The Terminator

The Terminator is an example of a movie that is brilliantly written and made but lacks a brilliant critique or satirization of society. It’s the originator of the “Skynet” trope, although arguably Hal-9000 of 2001, which was released sixteen years beforehand beat it in having an ingenious emotionally devoid technological antagonist vying for the death of our protagonists. The problems with this trope is it provides no content to cause internal reflection on our lives or something realistic to prevent in the future. Should we really not use computers or play Gameboys to prevent killer robots or nuclear Armageddon? This is a notion that might seem hyperbolic fear-mongering even to Alex Jones.
It's always been my contention that death is not to be feared, and it is the content of our lives, either from a Utilitarian or non-Utilitarian perspective that deserves attention. If this is so, then it’s not films with Michael Myers-esque boogey men that we should turn to for criticism of technology, though these films can certainly be competent ones that are both entertaining and provide examples of rich and well-developed characters, but films like Disney’s Wall-E. Though a children’s film, it shows a future where technology doesn’t go awry and fail in its intended purpose but one where it succeeds. This is more intelligent both in the sense of showing the nature of a thing, not it’s perversion, and in showing what technology can do to our humanity, not just massacre us with AK-47’s which are ultimately nothing more than more efficient and versatile versions of the weapons mankind has used on one another since our inception.
A film is always better if it shows us a shadow-side of what we want rather than simply a nightmarish depiction of what we all fear. What has more satiric value: a society where thuggish men in a Mad Max-esque future swing baseball bats and safety and routine entertainment is a thing of the past; or a future where we all have the security and regular feelings of satisfaction we all crave but in a way that we find lacking or disturbing? Clearly the latter, if we want to use fiction to criticize certain political or cultural aspects of our society whether it be technology, Capitalism, religion, addiction, entertainment or anything else.
There’s a surprisingly low amount of films that criticize technology the way Wall-E, celebrating its tenth anniversary, does. The closest thing is movies like Total Recall or The Matrix which imply technology can deceive us of things. This is something that a Rousseau would like (“nature never deceives us; we deceive only ourselves”) when a Plato, Descartes or Hume would acknowledge we are fundamentally born in an epistemologically erroneous position and technology has little, if anything, to do with it. Technology can put us into a “Matrix” but we could also be born in one which technology illuminates the fog of somehow.
There are also movies like Meet the Robinsons where a power-hungry bowler cap seeks mass mind control of humanity, but this seems again to be akin to the Terminator. One could argue since we are not killed but turned into the hat’s slaves this is analogous to contemporary society but since the humans lose all volition it doesn’t seem to be a good analogy of people becoming either miserable or a lesser version of themselves through technology. The characters have to remain intact, but as degraded in some form, otherwise in effect the characters are zombies and like zombies don’t have an individuality to suffer the repercussions of any dystopic future upon. One could argue this too is nightmarish or not desirable, but without a mind to suffer I’m left unmotivated and unmoved, referring again to my earlier statement about death (mental as well as biological) not being something to fear. To quote Epicurus, “When death has come, we are not; when we are, death has not come,” and to reference Locke, when memories of one’s life are erased, any punishment or suffering from said life is made meaningless.
Our relationship with technology is one of the few indisputably changing things in our lives and it deserves far greater attention. If we should examine what the good life is, and if the good life consists of what we do every day, then it’s indisputable that the use of smartscreen technology deserves consideration since it is something which is used on a daily basis. It’s my contention that these forms of technology are more of a detriment than an improvement in our lives. They too easily and quickly satisfy our desires; and Schopenhauer and Augustine will tell you that when a desire is met it isn’t eternally evaporated but is quickly met with another desire.
Technology can and will be used in other capacities. What is needed is a reformation where the aim of society is not to enrich the few or to satisfy ourselves but to live to some sense of purpose, arguably that of alleviating the suffering of others. Otherwise the “good life” that technology will bring us, through our own intentions, will only ever be a life focused on hedonic impulses which is not sustainable and will be another variable in the ensuing societal collapse. Only we will not have Skynet to contend with, only each other and the memories of our poor choices.