This paper investigates the representation of robots in literature and media rather than focusing on robots as technological threats. By establishing clear definitions of "robot," "human," and "technology," the paper examines how these beings are depicted in canonical works such as E.M. Forster's "The Machine Stops" and Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" The analysis explores whether robots themselves pose a problem or whether human attitudes toward advancing technology are the real issue at stake. The paper questions whether humanity stands in the way of technological evolution or whether we need to reconsider our relationship with the machines we create.
Robots are everywhere nowadays, and it is hard to imagine our lives without them from one moment to the next. They assist us in numerous ways: they defuse bombs, they enable incredibly complicated operations in hospitals, they drive our cars, and now Amazon delivers packages via drones that fly right to our doorstep. Even the smartphone in your pocket could be considered a robot, thanks to its vast abilities and its enhancement of everyday life.
Robots make everything easier for us, and while they perform our labor, humans slowly step aside. We gladly accept every new technology granted to us—whether it is higher resolution for our smartphone, a mobile application that orders pizza, or something else entirely "useful" that allows us to do less. But where is the line drawn between what is convenient and what causes us to slowly degenerate? Who is to blame when a robot fails at its job? The creator or the creation? There are many questions to be answered in this relationship.
People tend to be quite lazy, so when will the day come when we have lost all our physical capability and fail to get up while robots take over? What exactly makes a robot a robot? What is an android? There are many different kinds depicted in literature and television, so how can we identify them?
This research paper will not focus on the robot itself or how much of a threat it truly is, but rather on its representation in literature and media. To do this, however, I must define what I am discussing. I will extract three crucial definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary to establish our shared understanding:
OED entry for "robot": "Chiefly Science Fiction. An intelligent artificial being typically made of metal and resembling in some way a human or other animal. Originally with reference to the mass-produced workers in Karel ÄŚapek's play R.U.R.: Rossum's Universal Robots (1920) which are assembled from artificially synthesized organic material."
OED entry for "human": "Of the nature of the human race; that is a human, or consists of human beings; belonging to the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo."
OED entry for "technology": "The branch of knowledge dealing with the mechanical arts and applied sciences; the study of this."
Now that this terminology is clear, we are able to recognize robots when we encounter them in texts and media. But are robots really a problem, or is something else at stake? Are humans and their attitudes toward robots and advancing technology the real problem in this conflict, or do we simply stand in the way of evolution—with robots destined to succeed us as kings and emperors did in earlier centuries?
The depiction of robots and artificial beings in literature provides crucial insight into how different authors grapple with questions of creation, consciousness, and human obsolescence. E.M. Forster's "The Machine Stops" presents a world in which humanity has become entirely dependent on technology, exploring the consequences of surrendering autonomy to mechanical systems. Similarly, Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? interrogates the boundary between human and artificial intelligence, asking whether androids possess consciousness or merely simulate it convincingly.
These works demonstrate that the representation of robots in literature is not simply about depicting futuristic machines. Instead, robots function as mirrors for examining human values, fears, and dependencies. The way authors choose to portray artificial beings reveals their underlying assumptions about what makes something—or someone—truly alive.
The central tension in discussions of robots and artificial intelligence often centers not on the machines themselves but on human behavior and psychology. Our inherent laziness, our desire for convenience, and our rapid adoption of new technologies all shape how we interact with increasingly sophisticated machines. Each innovation promises to free us from labor, yet each also creates new forms of dependency.
This dynamic raises an important question: Are robots the threat, or is our own willingness to abdicate responsibility and capability the real concern? The representation of this relationship in media and literature often suggests that humans are far more culpable in any future "takeover" scenario than robots themselves. We create the conditions for our own displacement through our choices and values.
"Reframing the problem from robots to humans"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.