Indeed.I love how Asimovs robots rebel by adhering to their commands in a way that was not intended by their creators.Even better,when they rebel it is to save the humanity from itself.And unlike in that shitty movie,they do this covertly and smartly.
+DaemianLucifer I think it's funny that so many people site Asimov's robot laws for why it will be easy to safeguard against any problems with AI. This despite the very fact you mention. That being that there will always be unintended consequences from and indeed ways _around_ those very laws. Those people should actually read the books! ;) I for one haven't in a very long time. I think it's time for a refresher course. ;)
Its especially funny because whenever a character who deals in robotics is asked for specifics about the laws they say how complex they really are,and the three wordings are just an abstract interpretation for the sake of regular humans.A few of the stories even deal with how to define "human" for a robot in such a way as to not lead to unintended consequences(and even then,failures occur). So while the laws are easy to list off,translating them into an actual workable ai is still a monumentally difficult task.
You hit the nail on the head. I had to dig up a video Computerphile did on the subject that discusses that very point: ua-cam.com/video/7PKx3kS7f4A/v-deo.html Having said that, rather than actually hard coding in certain principles and definitions, I think what's going to happen is that we're basically going to have to just train general AIs and trust that we "raise" them to be "good". Basically, putting them through situations where they actually learn what it means to be a human and what things like loss and joy are. But, it's going to be really hard to convey to a machine what it _feels_ like to be a human. Our pain, pleasure, hopes and fears. Just exactly what "pain" or "pleasure" will mean to an electronic device and how that can be used to empathize with a human will be one of the hurdles that we will face going forward. It seems like we are fated to make such machines. At least _someone_ is going to create them. And there _will_ be unfortunate casualties along the way. Already we are seeing deaths from nascent self-driving cars. I'm fairly certain situations where multiple people are involved will happen in the far future. I'm also certain that someday an AI will be put on trial. Perhaps several. Not only to answer for any casualties, but also whether or not they qualify as actually being alive and if they deserve the same rights as other sapient beings. It will be interesting to see how things develop. Hopefully, things will work out in the end. We'll see what happens. ;)
> R. Daneel Olivaw is one of the greatest characters Asimov created -- TOTALLY TRUE > and one of the best in fiction. -- NOT REALLY SUPPORTABLE BY ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD.
This series is a bridge between the Robots series and the Empire ones One thing I've really wished would pop up in a story is a meeting between Danieel and Hunter (From one of the other Asimov universe characters from non-Asimov writers...namely the Robots in Time series
Thank you for this!! I was looking for Asimov work with Daneel in it and came across your awesome video!! Love it, and thank you, exactly what I needed.
It's a cruel irony that even in a future where an unlimited supply of robots can perform the necessary tasks to provide for humans, poverty can still occur. I was playing the game "Frost Punk" and got to a point where I had Automatons manning every major production facility 24/7 providing an abundance of resources to a population of over 600 people and of their number less than 100 of them were still working in other minor production facilities. The 500 people living in the city were unemployed, yet had sufficient food, shelter, medical care, and even some minor luxuries, and this is in a steampunk post apocalyptic frozen wasteland. The introduction of automation should give abundance and thus leave no human without those amenities, and yet it can't because those who stand to gain from the status quo will just keep those amenities out of reach of those the automation replaced. It's not robots that cause poverty, it's still people and their greed.
If you want to follow up on this, Vonnegut wrote the book Player Piano, and it is about a mechanized dystopia in a civilization without any material shortages, and how poverty would still exist.
While Caves of Steel was neither my first time reading Asimov, nor my introduction to his robot novels, it nonetheless has a place in my heart for perhaps being the book that really cemented my love of his work. I am not ashamed to say that I like a good mystery, and that I kinda like a good buddy-cop story. I used to watch Alien Nation when I was little so I immediately gravitated to the idea of two entirely different individuals (with two literally different ways of looking at things) having to work together. My real introduction to Asimov was, perhaps amusingly, through something he didn't directly make. It was the 1990's Robot City computer game. I found the whole thing fascinating, and eventually read the first couple of books before eventually losing interest.. though I'd like to return someday, if I can find the books again.
The two robot detective novels were different than a lot of Asimov's work. I would say they were more about people, more human, even though they had a robot in them as a the main character, and as it turns out the main character in human evolution. That was a bit corny, but Asimov had a lot of good ideas, but the human part of stories was often weak.
What a great epic series of movies could be made...starting with this one, the Caves of Steel, and leading all the way through the Robot and Foundation series of novels. I don't understand why some very smart producer hasn't taken up this idea yet.
VERY VERY hard to do... The Robot books are doable, maybe even the Empire series, but Foundation has very different characters in each story which makes it tough to keep the general public audience to buy in and stay interested. Plus the cost to produce and do it justice would be very high... At least with green screen tech and CGI the grand scale is possible now (15 years ago that would have been nearly impossible). I would LOVE to see somebody tackle it all, but you're talking about 4+4+7 books... that's a LOT of material to cover!
@@mikekopack6441 I agree it wouldn't be easy. "Foundation" would be tough, as you say, but could be done. Great writers could figure it out. I would think the cost for any one of these wouldn't be any more than for any other modern sci-fi movie.
I think you will find that scientist, being human, often do not give up their pet theories. It was Max Planck who said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
OtherGonzo actually the script's original writer Jeff Vintar was well acquainted with Asimov. He had originally penned the script as a murder mystery story called "Hardwired". When 20th Century Fox optioned the script and wanted to call it "I, Robot" it was Vintar who brought in the character of Susan Calvin to replace the original female character in his script. Vintar worked with the second writer on the film Akiva Goldsman, who largely re-wrote the dialogue for Will Smith's character. Vintar has both story and script credit for the film. On the film's Blu Ray bonus features he goes through the whole history of robot stories that informed the film. Not just Asimov, but the works Eando Binder and Lester del Ray as well.
Oh, my gods, takes me back so hard. I remember getting this in like high school or junior high, can't remember anymore, and I was hooked SO hard into it. Between the mystery and the relationship of the two protagonists, I was having such a good time reading. I enjoyed all the robot books, although I never could really get into the Foundation series. However, since your review of it back when I did go and grab the radio drama that was done and it was really enjoyable if a little slow at times.
You have inspired me to dig out my Asimov and read through them once again - it has been many years but at one time I used to read the Foundation Trilogy every year :).
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. These laws could be applied to AI..
It would be a good time to reorganize the chronology of the Robot stories (including the shorts) so that we could see the journey from Earthbound robots through to the Galactic Empire and tying into the "prelude" to Foundation stories. The evolution of the "Zeroth Law" would be the primary thread throughout the chronology.
Seriously appreciate this review. Robots/androids are coming back in popular culture now that games like Detroit are out, and having played it (once so far) you can tell it was inspired by this story. There were others, the Kodak VHS game from the 80s is pretty much a straight adaptation of this book, even Asimov liked it. The twist is slightly different in the game, but the motivation matched and I always wondered who the real culprit was from the book.
My first introduction to Line Bailey and R. Daniel Olives was Robots of Dawn. I had to go back and read Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun when I was 12. It wasn't until I was 14 and doing a re-read that I recognized some of the more mature themes.
The robot novels are on my shortlist of favorites by Asimov. To my judgement, the best Asimovian robot novels not written by the master himself are the Caliban novels by Roger MacBride Allen.
Funny that in these novels the humans had changed their society so that they rarely interacted in person and resorted to "viewing" each other on tele screens ... and what do we have today with COVID-19? Kind of an interesting slant on things.
Society has started screen communication long before this pandemic... never heard about “internet” and “cell-phone”? COVID-19 has only increased by little an almost already completed transformation of our society and the methods of interpersonal communication.
@@giannapple Did you ever read this book, or the other one? Are you stupid? In these books people were anxious and never were in the presence of other people - it was unthinkable.
This is a great review, and it makes me interested in reading Caves of Steel. :) Asimov is one of the greats for a reason, and I look forward to the next review from this series. As an additional bit of information on Jesus' actions in forgiving the Adulterous Woman: Jesus said to the men who were going to stone the woman "Let he who is without sin cast the fist stone", which led to the men slowly dispersing. Jesus wasn't asking if they were pure as the driven snow. Jesus was asking the question to see if any of the MEN were innocent of the crime of adultery. None of the men were innocent. They had all either slept with the Adulterous Woman, or were adulterous at other times, and were trying to cover for themselves by punishing her when she was caught.
I loved the two Robot Detective novels of R. Daneel Olivaw ... but I have to say that Asimov was a prolific and great writer, his writing was kind of cold, like Clarke as well. It was technological, and that is fine, I was a big fan of the hard-science-fiction realm, like say "The Martian" ... but I want stories that are more human though. That was probably why I liked these two novels so much.
or thru inaction allow a human to come to harm . . . this always struck me as a very wishful thinking wrt programming a robot to be able to sense AND asses the "danger' and then protect / remove the human or be able to counter the threat in accordance with the programming . . . what if the circumstance is the human being a threat to him/herself? at over 70 y.o, sure I read all that great stuff and at the time, really good for young minds, and it still is, but . . . a few decades of further scrutiny later . . no good answers
YES, good point about Asimov being about ideas, and not relevant to the human life. Which makes it entertaining but not really relevant literarily to human life.
Yeah overpopulation hysteria. From an era when having eight children was the average to one where having less than two children is the average. Things have changed dramatically in one hundred years. I've written a long essay on this subject.
Then you are missing the crucial point: A not so short time ago historically, people had children and MOST OF THEM did not survive to adulthood. These days you still have people who have eight children (or twelve), but all of them survive. And I'm not just talking places like Africa, I'm talking USA.
Don't forget the green revolution of the 50s and 60s that led to a dramatic increase of the amount of food that could be produced in the same surface area in the same amount of time. So much Malthusian fiction was being written during the time of some of the greatest developments in the history of agriculture.
The book is bad. The world building is bland and silly. The robot sidekick is boring. The long dialogues are navel gazing platitudes that will put any thinking person to sleep.
AI is just too dangerous to be mucking around with. But humans being as stupid as they are will and soon after humanity will be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Where is the exit here in this town ??? I like to go out often and please don’t make the mistake of making the house of humans a radioactive waste dump let’s make it a nature preserve place !!! And can we terraform it to be live-able even when things like the sun power changes or we do goof up ? Shall we judge st make it a nice place to live ?? Even if we go away from home if God wants us shall we not destroy our first home ? If we leave our parents house shall we not destroy it but honor them ???
R. Daneel Olivaw is one of the greatest characters Asimov created and one of the best in fiction.
Indeed.I love how Asimovs robots rebel by adhering to their commands in a way that was not intended by their creators.Even better,when they rebel it is to save the humanity from itself.And unlike in that shitty movie,they do this covertly and smartly.
+DaemianLucifer I think it's funny that so many people site Asimov's robot laws for why it will be easy to safeguard against any problems with AI. This despite the very fact you mention. That being that there will always be unintended consequences from and indeed ways _around_ those very laws. Those people should actually read the books! ;) I for one haven't in a very long time. I think it's time for a refresher course. ;)
Its especially funny because whenever a character who deals in robotics is asked for specifics about the laws they say how complex they really are,and the three wordings are just an abstract interpretation for the sake of regular humans.A few of the stories even deal with how to define "human" for a robot in such a way as to not lead to unintended consequences(and even then,failures occur).
So while the laws are easy to list off,translating them into an actual workable ai is still a monumentally difficult task.
You hit the nail on the head. I had to dig up a video Computerphile did on the subject that discusses that very point: ua-cam.com/video/7PKx3kS7f4A/v-deo.html Having said that, rather than actually hard coding in certain principles and definitions, I think what's going to happen is that we're basically going to have to just train general AIs and trust that we "raise" them to be "good". Basically, putting them through situations where they actually learn what it means to be a human and what things like loss and joy are. But, it's going to be really hard to convey to a machine what it _feels_ like to be a human. Our pain, pleasure, hopes and fears. Just exactly what "pain" or "pleasure" will mean to an electronic device and how that can be used to empathize with a human will be one of the hurdles that we will face going forward. It seems like we are fated to make such machines. At least _someone_ is going to create them. And there _will_ be unfortunate casualties along the way. Already we are seeing deaths from nascent self-driving cars. I'm fairly certain situations where multiple people are involved will happen in the far future. I'm also certain that someday an AI will be put on trial. Perhaps several. Not only to answer for any casualties, but also whether or not they qualify as actually being alive and if they deserve the same rights as other sapient beings. It will be interesting to see how things develop. Hopefully, things will work out in the end. We'll see what happens. ;)
> R. Daneel Olivaw is one of the greatest characters Asimov created -- TOTALLY TRUE
> and one of the best in fiction. -- NOT REALLY SUPPORTABLE BY ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD.
I loved both this series, Foundation, and all of the short stories.
Great to see the OTHER famous Asimov series be done.
Which is strictly speaking still part of the same series.
This series is a bridge between the Robots series and the Empire ones
One thing I've really wished would pop up in a story is a meeting between Danieel and Hunter (From one of the other Asimov universe characters from non-Asimov writers...namely the Robots in Time series
Thank you for this!! I was looking for Asimov work with Daneel in it and came across your awesome video!! Love it, and thank you, exactly what I needed.
I dont understand how all your videos don't have like 100x the amount of upvotes. I am sorry I can only give one. It deserves more.
It's a cruel irony that even in a future where an unlimited supply of robots can perform the necessary tasks to provide for humans, poverty can still occur. I was playing the game "Frost Punk" and got to a point where I had Automatons manning every major production facility 24/7 providing an abundance of resources to a population of over 600 people and of their number less than 100 of them were still working in other minor production facilities. The 500 people living in the city were unemployed, yet had sufficient food, shelter, medical care, and even some minor luxuries, and this is in a steampunk post apocalyptic frozen wasteland. The introduction of automation should give abundance and thus leave no human without those amenities, and yet it can't because those who stand to gain from the status quo will just keep those amenities out of reach of those the automation replaced. It's not robots that cause poverty, it's still people and their greed.
If you want to follow up on this, Vonnegut wrote the book Player Piano, and it is about a mechanized dystopia in a civilization without any material shortages, and how poverty would still exist.
While Caves of Steel was neither my first time reading Asimov, nor my introduction to his robot novels, it nonetheless has a place in my heart for perhaps being the book that really cemented my love of his work. I am not ashamed to say that I like a good mystery, and that I kinda like a good buddy-cop story. I used to watch Alien Nation when I was little so I immediately gravitated to the idea of two entirely different individuals (with two literally different ways of looking at things) having to work together.
My real introduction to Asimov was, perhaps amusingly, through something he didn't directly make. It was the 1990's Robot City computer game. I found the whole thing fascinating, and eventually read the first couple of books before eventually losing interest.. though I'd like to return someday, if I can find the books again.
The two robot detective novels were different than a lot of Asimov's work. I would say they were more about people, more human, even though they had a robot in them as a the main character, and as it turns out the main character in human evolution. That was a bit corny, but Asimov had a lot of good ideas, but the human part of stories was often weak.
What a great epic series of movies could be made...starting with this one, the Caves of Steel, and leading all the way through the Robot and Foundation series of novels. I don't understand why some very smart producer hasn't taken up this idea yet.
Apple plus: hold my beer...
VERY VERY hard to do... The Robot books are doable, maybe even the Empire series, but Foundation has very different characters in each story which makes it tough to keep the general public audience to buy in and stay interested. Plus the cost to produce and do it justice would be very high... At least with green screen tech and CGI the grand scale is possible now (15 years ago that would have been nearly impossible).
I would LOVE to see somebody tackle it all, but you're talking about 4+4+7 books... that's a LOT of material to cover!
@@mikekopack6441 I agree it wouldn't be easy. "Foundation" would be tough, as you say, but could be done. Great writers could figure it out. I would think the cost for any one of these wouldn't be any more than for any other modern sci-fi movie.
I could see Caves of Steel and the other 3 novels making a great HBO series. 2 seasons for each novel.
@@greenbrown7776That's a great idea. It would have even more interest considering all the robot development that is going on now.
By Asimov's sideburns!
My favorite aspect of Elijah Bailey was his love of historical anachronisms
I think you will find that scientist, being human, often do not give up their pet theories. It was Max Planck who said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
That's why in the olden times when one tribe conquered another they ended up killing all the other tribe ... at least the inflexible men.
These were my 1st mystery stories, and still my favorites.
The Caves of Steel is my favorite Asimov work, even above Foundation Trilogy.
Caves of Steel is one of my all time favorite books. :-)
I'm doing some research on the Robot/Empire/Foundation universe and your videos are gold to me. So much useful information condensed. Thank you.
The movie version of I, ROBOT certainly appeared to draw from this work more than the short story collection of the same name.
I'm convinced that the movie went through several rewrites, the final couple by people who had never read anything written by Asimov.
OtherGonzo actually the script's original writer Jeff Vintar was well acquainted with Asimov. He had originally penned the script as a murder mystery story called "Hardwired". When 20th Century Fox optioned the script and wanted to call it "I, Robot" it was Vintar who brought in the character of Susan Calvin to replace the original female character in his script. Vintar worked with the second writer on the film Akiva Goldsman, who largely re-wrote the dialogue for Will Smith's character. Vintar has both story and script credit for the film. On the film's Blu Ray bonus features he goes through the whole history of robot stories that informed the film. Not just Asimov, but the works Eando Binder and Lester del Ray as well.
Of course it's also worth noting that Goldsman wrote Batman & Robin. That he rewrote I Robot explains a lot.
Yep he wrote a shite Batman movie and somehow also won the Oscar for best screenplay for A BEAUTIFUL MIND. What a schizo career he's had.
It bore little resemblance to anything he wrote.
Oh, my gods, takes me back so hard. I remember getting this in like high school or junior high, can't remember anymore, and I was hooked SO hard into it. Between the mystery and the relationship of the two protagonists, I was having such a good time reading.
I enjoyed all the robot books, although I never could really get into the Foundation series. However, since your review of it back when I did go and grab the radio drama that was done and it was really enjoyable if a little slow at times.
You have inspired me to dig out my Asimov and read through them once again - it has been many years but at one time I used to read the Foundation Trilogy every year :).
Would've given the video that extra bit of 1950s nostalgia if you spent the whole video pronouncing it Ro-bit.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
These laws could be applied to AI..
Except that the later Zeroth Law justified to robots that they are superior humans that need to be kept from harm...
Written LIKE.
R. Daniel Olivaw is a legend, this umanity - loving almost immortal robot...
It would be a good time to reorganize the chronology of the Robot stories (including the shorts) so that we could see the journey from Earthbound robots through to the Galactic Empire and tying into the "prelude" to Foundation stories. The evolution of the "Zeroth Law" would be the primary thread throughout the chronology.
Seriously appreciate this review. Robots/androids are coming back in popular culture now that games like Detroit are out, and having played it (once so far) you can tell it was inspired by this story.
There were others, the Kodak VHS game from the 80s is pretty much a straight adaptation of this book, even Asimov liked it. The twist is slightly different in the game, but the motivation matched and I always wondered who the real culprit was from the book.
My first introduction to Line Bailey and R. Daniel Olives was Robots of Dawn. I had to go back and read Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun when I was 12. It wasn't until I was 14 and doing a re-read that I recognized some of the more mature themes.
The policeman’s name is actually Elijah (Lije) Baley, and it appears a computer has ‘corrected’ your spelling to the similar word ‘line’!!😮
So much easier to write robot laws than to program them! ;-)
Been loving the book reviews, man. Keep up the awesome work!
Notification Squad!
I just finished watching your series on Foundation so this is perfect timing.
I hope the media powers that be give us a faithful movie adaption of this movie.
*10:00** socrates worried about this, when more people started writing.* & it is not clear he was entirely wrong even thr. _JC
The robot novels are on my shortlist of favorites by Asimov. To my judgement, the best Asimovian robot novels not written by the master himself are the Caliban novels by Roger MacBride Allen.
one of the first sf novels i ever read
Funny that in these novels the humans had changed their society so that they rarely interacted in person and resorted to "viewing" each other on tele screens ... and what do we have today with COVID-19? Kind of an interesting slant on things.
Society has started screen communication long before this pandemic... never heard about “internet” and “cell-phone”? COVID-19 has only increased by little an almost already completed transformation of our society and the methods of interpersonal communication.
@@giannapple
Did you ever read this book, or the other one? Are you stupid? In these books people were anxious and never were in the presence of other people - it was unthinkable.
This is a great review, and it makes me interested in reading Caves of Steel. :)
Asimov is one of the greats for a reason, and I look forward to the next review from this series.
As an additional bit of information on Jesus' actions in forgiving the Adulterous Woman:
Jesus said to the men who were going to stone the woman "Let he who is without sin cast the fist stone", which led to the men slowly dispersing.
Jesus wasn't asking if they were pure as the driven snow. Jesus was asking the question to see if any of the MEN were innocent of the crime of adultery.
None of the men were innocent. They had all either slept with the Adulterous Woman, or were adulterous at other times, and were trying to cover for themselves by punishing her when she was caught.
Great job
Sounds like a social credits system to me.
I loved the two Robot Detective novels of R. Daneel Olivaw ... but I have to say that Asimov was a prolific and great writer, his writing was kind of cold, like Clarke as well. It was technological, and that is fine, I was a big fan of the hard-science-fiction realm, like say "The Martian" ... but I want stories that are more human though. That was probably why I liked these two novels so much.
Love your stuff!
We're lookin' at dem robits and dem three laws are we?
The Jezabel reference was incorrect.
9:25, I firmly believe that the cutting arm scene in T2 is a direct callback (ua-cam.com/video/cq36E_wTgqE/v-deo.html Warning, very graphic(duh))
or thru inaction allow a human to come to harm . . .
this always struck me as a very wishful thinking wrt programming a robot to be able to sense AND asses the "danger' and then protect / remove the human or be able to counter the threat
in accordance with the programming . . .
what if the circumstance is the human being a threat to him/herself?
at over 70 y.o, sure I read all that great stuff and at the time, really good for young minds, and it still is,
but . . . a few decades of further scrutiny later . . no good answers
"we are too dam fat" i want to see the news you are watching man hehehe
Welcome to Asimov's Blade Runner
Yes!I adore the robot series with the evolution of daneel being such a great thing to observe,even in the expanded canon.
This book was adapted in BBC’s story time with Peter Cushing as bailey and it’s lost
Yes I’ve heard of it. I wish I was able to see it. Asimov was my first introduction to sci fi and Cushing was always great
I've never read it, but found this BBC audio drama from 1989, if anyone wants to listen: archive.org/details/CavesOfSteel_201707
YES, good point about Asimov being about ideas, and not relevant to the human life. Which makes it entertaining but not really relevant literarily to human life.
Yeah overpopulation hysteria. From an era when having eight children was the average to one where having less than two children is the average. Things have changed dramatically in one hundred years.
I've written a long essay on this subject.
This is only four sentences. You're calling that a long essay? :P
I think it's in this one
www.amazon.com/Fermi-Paradox-Debunked-anthology-ebook/dp/B078SFCWZ1/ref=sr_1_2
Then you are missing the crucial point: A not so short time ago historically, people had children and MOST OF THEM did not survive to adulthood.
These days you still have people who have eight children (or twelve), but all of them survive. And I'm not just talking places like Africa, I'm talking USA.
Don't forget the green revolution of the 50s and 60s that led to a dramatic increase of the amount of food that could be produced in the same surface area in the same amount of time. So much Malthusian fiction was being written during the time of some of the greatest developments in the history of agriculture.
The world is so poorly wrought, yet so overly, tediously described, is just one painfully boring aspect of this book.
Check out Paolo Soleri's Arcologies. What a horrible way to live.
What do you mean Asimov wanted to write a different robot story? His stories are the whole definition of cliche
The book is bad. The world building is bland and silly. The robot sidekick is boring. The long dialogues are navel gazing platitudes that will put any thinking person to sleep.
AI is just too dangerous to be mucking around with. But humans being as stupid as they are will and soon after humanity will be terminated with extreme prejudice.
If you want to be paranoid sure. Otherwise if humanity is so stupid, why do you care that a superior intelligence in robots takes over from us?
The only regret I have about Asimov is he not using the (ancient, and forever new) Aether, to power his technology
Detroit becoming human ripped this off
Where is the exit here in this town ??? I like to go out often and please don’t make the mistake of making the house of humans a radioactive waste dump let’s make it a nature preserve place !!!
And can we terraform it to be live-able even when things like the sun power changes or we do goof up ? Shall we judge st make it a nice place to live ??
Even if we go away from home if God wants us shall we not destroy our first home ?
If we leave our parents house shall we not destroy it but honor them ???