human being is to robot.
Suppose we rephrase the Three Laws of Robotics and have it the Three Laws of
Children, instead.
The First Law would read: A child must not do harm to its parents or, by
inaction, allow its parents to come to harm.
One of the Ten Commandments is that we must honor our father and our mother.
When I was brought up (by immigrant parents steeped in Talmudic lore), doing
my parents harm was unthinkable and, believe me, the thought never occurred to
me. In fact, even being impudent was a terrible thing that would have
blackened the Universe for me. And, you know, matricide and patricide have
always been viewed as among the most horrible, if not the most horrible, of
all crimes.
Even if we consider God as the Divine Father, the First Law holds. We can’t
conceivably do physical harm to God, but, presumably, if we sin, we cause Him
the Divine equivalent of pain and sorrow, so we must be careful not to do
that.
The Second Law would read: A child must obey the orders given him by his
parents, unless that would violate the First Law.
That’s obvious. In modern lax and permissive times, we forget, but parents
always expect to be obeyed, and in more rigid times—in the days of the Romans
or Victorians—they went all apoplectic and psychotic if they were not. Roman
fathers had the power of life and death over their children, and I imagine
death for disobedience was not completely unheard of. And we all know that God
reserves places in Hell for disobedient sinners.
The Third Law would read: A child must protect its own existence, unless that
would violate the First or Second Laws.
To us, it is rather unthinkable that a parent would expect a child to die or
even to suffer injury in the protection of his parents or his obedience to
them (thus refraining from violating First and Second Laws). Rather, parents
are likely to risk their own lives for their children.
But consider the Divine Father. In the more rigid Godcentered religions, such
as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it is expected that human beings will
readily, and even joyously, suffer harm all the way to death by torture rather
than transgress the least of God’s commandments. Jews, Christians, and Moslems
have all gone to their death sturdily rather than do such apparently harmless
things as eat bacon, throw a pinch of incense on an idolatrous altar,
acknowledge the wrong person as Caliph, and so on. There, one must admit, the
Third Law holds.
If, then, we wish to know how robots would react to the loss of human beings,
we must see how human beings react to the loss of all-wise, all-powerful
parents. Human beings have to find substitutes that supply the loss, and,
therefore, so must robots. This is really an obvious thought and is rarely put
forward only because most people are very nervous about seeming to be
blasphemous. However, back in mo, that magnificent iconoclast, Voltaire, said,
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” And if I may be
permitted to paddle my rowboat in the wake of Voltaire’s ocean liner, I make
bold to agree with him.
It follows, then, that if robots are stranded in a society which contains no
human beings, they will do their best to manufacture some. Naturally, there
may be no consensus as to what a human being looks like, what its abilities
are, and how intelligent it might be. We would expect, then, that all sorts of
paths would be taken, all sorts of experiments would be conducted.
After all, think how many gods—and with what variety of nature, appearance and
ability—have been invented by human beings who had never seen one, but wanted
one desperately just the same. With all that in mind, read the fourth entry in
the “Robots and Aliens” series.