Then I judge them like fantasy not science fiction. Sort of like comic book movies and Star Wars movies. You have to have some actual science to call it science fiction. The one who use bad science bother me more than the ones who use not science at all. Matrix is a great example of one that uses very bad science, the idea that you could use human as batteries is not only stupid it is lazy.
...and the Matrix is a good example. I could theoretically accept as a fantasy premise that humans could be used as batteries, even though I know the idea is scientifically bunk, but I can't accept that AND ignore the fact that if the AIs could use organic creatures as batteries, they would have a lot less trouble using cattle or lobotomized humans as batteries. Or just simulate a 'Matrix' set in the year 1600 so your human subjects have no way to escape or cause trouble.
There are ways you could make sense of the Matrix if you try. (Doing so is of course absurd.)
For example perhaps the machines thought it was their "duty" to preserve human kind if it was possible for human kind was their creators even if they were a "bad dad / bad mom." Thus they set up the Matrix for multiple goals and not a single goal. It is a battery source of energy, but also an old folks home for your parents you do not really want to visit but you want them to be happy (aka humans were in a nature preserve / zoo), so on and so on.
Of course I think do this is absurd for if you look at the Matrix and its inspiration with The Wachowskis creators, well they are borrowing from multiple sources. It is the Descarte's Evil Demon thought experience, plus Gnosticism, plus Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, plus Ghost in the Shell, and so on and so on. It was just throwing multiple color paints onto a wall like it Jackson Pollock painting.
Sometimes it worked well if you just turned your brain off (Matrix 1 and some of the Animatri
and sometimes it was just a mess that could have been better (Matrix 2 and 3.)
- 16/12/2018 04:06:29 AM
225 Views