More rambling - Tears of a Machine

This post is being dedicated to another drawing I’ve made (well, I can’t really seem to write about something else… too mundane to me. That’s why I never keep a diary… heck… regressing again =P).

Tears of a Machine

Simplicity. That was what I had in mind. And with that in mind, I finished this in about an hour (the fastest drawing that I’ve ever made). To be honest, I’ve finished this about last week, the same day I finished Project Armageddon. I’m just too lazy to make a dedicated post for this drawing. Anyway, back to topic.

With simplicity in my mind, I restrained myself from shading it (to reflect source of light) and also from adding background. Initially, I also wanted to add in more droplets, to spark questions whether it was really tears that flowed out from the subject (Machine), or just rain falling down.

It looked too crowded and clunky after adding more droplets, so I decided against it. As for the fonts, well, I have no sense of “font fashion”, so experts in the field (probability of 1 to drop by here seems… implausible) seeing this might cringe at the uncreative fonts. Nevertheless, using “flow” and/or “bubble” theme for Tears seems to illustrate the privilege of humanity, while straight, sharp, and the calculated randomness of the black/white tone paints the stereotypical thoughts on the efficient Machine.

This drawing was inspired by a scene in the prologue of the main story (my fiction story).

*Regression ahead… but otherwise on topic*

Drawing this got me thinking… how do we define humanity? Is it a privilege that is automatically bestowed upon any entity born as a human? More specifically, it is a privilege bestowed upon a class/group/category/hierarchy/yadda yadda as long as it includes the one which proclaim, while excluding as many as possible. Many seem to agree with this, consciously or subconsciously.

But the definition of humanity is still not yet addressed, so I will try to do so. In layman understanding (I’m going to avoid to the cliché “As the Oxford Dictionary defines yedde yedde”), it means showing compassion or do not commit acts of cruelty. And by cruelty, it means those which tugged at your heart/moral compass, including the many which got away due to loopholes exploited from the definition by the Law.

Seriously, if humanity is defined as such as the layman’s understanding, why in Earth do we need Law to define it to us? Or even people exploiting loopholes in Law?

If that is human’s humanity, so why impose it upon others? Why do some have to insist that this Earth is ours to partake, non-human existences is ours to abuse? On the same note, why do some insists that a non-human existence rights must be voiced out, using human’s law and definition? (Most of them meant well, but still, think…) We may have the right to partake some, if not all, but under what impression that we have the right to define all?

(Using a very cliché sci-fi scenario) What if sentience is found in non-human existence? For example, as being found in machines? A fully operational artificial intelligence? (while many skeptics said it is impossible, but yeah, why are humans making the definitions again… O.O). Is it alive then? If not, how do we know one? Does it breathe? Does it eat? Can it be creative? Can it think? Converse? Maybe does it have a soul? Or can it cry?

Perhaps, instead of trying to define it all, we should ask, why do we need to so eagerly define? It seems to me that it’s like a child, throwing a fit, trying to get noticed. (Yeah yeah, some may accuse me of doing so myself, and I do not deny the possibility. I’m still human, duh)

To borrow a quote from an anime, Ergo Proxy, (some people’s theater mind: Oh no! Not another anime freak! I’ve seen that from a mile away. Yidd yiddi yoddo yoddo yuddu yuddu.)

"I think, therefore you are"

The need for people to live, on the definition of other people, in order not to be ignored.