“Other computers are just pocket calculators by comparison,” –Miles Bennett Dyson
For the uninitiated…
This gritty sci-fi series explores a world where the latest in high-tech gadgetry is a ‘Synth’ – a ro(bot)ic servant whose outward appearance is made so eerily similar to humans it’s transforming, for better or worse, the way we live. It’s like the Spielberg movie A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) was turned into a series except no cross-over characters, thankfully; however, there is some (unrelated) bleed-over from AI: William Hurt (Michael, The Good Shepherd) who played Professor Hobby plays a pivotal character, Dr. George Millican, from the first season.
Now that you’re caught up…
Before we begin this journey of both praise and criticism of Humans I would just like to point out that at the end of the day all computing devices are only number crunchers regardless of how sophisticated their developer make them; there’s far more to being human, and the human experience, than 0s and 1s. Furthermore, here’s something to think about: in terms of biology is there that much difference between a heterosexual couple wherein one is completely barren, a homosexual couple, and a human in an emotionally and physical relationship with a bot? I don’t see much.
The second season kicks off with the original five prototype synths down to four. Niska, played by Emily Barrington (24: Live Another Day, The Last Showing), has fled to Berlin and trying to blend in there after being sought for murder from the first season at the brothel; Mia aka Anita played by Gemma Chan (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, Bedlam) has taken work in a cafe under her Anita alias; Max, played by Ivanno Jeremiah (The Veteran, The Jury), and Leo, played by Colin Morgan (Merlin, Legend), are hiding out in the country while many synths are sporadically “waking up” from the consciousness code Niska uploaded in the first episode of season two, and one of these newly “awakened” synths is the ruthless Hester played by Sonya Cassidy (Breaking the Bank, Ripper Street).
Hester is easily the most intriguing character in season two. She’s the most murderous, and her rationale is so logical it’s the most horrific “right-back-at-ya” in terms of mankind’s own history for using violence to push any amount of civil rights in a society. Her character leaves me wondering what influences the behavioral preferences you see between the synths. Why is Hester more malevolent than any of the others? The show doesn’t explore the nature of the “consciousness” algorithm, which makes for one of its weaker points to this mad scientist. What it does suggest is a clear distinction between simulated consciousness (sentience) and legitimate sentience; again, back to Siri, you could easily ask questions that can be answered in a logical fashion, but, “how was your day, sweetie?” won’t compute. On the other side of the behavioral coin from Hester is Odi from season one played by Will Tudor (Game of Thrones, Mr Selfridge).
Odi is also a conundrum for the same reason as Hester, only instead of being so inclined to shut humans down he is content in a servant’s role. Recovered from a scrapyard by Mattie Hawkins, played by Lucy Carless (Suspects, Cuffs), Odi starts out as her little experiment; once he auto-downloads the sentience algorithm he is at a loss for what to do with himself — how human! Nearer the end of the season he seeks a similar kind of life guidance that Niska confides to Astrid she was also seeking. I find it interesting he went to a church for counsel; it leaves one to wonder if the emotional comfort churches seem to offer so many couldn’t also be of use to a logic machine? The answer is no, but it’s interesting to contemplate just the same. Take that same proposition of a synth in a church, but change the place and call the synth a marriage counselor. Could that work?
In a manner of speaking it does at least for this show. Laura (mom) and Joe (dad) Hawkins, played by Katherine Parkinson (The IT Crowd, Pirate Radio) and Tom Goodwin-Hill (Mr Selfridge, Everest), are having some marital trouble that began in the first season when daddy got it on with the bot. My first impression of someone making their move with a bot was to wonder how is that any different than being with a blowup doll with a Siri-like box built into the head? Apart from figuring out whether said act was either immoral and/or an act of infidelity there is still an underlying question: what of the disconnect such an act illustrates? Fortunately, the synth shrink is able to get Joe to better explain why he cheated in the first place, and his is a common-enough explanation that it’s really the Mrs’ absence that sparked his action. Maybe it was a touch of karma for Joe that since he decided to try an extramarital affair with a synth that he would be made redundant at work in a similar fashion; in fact his job was akin to the sort of jobs Amazon has pushed over to bots as well. This brings up yet another fundamental question getting raised more and more in our present society: when is it acceptable to replace a human with a bot in a given job? Sure there are jobs simply too dangerous or better requiring machine precision such as the examples in the show: Hester was an industrial bot who was seen transporting very volatile chemicals about; then there was “10” who fled a mine in Bolivia upon “waking up.” Which jobs are better for humans? Here’s a hint: any job that requires a creative consciousness.
In the vein of considering where being a human is better than being a bot there are numerous instances where children and even young teens demonstrate disassociative behavior: the middle Hawkins child Toby, played by Theo Stevenson (Horrid Henry: The Movie, Millie Inbetween), makes a new friend at school Renie, played by Letitia Wright (My Brother the Devil, Urban Hymn). Renie is a teen whose parents have split, and she spends so much time on her own that she finds a certain solace in adopting the cold and distant behavior synonymous with synths. Upon watching her in a school environment it’s clear she isn’t really a synth – synth’s don’t require a school to obtain their information. Nevertheless it is overheard from some other students nearer Toby that when a person wishes to adopt a more synth lifestyle it has to be respected. I only halfway agree with that… the individual should always be treated with respect that’s a constant, but if you truly respect someone else you should have the courage to courteously question their decisions, especially if their new-found “lifestyle” could possibly lead to any amount of self-destruction. That’s real respect. Renie isn’t the only one experiencing the disassociation – the youngest Hawkins child Sophie, played by Pixie Davies (Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, Out of the Dark), from the start of season one shows the kind of immediate bonding we see from children who get excited about a new teddy bear when Joe Hawkins brings home Mia/Anita for the first time.
For the youngest, and thus most fragile, developmental mind of the show it came as little surprise if not in fact almost predictable that Sophie’s highly impressionable mind would also find a similar solace in emulating Mia/Anita’s colder and more distant persona. Bots don’t judge in the way we cruel humans are known to so Sophie can be as much herself as she wants without fear of criticism or being treated like a child. One of my favorite parts of season two was when Toby has Sophie and Renie sit with each other; Toby wants Renie to establish to Sophie that being a synth as opposed to a human is not a good idea, but Renie isn’t there. It is Sophie, whose own misplaced judgment about the virtues of being without emotion or sensation feels so much better that it convinces Renie that being a synth isn’t as rewarding as it seems. It’s true that non-sentient synths don’t feel hurt when left alone, nor are they judged in the same harshness that humans are known for, and the obligations of being human are lessened. In short Sophie, like Renie, is tired of feeling alone and sort of abandoned. Listening to Sophie’s analysis of the strengths of wanting to behave like a synth tells Renie it just isn’t as fulfilling to be something you’re not. Getting to be human is the reward, being a synth would be a demotion of self.
Another fantastic example of the disconnect in humans for non-human companionship is the relationship that forms between Peter Drummond who’s played by Neil Maskell (Open Windows, Utopia) and his partner Karen Voss played by Ruth Bradley (Flyboys, Pursuit). From back in season one they were mere partners in law enforcement. It wasn’t until season two that Drummond learns she’s a synth and still continues to pursue a romantic relationship with her all the same. It’s fitting his character should fall for a synth since the woman he was married to in season one leaves him for the physical therapist synth she started getting soft for. There’s something in the story line that leaves me unsure whether the writers are at fault, or if the story is just meant to be this contemplative; but at the end of the day the sheer difference between humans and synths where romantic affairs are concerned is one of biology. As we are byproducts of our genetics, and synths are by products of our innovations there is no drive to spread one’s genetic information to their partner as humans and all sexual creatures yearn to do. That’s one of the many flaws of being a synth/bot; there is no genetic drive to be beyond the coding in their circuitry; sure they can mimic our behavior all day long, but they cannot contribute to the human gene-pool.
One last bit of the show that starts to touch on a greater consciousness, but more at the emotional level than the genetic one. Dr. Athena Morrow played by The Matrix hottie Carrie-Anne Moss (Memento, Disturbia) is the US side of the sentience race. Working with a handful or neural networks she has uploaded the digitized memories of her late daughter Vivian to a sentience she calls V. When the billionaire CEO of an allegorical Google firm, in this case known as Qualia, commissions her to study the latest consciousness software package that’s been otherwise nominally functioning synths go “haywire” for the past few months Dr. Morrow attempts to take the promised resources into her own hands by transferring V’s consciousness into one of the synths that has already gained “awakening.” Just like with her human peers Dr. Morrow learns that in order for her project V to truly learn and grow Morrow will have to “set her free” from beyond the confines of Qualia’s servers to the internet-at-large.
It was hard not giving this show a 10, but alas it is not without its shortcomings. In the same way that I scoffed over Independence Day suggesting a Mac would naturally interface without a compatibility hitch with ETI Alienware (for you gamers), and the way the computers running the unrealistic GUI Unix interface nearer the end of Jurassic Park I was not fond of how the art department made the sentience algorithm have morphing properties to it upon execution in this show. I realize many people want to see computer code do some really neat stuff, but if you’re looking at the genetics of computer code the lines no more morph upon getting executed than does DNA do any kind of funky morphing when being examined by a gene sequencer.
There was also the part where Mattie Hawkins is actually able to complete the sentience algorithm, which was deemed incomplete by the conclusion of the first season. She goes from a pretty decent hacker to a consummate developer in a matter of months. *cough* Bullshit!!! *cough* To quote the character of Dr. Millican from season one, “They were able to reduce consciousness down to 17,000 pages of code?” I hope you caught his title.
Between the wonderful questions the show raises on the importance of understanding our humanity and what makes us superior to our brain-children (computers), whether or not there are appropriate relationships humans should be allowed to pursue with non-human entities, and at what point it is downright inappropriate to replace a human with a bot this show does a phenomenal job on illustrating the potential dangers in the attachments we make with our digital tech as opposed to each other.
