Yglesias stumbles into my realm...

Normally a smart, lucid writer, Matt Yglesias (stupidly?) argues that we should be anti-robot because an eventual robot uprising is "one of the most widely predicted scenarios in all science-fiction."

If you travel to Borders or B&N, or any local book store, you notice that interspersed within, or adjacent to, the science fiction section is the "Fantasy" section. In this section, dominated by L.E. Modesit and Andre Norton and J.R.R Tolkien (ever heard of him?), the most widely accepted historical fact was that in medieval times there were elves and dragons. Should we then believe that it is true that at one point dragons breathed fire at elf rangers who were hunting through the forests with their animal companions? Or should we instead believes that humans somehow exist on other planets where elves and dragons do in fact exist, and they engage in magical adventures? Notice: the fantasy section is not next to the science section.

Authors do not use, and reuse, and reuse a plot element because it is an absolute truth. They use it because they are lazy. Time travel is another good example. In many works of science fiction, future humans eventually find a way to travel through time in neat little capsules and mess with the timeline. However time travel is most likely impossible without harnessing the total energy of a solar system for a one-way trip. That is, time travel in the future is not impossible, but is extremely unlikely, yet authors use it all the time as a plot element. Why should a robot uprising be any different?

I don't understand Yglesias' irrationality on this. Please Matt, read my previous article on this.


_