It is a year of really awesome sci-fi movies: First Watchmen, then Star Trek, and now Terminator Salvation. It’s a smorgasbord of dorkiness for a geek like me. In fact, for a very long time my career ambition was …science fiction writer. I love the stuff. I’ve moved on to other long-term interests (theology and social justice), but somehow even in that area I keep returning to my original nerdy self. Thus my ongoing and intermittent “Film Theology” series, which has explored the theological ramifications of the issues posed by recent movies, all of them, thus far, scifi flicks. In March I wrote about the “Theology of Watchmen“, and just a couple weeks ago I pondered the “Theology of Star Trek“. Well guess what: I just saw Terminator Salvation.

The basic premise of the entire Terminator franchise is simple: in a post-apocalyptic future, humanity is fighting for survival against machines. The most recent film tells the story of John Conner, the prophesied leader of “the Resistance”, who appears to be the great hope of the human race in the desperate struggle.

I’d like to use the whole “war against the machines” concept as a jumping-off point for this post. In Terminator, the necessity of the use of violence against sentient machines is taken for granted. But as a pacifist and as someone very much interested in the study and use of nonviolent tactics, I don’t take that for granted. Thus, the question I’d like to explore, very speculatively of course, is this: What is the relevance of nonviolent ethics in a “war against the machines”?

The ethical necessity for nonviolence within a Christian theological framework is grounded in the idea that life is sacred because human beings are made in the image of God. Similarly, the demonstrated efficacy of nonviolence can be understood within the Christian context to result from the action of the imago Dei in our consciences and minds. As Walter Wink puts it, Christian nonviolence speaks to “something of God in everyone”. Both of these ideas can be translated into pluralistic and non-Christian terms and are present in some form in most religions. For example, the Indian advocate of nonviolence Narayan Desai speaks of a “level of humanness — however low it may be, in every human being” (quoted in Wink’s The Powers That Be).

The issues of necessity and efficacy (central to any discussion of the use of nonviolent strategy in a potentially violent conflict) are thus critically linked. How, then, to consider nonviolence in the “war against the machines”?

Clearly, the central question, as framed in Christian theology, would be this: “Do the Machines bear the image of God?” The initial answer for most people would be a quick no for seemingly obvious reasons. But the issue may be more complicated than it appears. It is quite possible that any artificial intelligence designed by humans in the future would have human characteristics, for every invention in some way reflects the character of the inventor. At a more fundamental level, it may be that the “image of God” (or the equivalent concept within a non-Christian religious or philosophical system) constitutes a necessary component of whatever “intelligence” is. In other words, it may be impossible have actual thought or to be “intelligent” (in the sense of the word that sets humans apart from other animals, or in the “artificial intelligence” sense) without having some component of a “conscience”, or “humanity”, or “imago Dei”.

To summarize, two possibilities become clear:

  1. The Machines in no way bear bear the image of God. Nonviolence, except in perhaps very limited circumstances, will probably be niether an ethical necessity nor a pragmatic possibility. This is likely the theological assumption in the world of Terminator.
  2. The Machines do, in fact, bear the image of God. In this case, nonviolence may indeed be a moral necessity — and fortunately, the effect of the imago Dei would also probably make it a pragmatic tactic.

The exploration of the imago Dei question (or non-Christian analogue) would be critical to philosophers, theologians, and ethicists during an actual war against machines. It may also prove to be an important ethical issue over the next decades as scientists improve current AI technology. For obvious reasons, the final resolution (if there is one) of this question is best left to the theologians of the future, and ultimately, the efficacy and necessity of nonviolence against “the machines” cannot be determined until the situation should actually arise.

Let us hope it never will.