By DAN COMPORA Source: SyFy Portal Feb-21-2008 Growing up during the 1970s, I watched "Lost In Space" with the same fervor that children today get absorbed in "Spongebob Squarepants."
Fascinated by The Robot, I tried building my own. Discarded boxes and duct tape were often the building blocks for my creations, but my crowning achievement in adolescent robotics was a miniature R2-D2, made out of a D-cell battery, a roll-on deodorant lid, and blue and white electrical tape. Needless to say, my creations only looked like robots and didn't function -- it's not surprising why I became an English professor. The symbiotic relationship between people and machines is a popular topic in science-fiction, and robots and humans have been connected since the concept of artificial life was first imagined. The connection is so strong that Isaac Asimov permanently joined them in the Three Laws of Robotics, made famous in "I, Robot." Inevitably, a marriage of man and machine would yield a creation resembling both parties. The robots of yesteryear were infused with modern technology yet imbued with humanistic personality traits. This trend wasn't always positive. I've spent the better part of three decades trying to forget Twiki from the poorly conceived "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century." Not even the vocal talents of legendary cartoon master Mel Blanc could save this anthropomorphic disaster. Modern robotics has evolved in a fashion quite different from what speculative artists depicted. While robots, androids and cybernetic organisms still dot the science-fiction landscape, the idea of humanoid robots has been replaced, in reality, by a reliance on small, personal electronic devices. My boys have adopted my interest in science-fiction, but not my interest in robots; I'm the only one who plays with our Robosapien. Growing up, machines were external to my existence. I never felt a relationship with my alarm clock or stereo. Yet people today have the ability to merge their personality with their machines. They personalize computers with photos, sounds and movies. Cell phones and iPods become an extension of self, depending on which faceplates, ringtones and pictures are selected. Robots and androids with personalities are independent creatures, though like us, remain separate from us. The personalization of electronic devices serves as an extension of personal identity. Despite this trend in reality, the concept of humanoid machines remains alive on television. In "Battlestar Galactica," the line between Cylon and human is so imperceptible that it took three seasons to identify the remaining Cylons. In 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles," Sarah has to become more like a machine to perform actions that better serve mankind, while selected cyborgs become more human as they evolve. Both series blur the line between humanity and machines, with great effect. In each case, cybernetic organisms are designed to infiltrate human colonies, bringing about their destruction. Sometimes, the attempt to mingle human characteristics with machine technology produced interesting but inefficient results. The "Lost In Space" robot stood 7 feet, had pinchers for hands, and arms resembling dryer vent coils. The hydraulics to operate the "legs" alone may have weighed a ton. For a robot designed to test atmospheric conditions and analyze soil samples, the awkward inclusion of hands and arms served little purpose. Consider what the Mars Pathfinder's robot, Rover, has accomplished with a more compact design. The ovular globe that was the "Lost In Space" robot's head served no apparent purpose, except to allow Dr. Smith to call him a "bubble-headed booby." His "mouth" also was disproportionately large. Assuming it was used to transmit Morse code, it could have done so at a fraction of its size. That's not to say the robot was a total design failure. The Department of Energy would surely love to possess the power packs that powered the robot. The human body is an elaborate self-running organism, but the design doesn't always translate well to robotics. Data, the android on "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and the Cylons on "Battlestar Galactica" represent the high end of this spectrum, illustrating the near-perfect marriage between man and machine. But in retrospect, was it necessary for C-3PO of Star Wars to have a humanoid appearance? As a translator and protocol droid, C-3PO's head was the only necessary component. When C-3PO was nearly destroyed in "The Empire Strikes Back," he still performed his primary duties once his head was re-attached to his torso, which presumably held the power supply. C-3PO's movements were slow and herky-jerky at best. Considering the tasks he performed, C-3PO was designed quite inefficiently. Of course, a humanoid appearance makes robotic characters life-like, therefore it's easier to think of them as characters. By definition, an android resembles humanity and possesses humanistic characteristics. Since communications were C-3PO's primary function, a lifelife appearance would arguably be helpful. Certainly, C-3PO is a solid character who serves an important purpose in the Star Wars universe. As a counterpoint, though, R2-D2 doesn't bear any resemblance to humans, nor does he speak. Yet we get a sense of R2-D2's character because of his actions. While C-3PO is an android and R2-D2 is not, both exhibit strong elements of character. The creative notions speculating that robots would take humanistic form have been replaced by practical design principles that dictate shape and form. Yet early speculation that the machines we create would resemble man is certainly logical. Robots, in fiction and reality, are created by man, who tends to create what he knows. If God created man in his own image, it's not surprising that man, when creating artificial life, would do the same. http://www.syfyportal.com/news424741.html Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
