Talk:Isaac Asimov

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


The article says "He considered himself a rationalist and humanist" but note how Asimov was a racial realist who published two scientific books on the existence of human races. I guess as rational wiki is owned by race denier anti-scientific loons that you choose to leave this out? It is rational to claim races are real, it is only modern day pc that has ruined everything sadly! (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is practically a stub. If it's true he supported that crap, it might be appropriate to mention it. The fact that "race realism" is crap, on the other hand, has nothing to do with this article and should probably be redirected here or here. (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean like Races and People with William C. Boyd that actually attacks the notion of "race" as a hard-and-fast category as used by racists "racial realists"? Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 11:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Lmao, Armondikov "Races and People" is a book which advocates the BIOLOGICAL REALITY of race. William C. Boyd was a racial realist who appears all over anthropology and racialist forums and literature. Both Asimov and Boyd identified 13 biological races, clustered into 6 larger groups. The book completed a worldwide survey of the distribution of blood types made by Boyd showed that blood groups are inherited, Genetic analysis of blood groups led Asimov and Boyd to hypothesize that the population differences between human races are found in alleles. They divided the world population into 13 geographically distinct biological races with different blood group gene profiles. How does any of this fit in with your lunatic race denialism Armondikov? You have not done your research and not even read the book. (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


There's really nothing about pseudoscience in this article.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly - the logicality of the Three Laws. ('Open the pod bay doors, HAL.' 'I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.')— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 25 November 2013 (UTC)


In one of Asimov's short stories use is made of the fact that 'Polish' can be pronounced differently to polish - but there are more examples than he seems to have been aware of - Nice/nice, Scone/scone etc. (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A homophoneWikipedia is not a fashion accessory for gay men and such have been known long before Asimov. You, on the other side, come close to the Bulgarian meaning of "pun".--ZooGuard (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ich weise Bulgarian nicht - and I am 'mostly harmless' (even if I don't sign all the components of my comments): I was noting the flaw in the story. (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The three laws of robotics[edit]

... create a paradox-through-mutual contradictions (probably related to the grandfather paradox) - so would be worked around (just as most of us humans can reconcile being brought up to 'cause no damage to others' with 'dealing with a person who is threatening or causing danger at this point'). (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually read any of Asimov's robot stories? Almost all of them are pretty much built about exploring the implications of the Three Laws and resolving problems caused by their interaction in various situations. Including murder.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, suicide is only mentioned rarely and never as a tool for control. Ikanreed (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I read some of them long ago: is there any mention of 'computer/robotic misprogramming and glitches' whether accidental or deliberate (as occur in Real Life)? There is also the 'I am lying' type of paradoxical confusion, [1], [2] and the Star Trek episode with 'the confused hybrid Terran construct-alien'.

And 'the virtual absence of sentient aliens' (if sentience evolved on Earth, why not also on the other habitable planets described). (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Aww, how did I never notice this reply. Asimov himself gave a thorough explanation of why there aren't aliens in his books: he was rebelling against a publisher that mandated that humans always win in conflicts with aliens, no ifs ands or buts. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Planet Aurora: the fundie's nightmare[edit]

Isaac Asimov's description of the planet Aurora in "The Robots of Dawn" was downright prescient when it comes to describing what fundamentalist Christians hate. The society on that planet is their worst nightmare in every way. Lets see:

1. A free love society

2. The family really has been eliminated. Fundies always rant about the imminent "destruction of the family", but on Aurora, children no longer grow up with their parents, adultery is common and accepted, and since the idea of a family no longer exists, people have no problem with incest.

3. Forget transgender restrooms, on Aurora there is no separation between male and female restrooms.

4. Complete equality for men and women.

5. While the LGBT community is not mentioned, it is reasonable to assume that they are an integrated part of society, if they exist.

In short, this is the very manifestation of the fears of people like Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, etc. The ironic thing is that in "Prelude to Foundation", we see that the survivors of Aurora have become an extremely religious, cultish, misogynistic, and puritanical society. So the fundamentalists win in the end.— Unsigned, by: TeslaK20 / talk / contribs

An idealised fictional society proves what, exactly? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That every utopia is just one complete societal transformation away from dystopia Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Another flaw with the three laws[edit]

Only humans and robots are specifically referred to - so robots could cause damage to sentient computers and any non-human organic life forms. Anna Livia (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)