Life or Machines?

Loren Eisley, author of The Bird and the Machine, believes in life. Machines evoke less wonder, he says, because they can only change when a human changes it first. But all forms of life, from birds to humans, are unpredictable and therefore have incredibly more power and potential. Birds, like all life forms, yearn to be free and unrestrained by society. They are able to. But, what Eisley argues is the main difference between life and machines, forms of technology like computers and robots have no desire to be free. Because they have no spark. No passion for change and never knowing what will happen to himself next. That excitement for change, which resides in every being, cannot be in computers.

The discovery of the cell changed a generation's way of thinking. Before, when the cell remained unknown, "man, whether he was conceived as possessing a soul or not, moved and jerked about like these tiny puppets. A human being thought of himself in terms of his own tools and implements. He had been fashioned like the puppets he produced and was only a more clever model made by a greater designer" (Eisley 602). Science's effect on this issue completely changed a common thought. When the cell was discovered, it restored a sense of wonder. The fact that scientists didn't know everything about the cell excited them all the more. With a machine, there is little wonder to be found because it is man-made.

So, life or machines? Eisley says life. Many respected others say machines. If you have a wager, leave your response in the comments section.