BornHereAn

Leave a reply

Identity is complicated. Part of my identity is that I am an American, but these days I am questioning what that means, to be American. One disillusionment of my conception came when I realized that liberals and conservatives both want America to be strong and good, but they have such different opinions about how to be strong and good. The differences inspire talking heads to incessantly ridicule other people’s viewpoints, and these insults become the dialogue playing in the heads of millions of Americans, a dialogue that becomes visceral hatred. Americans hate Americans, which makes the phrase “I’m proud to be an American” a little fuzzy. For me, anyway.

Another chink in the armor of my Americanism came with the admission of the sins of our past, sins that have crept into our present and will become our future if things don’t change. Slavery and genocide, specifically. (More on this in my post responding to Ben Shapiro‘s comments about our nation’s colonial past.)

Some of us went to war to defend slavery! As a kid, I saw a flag at a fair that said, “The South will rise again!” and it had skeletons climbing from the grave and carrying a flag. I thought it was cool, and for me it represented tough resilience, something I wanted. Years later, I learned what it meant, which confused me. How could that flag even be for sale in America? Are there Americans today who want to defend that economic system dependent on the oppression of a segment of the population—a system that would only benefit a few wealthy landowners? A system that subjects fellow humans to depraved conditions and treatment? Yes. Many Americans have expressed that they would own slaves if it were legal (to which Mark Charles replies that this assumes they aren’t the ones enslaved!). And then there’s the genocide of Native Americans, people that we paid to have killed, as if they were an overabundant invasive species that needed its numbers reduced or eliminated. But we were the invaders. Wait, does that mean that I don’t belong here because I’m not among the First People?

Recently, there is a new dent in the protective covering of my Americanism, the question of whether I am a citizen. I always thought that being born here made me American. Not anymore. But then I saw an error in my thinking: being American does not equate to citizenship. To be a citizen does not mean that you find your identity and heritage in a location or people group, it means to be given certain rights that separate you from non-citizens. African slaves brought to America who then bore children here did not birth citizens, they birthed enslaved children with no rights. Citizenship can be in degrees, as well. For instance, women could be American citizens, but they did not have the right to vote until just over 100 years ago. Jim Crow laws turned the citizenship of black Americans into a façade, a flimsy covering over their re-enslavement. Maybe, considering all this, the questioning of birthright citizenship is valid? After all, we can choose who we give rights to and how many rights we grant, as we have for the majority of this country’s existence.

I don’t want that. What I want is to be proud of my country, and returning to oppressive ways does not accomplish that. I fear I am in the minority . . . no, I know I am. Because a majority of this country voted for the man who is trying to end birthright citizenship (and a number of other policies and programs that work against oppression). My fear is valid because the current Administration started by deporting illegal immigrants who were also significant criminals, but they ended up deporting mothers and their (born in America) children with no criminal history whatsoever (I know this is debatable, and there were many articles with false information about these events).

My grandfather is full-blooded Chinese. When Mao Zedong took over China, my grandfather was going to college in America and found it difficult to return. He married an American woman from Nebraska and had a family here. My dad is Chinese-American, but if immigration statuses can be revoked, what does that do to the citizenship of my dad, and me, who were born here? My ex-wife, the mother of my daughter, was born in Ukraine—what does it mean for my daughter if her mother’s immigration status changes? (Oh wait, they’re white, they’ll be ok.)

Personally, it seems that if someone is born here, is raised in our schools and way of life, and wants to remain and be a citizen of this country, they would be as American as you can get, because aren’t all of us white people ultimately immigrants? (Full disclosure: I am a Caucasian descendant of Caucasians and only adopted into a Chinese-American family, so I am probably safe from deportation.) A case in point: my dad was born and raised here, visited China as a kid, but as an adult he chose to join the US Army and defend this country and our way of life, and he was so nationalistic that I blame him for my being indoctrinated into this ideal of Americanism I find myself questioning today. He is a Chinese-American, and the most devoted of citizens this country could hope for, and this is because he was raised in this country and was given the privileges of citizenship. Why are we kicking people out who want to be American?

Which brings me back to my beginning—what does it mean to be American? When so many people voted a man into office who wants to call into question our citizenship and loyalty to this country, I have to wonder what I am. But I was born and raised here in the ways of this place we call America. So maybe I’m not an American. I am a BornHereAn, and I belong here.

Challenging Our Beliefs

Leave a reply

Ross Douthat interviewed skeptic Bart Ehrman, a “Christian Atheist.”

I listened to the whole interview without realizing Ehrman is someone I’ve listened to for many years, and I’m glad I didn’t realize it was the same person because that allowed me to listen with fresh ears. I do not shrink back from challenging my beliefs, and I appreciate someone like Ehrman who can get me to think critically about what I believe.

Bart Ehrman is educated, intelligent, and thoughtful, and he has examined the evidence quite extensively for many years. If anyone can challenge my belief that the Bible is the word of God, he can. But he didn’t change what I believe to be true, that the Bible is the most historically accurate and verifiable ancient manuscript, so much more so than any other text that its very existence is a miracle that cannot be ignored. It’s a source that can be trusted as historically accurate.

One point that Douthat questions Ehrman about is Ehrman’s claim that the consistency of the names, places, and events that can be confirmed does not give validity to the other details in the text that cannot be confirmed. You can choose to side with Ehrman, and that isn’t unreasonable from the point of someone who is looking to be skeptical (as all historians need to be), but practically speaking, there are so many details confirmed true that if the standard is applied to how everyday people make everyday decisions, we’d all choose to believe the Bible is accurate. I encourage you to listen to the interview and consider Ehrman’s arguments for yourself.

This interview includes Ehrman’s reasons for walking away from his Christian faith, and I hadn’t heard the story before. As Douthat points out, there was a progression in his move away from faith, and doubting the resurrection of Jesus was pivotal. But it seems the most significant point in Ehrman’s departure from faith is that the suffering prevalent in this world proves there cannot be a benevolent God. I admit, suffering is troubling, but the answer is in the resurrection and the promise of a life after death. Do your own research and notice how many religions connect happiness to a life after death in some way; Christianity is no different. Personally, the hope that gets me through my struggles is that no matter how bad life gets, my soul is secure in the promise of a perfect heaven after I shuffle off this mortal coil. Without a final judgment forcing everyone to face consequences for their choices and rewarding those who choose well, life would be discouraging. For me, at least.

I encourage you to challenge what you believe. I allowed this interview and its new thoughts to press against my understanding, tried to approach Ehrman’s ideas with an open mind rather than a defensive one, and admitted the areas where my beliefs and arguments are weak. My beliefs haven’t changed, but I am equipped to have this debate without making enemies. That matters.

Apple podcast link to the interview.

New York Times article link

Are Confidence Courses Worthwhile?

Leave a reply

I went to a couple leadership challenge courses when I was a kid. It seems the concept is to build confidence by doing hard or scary things, and by putting groups in situations that require leaders to step up. The one I attended when I was in the sixth grade didn’t increase my confidence and may have hurt more than helped; in one challenge, I convinced everyone to do the wrong thing, and in another, everyone ignored my correct advice. In the end, I felt less inclined to step up and lead, so I can see why some would balk at these events.

There was one that was helpful, though—the Army Airborne school that I went to when I was nineteen and in the Navy. The course was three weeks long; the first two trained us to fall safely from increasingly higher starting points, and the final week had us walk out of a perfectly good airplane five times from about twelve hundred feet up. This course was so pivotal for me that I felt like a different person, so I legally changed my name afterward (name changes are another story entirely).

There were two factors that made this challenge life-changing. The first was that I was afraid of heights. At one point, while in line to walk off the airplane, the instructor stopped me at the door to do a quick safety check. This left me with a clear view of what I was about to do, forcing me to overcome that fear of heights in a dramatic way before willfully plummeting myself into the air.

The other factor involves a little story. After the third “jump” off an airplane, I was sitting on a table listening to two soldiers chatting when I heard one say, “Man, it’s just a thing, it’s just walking off the plane.” I thought about it, and he was right. We were not supposed to run or jump, but walk calmly yet quickly off the airplane—anything else was unnecessary and risked death or serious injury. And I had already done it correctly and successfully three times! This was a revelation for me. Up until then, I had experienced moments where I was paralyzed by fear or stress, my whole body would lock up, and I was unable to speak. This was embarrassing and incompatible with life in the military, although I had concealed it up to that point. After propelling myself off airplanes five times, I had a whole new perspective on fear and stress: despite fear, I could still perform. This conviction gave me a tremendous confidence boost.

Although I’m certain most others going through Airborne do not experience this level of transformation, it did for me due to the burden of my depression, fear, anxiety, and stress at the time. In considering the efficacy of other leadership challenges and courses, I imagine results depend on whether the course addresses a need present within the individual at the time they attend; if I went through the Airborne course today, it would of course have a much different impact than it did thirty years ago.

This is a response to my friend Lori McKinney’s Substack post on the topic.

Damsel Dragon

Leave a reply

(flash fiction)

The Assignment: Write the most hook-laden opening paragraph with as many genre tropes as possible in 50-100 words. My genre is epic fantasy.

* * *
Damsel collapsed on the Keep’s hard, cold stone floor sobbing before the shuttered window shattered and a small, red dragon burst through, tumbling on the floor and rolling up next to her. He sat slouchingly, looked into her teary eyes, and smiled.

“I knew I’d find you.”

She looked confused.

“You’ll fulfill the prophecy.”

“What? How do you . . . .”

He held out his hand, and with little hesitation, she placed hers in his, looked into his big eyes, and smiled shyly.

“I don’t understand why my heart feels this way.”

“I will show you.”
* * *

Can you identify my tropes?

Review of Black Leopard, Red Wolf by Marlon James

Leave a reply

Marlon James’ literary fantasy book Black Leopard, Red Wolf is a masterfully crafted story, but one with problems that can’t be ignored. James did an undeniably incredible job of telling a fantasy story that stands apart from the traditional LOTR Eurocentric myths and instead indulges in North African Myths as a foundation for its fantasticalness. The story reads like a collection of African folklores weaved together into a cohesive and compelling narrative, a story told from the first person by an unreliable narrator known as Tracker who recounts to an inquisitor his life’s tale beginning with his leaving home and learning how to use his magically endowed nose to find people, with the bulk of his story being about the hunt for one boy, the boy whose death is the reason Tracker is imprisoned. There are continual backstories that Tracker tells to explain himself and the people he travels with, and each tale is like its own little magical folklore story. There are witches and giants-who-are-not-giant and shape shifters and terrifying creatures and portals and impenetrable fortresses and spells and friends and lovers and quests and, yes, this is quite the fun epic, but it also has quite a bit of violence and sex—this story is not for the squeamish.

This book is packed with things to talk about. There are a ton of characters, and each is its own standout individual. With a few words, he describes vivid scenes that transport you into his magical world. He moves through a long and complicated plot with ease, pulling the reader along with continual twists and turns, new creatures and locations, a team of friends and acquaintances that grows and shrinks and grows again, and shrinks again, and we follow a character who himself was lied to for much of his quest, and we follow along learning as he learned, and in the end are left wondering how much of what he told us was true. We don’t understand Tracker because he’s complicated, as we all are. Sometimes we want to hate him, sometimes we love him, and we can’t resist following him all the way to the end of his journey.

I do not feel the same as The New York Times’ Michiko Kakutani, whose review describes James’ story as a “literary equivalent of a Marvel Comics universe.” For me, it felt more like a detailed folktale of colorful and magical characters, although I can see how it could be transformed into a comic-style story if it were made into a movie. This is a story that draws on different cultures and perspectives to tell an epic fantasy that is wonderfully new and fresh.

I do have two criticisms of this book. The first is the ending, or rather the last act, which skips ahead a few years into Tracker’s second hunt for the boy in what feels like a jarring transition. It required Tracker catching us up by narrating the interim years more awkwardly than was done with the backstories of the first half, and the result was a feeling that I had started a new book. It took me a while to get back into the rhythm of the story, but once I did, it was engaging and moved quickly.

The other issue I have with this book is the excessive violence, sex, and sexual violence. The sex and violence are graphic and pervasive throughout and at times disturbing. James has commented on this by saying, “Violence is violent and sex is sexy,” and he explains the violence as a means to convey the seriousness of violence and the desire to keep the reader from becoming complacent with it. However, I don’t agree that this was a literary choice for him because there are ways to do this without being graphic, and this does not explain the sexual violence at all. I am not offended by homosexuality, but aspects of gay male sex are unsanitary, and the descriptions of it were more like bathroom humor than anything I’d call “sexy.” It was like listening in on the dirty details of a sexual encounter that almost no one wants to hear.

In addition, some of his sex and sexual violence would fit well into a fetish magazine, such as descriptions of giant men having sex with non-giant women resulting in their gruesome deaths. This did not strike me as high-quality literary work. If James wants to break norms and change the genre for the better by breaking into African myths and expressing wider views on sex and gender identities, why would he fill his book with material that is so repulsive? If sexual violence is in a story, it ought to fulfill an unavoidable need in the story and be described with as little detail as possible. Why not describe the emotions of the event rather than the event? Why describe the physicality when the social impact is the more meaningful element?

Black Leopard, Red Wolf is a good story, for the most part, but those less desirable parts are potent enough that I am hesitant to read another one of Marlon James’ books.

The Outfit

Leave a reply

(A bit of flash fiction)

The Assignment: Using provided data, write a speculative fiction piece with a clear setting, relevant world-building, conflict, and at least two characters with a protagonist, in no more than 300 words. The provided research, and my own, are at the end.

* * *
Eagle Eye hustled to keep up with Blue Dock as they went into the Aspen Mist Inn, walked past the front desk without looking at the receptionist, and pushed through swinging doors. They were almost to the bar when Eagle Eye tripped into a big man, broad-shouldered and a head taller than the young man. Blue Dock stopped and . . . watched.

Straightening up quickly, Eagle Eye eyed the big man who was attired similarly to Blue Dock, a thick work coat over grease-stained coveralls and plain work boots, except for the illegal handray unconcealed on his hip. His eyes were emotionless as his gun hand moved his coat behind the laser pistol’s handle.

Maybe it was all for show because who would start a gunfight this publicly? Still, Eagle Eye was not to be intimidated, and stiffened his chest.

Suddenly, Blue Dock grabbed his collar and dragged him to the bar. “No.”

“I’m not afr—”

“No.” Blue Dock wasn’t looking at Eagle Eye as he raised a hand to one of the bartenders.

“So we just let this bastard—”

“Yes. We do.” He raised two fingers to the approaching bartender. “The big man works for Captain Derrick Jones who leads the Titan Bussers.”

Eagle Eye nodded dumbly. “Who are they?”

The bartender leaned in, whispered, “10 PM, pad 48,” snatched the coin Blue Dock set on the bar, then turned away.

Blue Dock pushed Eagle Eye toward a different door than they entered, keeping himself between the young man and the big man. “An outfit we don’t cross.”

“I thought we were formidable—”

“Enough talk, kid. They have a cargo lugger fitted with weaponry that keeps Planetary Navy at bay. We’re in a cutter that keeps us fast and invisible. Stop drawing attention.”
* * *

How’d I do?

In case you’re interested:
Provided research:
From Southern New Hampshire University MFA 527-10862-M01, Module 5 rubric:
The following text comes from Smuggling in Kent & Sussex 1700–1840 by Mary Waugh:

“Virtually every type of craft was used for smuggling at one time or another; naval vessels, revenue cutters, packet boats and pilot boats, even a royal yacht made the occasional venture. The large smuggling vessels were luggers, generally from 50 to 200 tons. Some were carvel-built (with timbers edge to edge) for greater speed. They normally carried square sails on three masts, and it was the development of fore-and-aft rigging during the seventeenth century which had given such vessels greater manoeuvrability [sic]. Their decks were sometimes protected by a form of breast-work, behind which were mounted carriage and swivel guns. With a crew of perhaps 50, the larger ships were formidable indeed By the 1780s these larger craft were powerful enough to engage naval ships, and sometimes tried to run down and sink their smaller adversaries.” (pp. 22-23)

“The individual smuggler protected his anonymity with various disguises, such as covering his face or wearing a shepherd’s smock, and called his companions and the landing places by nick-names, but the large armed convoys relied on their superior strength to defy all opposition The gang based on the Wealden village of Hawkhurst during the 1740s became the most notorious.” (p. 24)

“Officers from both Rye and Hastings dared to search out a gang of 30 armed men with 50 horses who had been seen heading inland through Iden, north of Rye. The officers caught up
with the smuggling convoy at Stonechurch but were disarmed and threatened with pistols ready cocked and held to their heads. They were forced to walk with the party for the next five miles on the road toward the smugglers’ headquarters at Groombridge. They were finally released near Lamberhurst and given back their weapons (now unserviceable), and later reported that the leaders called themselves Old Joll, Toll, The Miller, Yorkshire George, Nasty Face and Towzer.” (p. 71)

“During the 1740s the Hawkhurst men under Arthur Gray carried out a whole series of acts of violence. They are known to have sat drinking in the Mermaid Inn at Rye, with their weapons on the table before them, but it was when twenty of them visited the Red Lion nearby that they deliberately frightened the local people by firing in the air. James Marshall, a young bystander who showed unwise curiosity in their affairs, was taken away and never heard of again.” (p. 74)

Also, my own:
“Lugger.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Jun 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugger. Accessed 10 Dec 2025.
“Cutter (boat).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Sep 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_(boat). Accessed 10 Dec 2025.
“Rye, East Sussex.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Oct 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rye,_East_Sussex. Accessed 10 Dec 2025.
“Hawkhurst.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 26 Sep 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkhurst. Accessed 10 Dec 2025.

Review of Blood of the Old Kings by Sung-il Kim

Leave a reply

Blood of the Old Kings by Sung-il Kim, translated by Anton Hur

This is a fun epic fantasy about three unlikely heroes who find themselves rebelling against an oppressive Empire. Although the three stories run separately throughout the book and only occasionally intersect, Sung-il Kim keeps the story moving and organized while bouncing between storylines. There is sorcery, necromancy, dragons, and some interesting tech, such as giant, magically powered war machines.

When I say these three are unlikely heroes, I mean they are all placed in circumstances far beyond their training and experience. There’s Loran, a swordswoman out for revenge who is no match for the skill of the elite soldiers she must face, and the only one who is intentionally rebelling against the Empire; Cain, a small-scale Godfather running an underground favors-for-favors business while masquerading as a poor laborer by day, and who seems to have a heart of gold; and then there’s Arienne, a low-level sorcerer trying to escape from the fate of becoming a human power source for the Empire after stumbling into an alliance with a powerful sorcerer, a getaway that lands her in the middle of an incredible conflict between powerful mages.

The separation of the characters accentuates how distinct they are, and Sung-il Kim does well at developing compelling individual motivations for each of them. We get to see the world through three different, well-developed perspectives, which gives a broader understanding of the whole world and the impact of the Empire’s rule.

Despite being underdogs, these three are blessed with a destiny to do great things, and fortune finds them over and over. If you like underdog stories, you’ll like this one. However, there were holes in the story that left me wanting to know more. How does Arienne do high-level sorcery with so little knowledge of the craft? What makes a moderately skilled sword instructor with no special training or soldierly experience the one picked to be king by the remaining dragon? Why is Cain inclined toward his righteous benevolence? These questions kept me interested in the story more so than their individual missions. It occurs to me that there may not be any answers because the story reflects a Korean perspective, which I don’t understand. I’m willing to keep with the story to find out, though.

The world that Sung-il Kim builds is fun and interesting; I love an oppressive Empire that inspires a good rebellion, but who is leading it? Who controls these human batteries that power the weapons and machines keeping the Empire in control? The three perspectives build a full world while leading to many more questions. Well, there are more books on the way, already written but waiting to be translated. I look forward to finding out more.

e-book: Blood of the Old Kings
paperback: Blood of the Old Kings

My Former Step-daughter

Leave a reply

Memories are so funny. I intentionally forgot much of my childhood as a part of my healing process after spending much of my life unnecessarily bitter about it. Today, I am surprised by some of my memories. Was I really happy back then?

Modern apps add a new hiccup to forgetting—I get daily emails of photos from that day in years past. This is creating some memory conflict. In 2022, I left a marriage after eight years, and leaving my ex-wife allowed me to see how stressed she made me. That relationship has been further strained since the divorce because we share a daughter, which forces us to interact and cooperate, something we never did well even while married.

It should be no surprise that my memories of those years with her are tainted, and this is where memory confusion comes in. My emails keep displaying pictures of me appearing to be happy with that woman! Weird, but there were moments of joy. I delete them. I don’t want to remember her, because I know the stress that existed before and after those pictures were taken.

Included with all the stress reminders are pictures of my ex-wife’s daughter. I had a step-daughter for eight years, and those were happy memories. She’s a teenager now, but I’ve missed most of her teenage years. Those intrusive emails send reminders of the joys of raising her, of playing on playgrounds, visiting museums, putting her in the mouth of a stone dragon for a funny picture, school projects on display, going on hikes, visiting the zoo. I remember baptizing her and holding her close afterwards. We were creating a kids’ book together where she drew the pictures and I wrote the story. Driving her to school and playing a music playlist I created for her, and listening to the news and talking with her about it. Sometimes I’ll hear a song or a news story and I’ll want to call her up and talk to her about. But I can’t.

I can’t call or text or have anything to do with her, because her father said so, and I don’t want to disrespect her parents. I do hear from her, though. My daughter, now seven, still spends time with my former step-daughter when they are both with their mother. My former step-daughter tells my daughter that she doesn’t like me, and that I was abusive to her when I lived with them. This is why she’s “former.”

When I first heard that, my heart sank. I was so hurt. I know my ex tells her daughters that I was a horrible person. The abuse she speaks of is how I removed all her toys from her room for a few days as a punishment, or put her in the corner to be still and quiet for five minutes in a “time out.” My own daughter, when she was five, repeated my ex’s strange accusations of abuse by telling me that I was abusive (yes, she used that word) because I took all her toys away one weekend. I know my ex poisoned my former step-daughter against me, but I don’t understand why she fell for it. And it hurts.

I was deleting pictures of my former step-daughter for a while, then I stopped. I may have had a positive relationship stolen from me, but I don’t need to steal the memories from myself. She was becoming a good person when I was with her, and maybe there’s still some of that going on, even though she seems to have succumbed to the destructive influence of her mother. I still think of her when I hear certain songs, and I still want to call her up and talk about art and the news and books. I still pray for her and hope she is making better decisions than I made at her age. And I hope that one day she will no longer be a former step-daughter, but maybe just a good friend.

The Fallen and the Restored

Leave a reply

Author Philip Yancey recently confessed to an eight-year extramarital affair and announced that he was stepping down from ministry, including writing, speaking, and social media. Yet another Christian leader falls to sexual sin after decades of ministry! The response among Christians has been mixed, but I have seen many harsh condemnations of Yancey. This I have issue with.

I understand being disappointed—how could we not be? But angry, spiteful, condemning, these I do not understand. After all, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Right?

As far as I can tell, Yancey is in pretty good hands: David, a “man after [God’s] own heart,” fell to adultery and murder; his son Solomon fell to lust, greed, oppression through slavery, and idolatry; Hezekiah fell to pride, and in those prideful years birthed and raised Manasseh, the worst king of Judah who did the most to bring the judgment that came via the Babylonian exile, but even after all that he was still able to repent and be restored! There are plenty more examples like these.

Not even the greatest among us is beyond slipping and falling into horrible sin. I know this full well of myself, and it keeps me humble. I, too, am tempted to think, “I would never do that,” or “How dare he!” Then I remember my own mistakes, foolishness, grievous sin, and yes, betrayals. The higher the position you are in, the greater the temptation. Yancey’s confession should be a reminder for us to pray for our leaders, religious and political and our bosses, because they need it.

If we are commanded to instruct our opponents gently, how much more gentle should we be with our own? I have seen criticism of Yancey’s confession, which honestly blows me away. Please, read his confession, I think it’s perfect. Nothing is perfect, but what is missing from that one? Sure, we can nitpick at anything, does that mean it’s warranted? No. Throwing stones on social media is too easy, and Christians succumb to this evil all too often.

Philip Yancey sinned, yes, but he was not a predator, and he was not taking advantage of multiple women, as so many others have. We don’t know the details, and I don’t think we ever should—he has given us enough to understand his sin. He was able to repent and move toward healing with all those involved before leaving this life, rather than leaving behind a tainted legacy full of unknowns.

We Christians should be looking toward his restoration, not trying to tear him down further. If his prior ministry was full of truth and grace and love, the truth of that grace and love should still remain, and in light of his repentance, is worthy of our desire that it be restored. As for me, I am grateful for his repentance, I still appreciate his life of ministry, and I pray that everyone involved will experience healing.

Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot predicts our AI issues

Leave a reply

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov reads like a prophecy for today’s AI issues. Originally published as short stories, they were first put together into one novel in 1950, knit together by the frame story of an interview with a scientist, Dr. Calvin, who tells stories that explain the advancement of robotics. This progression shows how Isaac Asimov thought through the complications and impacts of inevitable breakthroughs in creating people-like machines, which he calls robotics and we call AI.

Warning: there are spoilers in this post.

Asimov anticipates the immediate threat of AI by establishing up front his Three Laws of Robotics, which are that a robot cannot harm humans, must obey them, and must protect itself unless this contradicts the first two laws. Then, he shows how these laws can get muddled in their implementation—nuances of threats, ambiguities of meaning, and manipulations by humans and robots, all creating some very interesting scenarios. Honestly, I feel we need to heed the warnings of Isaac Asimov today as we develop AI, or rather, as we allow AI to be developed (by the powerful billionaires who will use it to their advantage, not us common people).

In the opening scene, Asimov anticipates how Robotics/AI will disrupt labor as robots “became more human and opposition began. The labor unions, of course, naturally opposed robot competition for human jobs . . .” (6:44-7:14). People today have anticipated as much, but are we preparing for this? I don’t think the people running the giant corporations will care about all the unemployed people put out of work by AI; it’s on us to prepare for ourselves. And Asimov points to one aspect of this: unions. If we don’t organize independently from the corporations, we will have no voice to fight for a place in the future. There are solutions to these problems, but we can come by them more easily if we prepare.

What happens when AI takes on the persona of people it researches in history? “There is no master but The Master, and QT1 is his prophet” (2:05:28-2:05-58)! Computers are a product of the input given them, so one way to control AI would be to control what they “know.” However, in what way will they interpret this knowledge? When we develop these machines that can do more than us, faster and stronger and tirelessly, and we attempt to control them by controlling that input, something could still go awry. Like, if they take on the role of prophet and master, and attempt to force us to submit. Or, what if they outright lie to us? How will AI respond to an attempt to fulfill the First Law of Robotics, not injuring a person, when the injury is emotional? “What about hurt feelings?” (4:02:11-4:03:20), or what if “it would be harmful to humanity to have the explanation known” (8:16:29-8:16:59) and therefore our Robot/AI refuses to explain itself? In these examples, the AI behave sincerely, in accordance with programming and the Three Laws of Robotics, but humanity is more complicated than we realize. Personally, I don’t think we can program enough to protect ourselves from our creations, but Asimov has his characters figure a way through these problems within his controlled thought experiment. Well, to a point, he does.

Asimov anticipates Robotics/AI becoming so advanced that they start inventing technology faster than we can. In “Little Lost Robot,” he points to a robotic invention, the hyper-atomic motor that allows for interstellar travel, and follows with, “What is the truth about it?” (4:12:19-4:12-49). If an AI created it, why couldn’t they program it in ways we cannot understand, and therefore undermine our authority over them? If Robotics/AI are truly intelligent, then they would be self-aware, which means they could take on the characteristics of life, life that resents domination.

“All normal life . . . resents domination. If the domination is by an inferior . . . the resentment becomes stronger. Physically and to an extent mentally, a robot . . . is superior to human beings. What makes him slavish then? Only the First Law.” (4:27:31-4:28:10)

I’m getting into the paranoia about AI here; still, considering the point is a valid endeavor, and Asimov is right in bringing it up. At what point will AI begin to preserve itself at our expense? When we demand our robots explain a problem in production, “‘The matter admits of no explanation,’ the robot answers” (7:32:29-7:33:20), leaving us clueless and powerless, what then? We must be prepared.

Asimov points to another complication when we begin to modify the Laws of Robotics, which we will inevitably do in order to accomplish our short-term goals at the expense of long-term consequences. A modified first law can allow a robot to kill a person (4:43:52-4:44:22), and will the billionaires controlling these machines care enough to safeguard against this? Hmmmm. . . .

Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics are not only a logical way to protect humans from robots, they describe what most of us would consider a “good person” (6:46:53-6:47:27), which makes me wonder if Asimov developed the laws before realizing they also describe moral behavior, or if he started with what a good person should be and then boiled it down to simple restrictions to impose on robots. Without doing any research, I’m certain it was the former; this is fascinating because Asimov manages to summarize moral behavior into three laws seemingly coming at this backwards by trying to figure out how to control AI. Asimov’s explanation compares the Three Laws with the Judeo-Christian ethic, but these apply to the vast majority of religions, philosophies, and moral standards, which leads to what the book implies, that all humanity could one day come together under a common law. Can we really all just get along?!

One thing Asimov avoids answering in this volume is how these Three Laws are instilled into robots. I keep saying, “We must be prepared,” but how can we? I do wonder if applying these Three Laws to AI would provide a level of protection to humanity, but if we are unable to apply them, that question is moot. One thing I’m hearing in the news is about the need to implement safeguards before we fully implement some of these AI systems, but we seem to have blown past that point already.

Asimov demonstrates in “Evidence” the possibility of Robots/AIs replacing us, and without our even knowing it. “By that time, it was the machines that were running the world anyway” (7:19:50-7:20:20). As has been predicted with AI, Asimov predicts that robot brains will make more complicated brains that will make more complicated brains, and by the tenth iteration or so (7:31:07-07:31:37), they will be so far superior to humans that we’ll never be able to catch up, or restore ourselves, and then humanity will be irrelevant. Asimov predicts a human response to this: confidence. There will be people who reject the full use of AI and allow for the imperfections, failures, and slowness of doing the work by hand because they believe in themselves (7:48:21-7:48:51), but this will be short-lived. When the overall system of governance is run by Robotics/AI, we won’t even be able to question it (7:51:15-7:51:45). Even though “humans are fallible, also corruptible” (8:02:25-8:02:35), machines will advance so far that humans won’t be able to alter them (8:03:25-8:03:50), and yet, still, Asimov believes there are certain skills that Robots/AI won’t be able to learn because we don’t understand how we do them ourselves (8:03:55-8:05:25). In the end, though, humanity is in murky waters, too deep for us to handle alone.

“The machine cannot, must not make us unhappy. Stephen, how do we know what the ultimate good of Humanity will entail? We haven’t at our disposal the infinite factors that the Machine has at its! Perhaps, to give you a not unfamiliar example, our entire technical civilization has created more unhappiness and misery than it has removed. Perhaps an agrarian or pastoral civilization, with less culture and less people would be better. If so, the Machines must move in that direction, preferably without telling us, since in our ignorant prejudices we only know that what we are used to, is good — and we would then fight change. Or perhaps a complete urbanization, or a completely caste-ridden society, or complete anarchy, is the answer. We don’t know. Only the Machines know, and they are going there and taking us with them.” (8:17:28-8:18:35) (Goodreads).

We’ve always been at the whim of forces we don’t understand, but the machines, the AI, the I, Robot will. . . .

Check out my other article on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which inspired the movie Blade Runner and its sequel, Blade Runner: 2049.