For those of you who haven't seen the movie there seems to be a theme about the battle between logic and emotion between the robots and humans. The robots are logical yet too heartless for human interaction.

Early in the movie Will Smith and another character got in a car crash and ended up in the bottom of a river. A robot came in and calculated that Will was more likely to live through the accident and saved him despite Will telling the robot to save the girl. The robot, only able to save one person, is acting too logical for Will.

Then the final scene at the end of the movie one of the robots has a chance to SAVE THE WORLD yet is asked by a human to save a girl in danger instead. And in true movie fashion the robot saves both the girl and the world. But that sure would've sucked if the robot saved the girl and couldn't save the world. People would've felt pretty silly.

Why do humans always want to save 1 human over saving the world? Happens so much in movies it seems silly. Am I a heartless individual by following logic and saying screw that 1 person? Is it bad to ignore the girl in danger and try to, you know...save the 6 billion people on earth? The movie plays it out like robots are dumb for not realizing that logic is not the end-all-be-all but I just have to side with robots.

Anyways, was wondering if someone smarter than me could tease out more of the details and questions here.

Usually because saving the one can and should be done by an individual. The concept that one individual can also destroy the whole world is actully a totally stupid movie/TV/bad book theme that is contantly used over and over to try to add depth to some stupid plot line. Quit swallowing this Hollywood crap and save the world ONE victim at a time if you can.

For the same reason you care about the welfare of comparatively well off people in your neighbourhood a lot more than about the welfare of poor people in Africa.

Humans are built to appreciate what they can see, touch, taste, hear and feel and interact with far beyond what they can't. Hence Vael's point above, and loyalty, nationalism, army unit breakdowns, loving your pet while eating a steak, etc. It even pervades and perverts science.

It's a sign of emotional health IMO and it's good for a stable society. People do have an override switch that stops us from being total morons, but if it was much stronger, the world would be full of people choosing ideology over humanity. I don't want to live in such a world.

I just don't get this. Why is ^ good for a stable society. If anything I'd think it creates instability. Why is it emotionally healthy to think like this (illogically)?

It is surprising to me that this thread even continued after such a clear and rational explanation.

That is entirely emotional, and not at all logical. The robots would be confused by your behavior.

It movies that one person is usually meant to represent love.

Human bonds and their associated irrationalities are the glue that holds society together.Because that's how we're built.

This is a movie. It is a work of fiction. It says more about the writers mindset/beliefs/viewpoints than anything else. Movies are made for the sole purpose of making a profit. They will produce whatever they believe will have the more resonance/emotional appeal with people.

None of this has anything to do with reality, real life circumstances, or real life situations. You would do well by not attempting to frame and understand reality based on movie plot lines and outcomes.

What's not logical?

Probably something to do with selfishness propagating the species and has always done so. Imagine a tribe of nomads fighting over a good'ol fishin hole or something, the war would rage until one side was vanquished or gave up and moved on. So, if one tribe was down to say 30 people, but found some way to kill the 100 remaining members of the other tribe, would they hesitate? That winning minority would go on to pass their superior (more strategically intelligent) genes.

In modern times we continue to value those we care about more than the masses of unknown "tribes." In a sense we are in a war with everyone else. Save your wife/mother and **** the rest. As pointed out the movie is an extreme example which is highly improbable, but nonetheless if those circumstances played out that way a human might make that choice. A more relevant and likely scenario would be the old Cold War where we came pretty close to destroying the world to protect one tribe.

You joking?

Giving a hungry person next to you a meal is exactly equivalent to giving a person across the world a meal.

Add in something about utilitarian value (starving getting food >>> a little peckish getting food)...

Your like of giving locally is purely emotional in nature.

That was pretty much my point. It explains why Will Smith wants to save the girl. Like I said, I side with the robots: I think it's wrong.

Ahhh. My fault. Misread your statement...