I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately while reshelfing books in the stacks – how every great science fiction story I’ve encountered in fifty years of reading eventually circles back to the same fundamental question: what happens to human identity when technology becomes indistinguishable from life itself? It’s funny, you know, I started noticing this pattern maybe twenty years ago, but it’s become impossible to ignore now that we’re all basically living with computers in our pockets.
The thing that got me started on this whole train of thought was rewatching Ghost in the Shell a few months back. I first saw it in ’95 when it came out – I was thirty-three then, already deep into cyberpunk literature, thought I knew what to expect. But Motoko Kusanagi’s existential crisis about her cyborg body and digitized consciousness hit me differently this time around. Maybe because I’m older now, or maybe because the questions she’s asking don’t feel quite so theoretical anymore.
What really gets me is how Masamune Shirow was exploring these ideas back in the late ’80s and early ’90s, way before most of us had email addresses. He was asking what happens when you can replace your body parts, upload your memories, exist partially in digital space. When I first read the manga, it felt like wild speculation. Now? I watch my students live half their lives through social media avatars and wonder if we’re already there.
This isn’t new territory for sci-fi, of course – we’ve been grappling with questions of artificial life and human identity since Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. But there’s something different about how contemporary stories approach it. Take Spike Jonze’s Her, which I saw three times in theaters because it kept revealing new layers. Theodore’s relationship with Samantha isn’t really about falling in love with an AI – it’s about how we project ourselves onto technology, how we use digital spaces to avoid dealing with messy human emotions.
I remember walking out of that movie feeling unsettled, not because the premise seemed far-fetched, but because it felt inevitable. How many of my library patrons already have deeper relationships with their phones than with the people sitting next to them? How many of us curate our online presence so carefully that we start to forget who we are when nobody’s watching?
That’s what Black Mirror does so brilliantly too, especially in episodes like “Be Right Back.” Charlie Brooker takes our current relationship with technology and pushes it just far enough forward to make us uncomfortable. When Martha tries to recreate her dead boyfriend using his digital footprint, we’re not really watching science fiction – we’re watching an exaggerated version of how we already memorialize people through their social media profiles.
I’ve been a librarian for over twenty-five years now, and I’ve watched how people research and connect with information change completely. Used to be, you’d come to the library with questions, dig through card catalogs, spend hours with actual books. There was a physical relationship with knowledge that required patience, serendipity, the willingness to get lost in tangential discoveries. Now everything’s instant, algorithmic, filtered through systems designed to give you exactly what you think you want.
Not that I’m some kind of Luddite – I use databases, help students navigate digital resources, maintain the library’s social media presence. But I can’t help noticing how the tools we use to find information shape what we think we’re looking for. When Google autocompletes your search terms, when Amazon recommends books based on your purchase history, when Facebook decides which friends’ posts you see – are you still making choices, or are you becoming a more sophisticated version of yourself that’s been optimized for engagement?
This is why I keep coming back to authors like Philip K. Dick and Ursula K. Le Guin, writers who understood that the most interesting sci-fi stories aren’t about technology at all – they’re about human consciousness under pressure. Dick spent his whole career asking whether reality is real, whether memory can be trusted, whether the self is a coherent entity or just a collection of competing narratives. Le Guin explored how identity forms through relationships, how individual consciousness emerges from social structures.
What’s fascinating to me is how their questions have become our daily experience. We live in multiple versions of ourselves – professional email personas, social media profiles, dating app presentations, the face we show family versus friends versus strangers. Are these authentic expressions of a multifaceted identity, or are we fragmenting into incompatible selves?
I think about this when I’m helping students with research, watching them toggle between academic databases and Instagram, code-switching between formal citations and casual texts. They’re native speakers of digital multiplicity in ways I’m still learning, but they’re also dealing with anxieties about authenticity that didn’t exist when I was their age. When every interaction leaves a digital trace, when every photo can be edited, when every relationship is mediated through algorithms, how do you figure out who you actually are?
The sci-fi stories that stick with me now are the ones that don’t try to answer these questions definitively. They just create space for us to sit with the uncertainty, to explore what it might mean to be human when the boundaries keep shifting. Like Ted Chiang’s “Exhalation,” which uses mechanical beings to explore consciousness and mortality in ways that feel more human than most literary fiction. Or Martha Wells’ Murderbot Diaries, where an artificial construct struggles with social anxiety and impostor syndrome just like the rest of us.
Maybe that’s what I love most about science fiction as a genre – it gives us permission to ask fundamental questions about existence without having to pretend we know the answers. It lets us experiment with identity in safe spaces, try on different versions of humanity, imagine what we might become without losing sight of what we are.
I don’t have any grand conclusions about where all this is heading. Technology will keep evolving, human consciousness will keep adapting, science fiction will keep asking the same essential questions in new forms. But I find comfort in knowing that as long as we’re still wondering what makes us human, we probably still are.
0 Comments