they don’t look deeper into what Philip K. Dick was trying to convey to his readers. Yes, empathy is complex and there is no concrete way to define empathy; we all experience it and express it in different ways. Technology however is the reason why empathy has become so complex. Technology is what blurs the line between what is human and what is android. We have certain aspects in our lives which can be conveyed or interpreted as android-like tendencies. What was once a normal human function, such as drinking coffee in the morning, are now considered dependencies similar to a mood organ. Technology has help our society immensely however we spend so much time invested in technology that we don’t see the bigger picture. Our society has become desensitized. Dick shows how androids are desensitized to animals in the novel and just like the androids we as humans have become desensitized to situations around the world because we allow ourselves to become exposed to horrific situations on a daily basis through the use of technology. I am not saying technology is bad but I am also not saying it is 100% good. Technology is a platform that allows us to stay connected, learn, and experience different things but too much access/ too much exposure can sometimes make something that was originally good intentioned turn into something that is hurting our society. We have become androids, a thing that people fear and can’t accept. The answer to what makes us human is so hard to find because as a society we ourselves don’t even know what makes us human.

 

 

Work Cited

Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy: The Bell Curve, the Novel, and the Invention of the Disabled Body in the Nineteenth Century.” The Disability Studies Reader, Routledge, New York, 2006.

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Del Ray, 1996. Print.

“Empathy.” Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

Haraway, D. “A Cyborg Manifiesto”. The Cybercultures Reader. Bell, D. and Kennedy, B. M. Routledge, 2001.

Recuber, Tim. “What Becomes of Empathy?” Cyborgology, 20 July 2016.

Small, Vorgan. “Is the Internet Killing Empathy?”. CNN.Com, Feb. 8, 2011.http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/18/small.vorgan.internet.empathy/index.html?hpt=C2. Accessed Oct. 10, 2016.

The Power of Empathy

What makes us human? It is not just our human genetic make-up, but personalities, characteristics, and emotions that come with being human. In particular, empathy can be described as shaping the human condition. Empathy is the capability of an individual to “understand and share another person’s experiences and emotions: the ability to share someone else’s feelings” (Empathy). In other words, it is the human ability to connect with others in a sense of parallel emotions; therefore, having the ability to personally identify with the feelings of another. It is commonly believed that the ability to empathize is the paramount difference that separates the human species from androids/cyborgs. Cyborgs, “a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction,” are unable to possess and express empathy like humans are (Haraway 291). Although they have the ability to talk, walk, communicate, and carry out every day functions like humans, they lack the ability to express empathy. This is one key factor that can be said to differentiate the human species from the cyborg species.

In Philip K. Dick’s, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the novel emphasizes the topic of what separates humans from androids; with a particular focus on empathy. It describes a technologically advanced world where androids are very much prevalent. Throughout the text, the reader is left to wonder who is an android and who is human. It shows that technology has consumed the world not only with the presence of androids, but also through technology that humans possess as well. For instance, Rick and his wife, possess a “Penfield mood organ” in which they are able to adjust their mood each day (Dick 1). Rick continuously sets his mood organ to a “businesslike professional attitude,” which is needed for his bounty hunter job of retiring androids (Dick 4).  This bounty hunter job allows the reader to see the different sides of both the existence of androids and the life of humans. The novel makes the reader question, what really makes one human, by describing and highlighting features of similarity in both humans and androids. However, empathy was always unequivocally a differentiating factor between the two.

Empathy is the key characteristic of the human species that separates them from a machine-like being. Although it may seem at times that the androids have emotion or feelings, they do not possess empathy, making those ‘feelings’ irrelevant. For instance, Pris is classified as an android in Philip K. Dick’s novel. Although she may seem to be human-like, she does not possess true feelings or empathy, as her actions over time reveal. For example, when Pris came into contact with a spider, she questioned, “all those legs. Why does it need so many legs…,” and then, while smiling, snipped off four of the spider’s legs with scissors (Dick 206). Pris had no reservations or remorse when cutting off the spider’s legs, proving that she possessed no true feelings or empathy for the spider. This showed how even though the androids may act like humans, they are not humans in the slightest bit.

Philip K. Dick’s novel also opened up the revelation that technology is advancing at an alarming pace, making the reader wonder if the novel is a warning to the future of the world. The technological advancement, while beneficial, can also be dangerous. In society today, the concept of the ‘norm’ has overwhelmed the nation. As Lennard J. Davis states, “we rank our intelligence, cholesterol level, our weight, height, sex drive, bodily dimensions along some conceptual line from subnormal to above average” (3). In other words, the world has created a perfect ideal of what the human species should look like, be like, act like, and more; “There is probably no area of contemporary life in which some idea of a norm, mean, or average has not been calculated” (Davis 3). Societal instinct is to judge others based on these so-called norms that have been created over time. If one does not fit these norms, they are automatically classified as abnormal and/or possessing a disability. But who is to say one specific thing is the norm and another thing is not? Just like there is a norm community, there is a disabled community as well. The only thing differentiating the norm from the abnormal is the way in which these individuals and communities function. However, since norms have been so prominently specified throughout the world, the advancement and power of technology that propels this ideology can be very dangerous. Such power of technology may begin to place the norms at higher value and standard due to technology having the ability to ‘fix’ disabled individuals. So, when is it time to start saying no to technology?

In today’s society, the number of disabled/abnormal individuals are growing at a vast rate. A disability is defined as an individual “who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity” (ADA). In today’s society, individuals who do not meet a set of particular norms are deemed disabled. Thus, technology is used to “fix” these individuals since “disability was once regarded very differently from the way it is now” (Davis 3). Instead of seeing disability as a gift or another unique characteristic of an individual, it is now seen as a disadvantage in today’s communities. It is seen as something that limits individuals, or inhibits individuals from being all they can be.

In Philip K. Dick’s novel, there is a character named John Isidore who is considered “a special, a chickenhead” because he deviates from what is considered the norm for a human being in that society (18). One of the norm standards in this society, of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, was determined by a minimum mental facilities test, of which John failed. This was due to the fact that this society wanted to suppress John’s powers of bringing animals back to life by the use of radiation (Dick 24). Consequently, John Isidore was deemed “in popular parlance a chickenhead” (Dick 19). This meant that he was not equal to the other individuals in the sense of societal norms. Therefore, just like John Isidore, many individuals are looked down upon due to their differences that separate them from the norm, such as disabilities; or in John’s case, unique abilities. However, a particular abnormality or disability actually makes an individual extraordinary. Yet, since John Isidore did not meet the specific standards of what a human being should be like, he was punished and fixed by society. This occurs in society today, and with technology rapidly advancing, it will be seen even more. This raises the question of who is to say that a disabled individual is lesser than an individual who meets the societal norms? The answer is no one. But with such technology on the rise, more individuals feel empowered to say what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, if individuals fail to meet specific standards, technology will soon be used to fix the world’s ‘abnormalities and disabilities’ completely.

Consequently, if technology keeps advancing the way it is now, sooner or later the human species will try to create a better version of themselves. This may be seen through “Penfield mood organs,” like in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, or by creating a brand new species classified as cyborgs (Dick 1). Technology has made the world think that everything needs to be fixed since technology provides the ability to do so. However, just because something can be fixed, it does not mean it should be fixed. Each abnormality or disability in the world is what makes the human race a diverse, interesting, unique, and creative species. Without disabilities and abnormalities, the human race would lose its ability to strengthen empathy, and eventually empathy would diminish. If the world was perfect and nothing bad ever happened, because it was programmed accordingly, there would no longer be sorrow or happiness throughout the world; there would ultimately be no presence of varying emotion. This would eventually wipe out empathy because there would be nothing to empathize with. The ability to feel and empathize would become obsolete, perhaps classifying the human race as a new cyborg race.

However, although there are many consequences, there are some benefits of being a cyborg race. As a cyborg, there is no gender bias in society; “The cyborg is a creature in a post-gender world; it has no truck with bisexuality…” (Haraway 292). In other words, a cyborg is a creature of machine, a program with only a body shell to live through. It is a species unaware of gender bias, limitations, or judgment because it has no true sexuality. A cyborg is only truly its machine or program; how and in what way it walks the earth is simply a means to exist. Therefore, since there is no gender in a cyborg society, many of the societal issues the world experiences would not exist. However, this advantage of a cyborg race is not superior to the value of empathy, and the true and unique human race. If societal issues were not a problem anymore, there would be nothing to empathize with. Without the ability to empathize, there would be no true feelings or emotions. The cyborg race would then take over, wiping out what makes the human race, human.

This then questions the connection of empathy and unity. At which point does the human bond break? As Allie Grasgreen states, “Empathy is so strongly believed to be a promoter of civility” (Empathizing 101). In other words, empathy is key to unity. The human race is genetically programmed to feel, express, and connect. It is in the human nature to feel and empathize. Thus, empathy is paramount in practicing the use of feeling, expressing, and connecting with others. Therefore, without empathy, there would be no unity or humanity, since unity relies on those aspects of human life. There would be no way for individuals to connect with one another or interact on a human level. This absence of connection would mean it would be impossible to have unity within the human race. Therefore, empathy is a vital aspect of the human species and the very function of the human race.

Overall, in the world today, society has structured itself around technology. Everything in the world relies on this advancing power; and consequently, this power influences the norms of the world. This power then has a traumatic effect on the disabled/abnormal communities. In the novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, a technologically advanced world was described. It emphasized what makes one human and what makes another android. The main differing factor was empathy. Empathy enables an individual to understand the feelings of another. It allows the world to connect in times of sorrow and happiness. Without this, the human world would be unable to connect with one another, which would make feelings, emotions, and personal connections irrelevant. Society would lose its one true power of unity, which is empathy. Therefore, the world would not care or empathize with those who have abnormalities or disabilities. Thus, with the advancement of technology, the world would then be influenced to completely fix these individuals. However, this fix may further promote the creation of a cyborg population. Living in a cyborg world may mean living without gender bias, but only at the expense of the complete elimination of empathy. Without empathy, the world would be a dull, senseless place, void of unity. The world as we know it would be lost.

 

Works Cited

Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy: The Bell Curve, the Novel, and            the Invention of the Disabled Body in the Nineteenth Century.” The                Disability Studies Reader, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, 2006,            pp. 3–16.

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The Random House                    Publishing Group, 1996.

“Empathy.” Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-                                              webster.com/dictionary/empathy.

Gasgreen, Allie. “Empathizing 101.” Inside Higher ED. 24 Nov. 2010. Web 11            Oct. 2016.

Haraway, Donna. “A CYBORG MANIFESTO: Science, Technology and                    Socialist-Feminism in   the Late Twentieth Century.” The                                    Cybercultures Reader, pp. 291–324.

“What Is the Definition of Disability under the ADA?” ADA National                            Network, https://adata.org/faq/what-definition-disability-under-                ada.