3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A fascinating book of many virtues, March 16, 2008
This review is from: Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology (Paperback)
There are many reasons to read this book. I'd like to start one of the best. I'm currently engaged in writing something of my own dealing with robots, cyborgs, androids, and other kinds of artificial people in popular culture. I'm therefore reading my way through many of the standard books in the subject area. I've been crawling through bibliography after bibliography, compiling long lists of nonfiction books and novels to read and movies and television series to view. Daniel Dinello's overall mastery of the literature at large is unrivaled. Reading this book is, on one level, akin to reading a very good annotated bibliography. By the end of it, you will be aware of all the major figures on both sides of debates between technophiles and technophobe.
Dinello proudly aligns himself with the technophobes and marshals a host of good reasons for his position. While many assume a blithe optimism like that found in the novels of Isaac Asimov, that all technological development will aid humanity and present few dangers to us, Dinello joins the majority of SF writers and filmmakers who are far less sanguine about the future role of technology in our lives. Dinello find it more likely that robots like those in the Terminator films could arise than the Asimovian prime directive robots found in FORBIDDEN PLANET and LOST IN SPACE. He finds the notion of nonlethal robots to be naive, since a staggering amount of research in the field receives funding from DARPA (The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a branch of the Department of Defense). The vast majority of cutting edge technological research is being done with an eye to its military applications. Cute, nonlethal robots would have little role to play for the military.
Although there has been little public outcry about the dangers of much of the technology that is being developed with minimal oversight, there has been considerable probing of the dangers of unregulated, uncontrolled technological development by a long string of works of SF. In fact, apart from exceptions like Asimov and the unexamined optimism of the shows making up the STAR TREK franchise, most films, books, and TV series have made much of the dangers inherent in these technologies.
I can't recommend this book strongly enough. By the end any reader will have a firm grasp of the primary books and movies raising the most pertinent questions about the wisdom and desirability of promoting ungoverned technological expansion. One will also have encountered any number of technophile gurus who believe that technological heaven is only a few years away. These are people who fantasize about taking one's brain and slicing it away one little section as a time and then magically downloading its data into a computer (as if such an interface will be completely unproblematic). One would then boot up one's personality and enjoy a virtual though bodiless eternity, a bit like becoming permanently part of a SIMS game. In one of the books Dinello cites, a character comments on a similar procedure, calling it what it is: dying.
The one weakness of the book is that Dinello doesn't seem to know television as well as movies and books. It was published in 2005, but the manuscript was probably finished before the debut of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA in 2003. But other shows were not mentioned despite being remarkably relevant. For instance, in the chapter on the possible manipulation of DNA to enhance soldiers I kept waiting for some mention of DARK ANGEL, which ran from 2000-2002. Many of the more extreme fantasies of scientists (e.g., soldiers with tougher skin or with gills) were artistically in that series. And the main character, Max (Jessica Alba) was herself, as she told some friends, "a genetically enhanced killing machine." Why Dinello failed to bring up the most prominent representation of genetically enhanced soldiers was odd. My only guess is that at a certain point he cut off his research to write.
Likewise, in the chapter on nanotechnology I kept anticipating some mention of the replicators in STARGATE SG-1, easily the most prominent depiction of nanotechnology gone wrong either on TV on in film. The only defense I can imagine is that it is much harder to catch up on TV series than it is to read novels or watch individual movies. As I've learned in my own project, committing yourself to watching yet another TV series can involve remarkable amounts of time. Still, these were two instances where TV would have provided him with some of his best examples.
This criticism aside, I cannot recommend this book strongly enough. This is as fine a survey of the wide range of responses that imaginative SF is making to the emerging technologies that are redefining our world. You'll not only love reading this; you'll find yourself constantly writing down the names of other books or movies that you want to try out next.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Techno-Heaven!, January 18, 2006
This review is from: Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology (Paperback)
Dinello's sojourn into all realms of science fiction is insightful and quite comical. I highly recommend this book for all fans of sci-fi and it's excellent references, classic (Blade Runner) and obscure (Octavia Butler), would make an excellent textbook. Technology is truely a blessing and a curse; no other book lays this out more clearly.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2.0 out of 5 stars
Misguided at Every Level, March 31, 2011
This review is from: Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology (Paperback)
Daniel Dinello's stifling conception of technology as a monolithic, autonomous force that exists on linear continuum defines this entire work to its detriment. Under this framework, Dinello makes a hard distinction between fanatical technology worshiper bent world domination and wise technophobes contesting their vision. Everyone discussed either wears a black hat or a white one. Thus Dinello denies space to nuanced engagement with futurism and obscures critical distinctions between thinkers he groups on the same side.
The overbearing characterization of transhumanists as true believers in technological variant of Christianity confuses more than it clarifies. Dinello alleges dreams of perfection in order to discredit his victims but refrains from elaborating on what defines perfection and why such a goal occupies a space outside of reasonable discourse. The embrace of the progressive narrative and claims of certainty from Ray Kurzweil and company absolutely merit criticism, but a fundamental difference exists between transcendent visions based on the supernatural versus the materialistic worldview. Other the symbolic resonances with Christianity, Dinello provides no basis for dismissing transhumanist goals such as indefinite lifespans and material abundance. Assumptions about absurdity and impossibility deserve unpacking. His own ideal of ending poverty often receives the same presumptuous rejection Dinello reserves for supposed techno-utopians. I would suggest nothing hinders revolutionary politics more than unfounded assertions of impossibility. That way lies reaction and possessive attachment to the status quo.
While he offers an engaging analysis of science fiction and popular culture, Dinello expects too much from his sources and employs them to dismantle techno-totalitarian monster he has constructed as an enemy. Why science fiction should trump the views of people he acknowledges as actual scientists remains unexplored.
Because of these issues, Technophobia! disappoints. Dinello correctly writes that we should not renounce our say in process of creating the future. We need technological criticism that eschews simple binaries and engages in meaningful social struggle.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
