Terrorism, Automated Hosts, and COVID-19: Critical Film Review of the HBO Saga Westworld

Introduction

Over recent years, some voices have enthusiastically applauded the idea of introducing robots and artificial intelligence to improve the guest-host relations (Ivanov, Webster & Berezina, 2017; Ivanov & Webster 2019). To some extent, the recruitment of robots –as a potential hotel or housekeeping staff- to meet tourists´ demands not only escapes to the ethical debates which denote the subordination of hosts to guests´ desires but also situate as a promising opportunity to enhance the destination performance in the next decades (Yeoman & Mars, 2012). Starting from the premise that robots do not feel, nor have deeply-enrooted emotions such as rage, fear, or love, these studies hold thesis that technology offers a fertile ground towards a new revolution if it is oriented to service industries (Murphy, Hofacker & Gretzel, 2017; Buckley et al, 2015). At a closer look, one might speculate that robots are machines that do not need to sleep or rest, which supposes that the process of systematization of tourist services will create smarter and more robust destinations tailored mainly to what tourists often demand (Tung & Law, 2017; Murphy, Gretzel & Hofacker, 2015; Yeoman 2012). What is more promising, robots and technology can be used to develop more sustainable destinations worldwide (Ivanov & Webster 2019; de Kervenoael et al, 2019; Dalgic & Bidir, 2020). As Sangwon Park puts it, tourism research should particularly focus on the significant role of robots in enhancing tourist´s satisfaction, as well as a direct contribution to local economies. The increasing fascination for robots allows multiplication of segments and multifaceted performances while reinforcing the institution-based trust (Park 2020). Before the so-called scourge of terrorism, robots and technology offer the opportunities to have safer destinations. The recently originated COVID-19 virus outbreak not only placed the tourism industry between the wall and the much blue sea but paved the ways for the rise of acclaimed authors to venerate robots as potential hotel staff immune to the pandemics (Jiang & Wen 2020; Sigala 2020). Some voices have argued that COVID-19 is the continuation of terrorism as well as the corollary of 9/11. Basically, terrorism not only opened the doors to a new stage where the fear played a leading role in the construction of a new stage of capitalism but also marked the end of hospitality (Korstanje 2017). As a major risk which interrogates society terrorism appeals to a much deeper closure with the “Other” (Korstanje 2019a; 2019b). The decline of hospitality is characterized by the adoption of Artificial intelligence disposed to deal with guests (Korstanje 2019b). Of course, the success of artificial intelligence to be applied in tourism services depends on two main factors. On one hand, the systematization of robots resulted from the recent technological breakthrough which was accelerated by the digital world. On another, the increasing volume of tourists without mentioning mass tourism saturated the international destinations creating anti-tourist discourses, or phobias against foreigner tourists (Korstanje & George, 2020; Mantecon & Velazco, 2020). Tourist-phobia seems to be a term probably associated with problems of mass tourism. Doubtless, the adoption of robots saturated destinations may very well placate the discontent of hosts paving the pathways for the rise of smarter destinations (Karyotakis et al 2018). Nevertheless, some detractors have alerted on the ethical problems to adopt robots in the service and hospitality industries (Korstanje & Seraphin 2018). Tourist practices should not be divorced from ethics, no matter the consequences over the hosts. Proponents and exegetes of robot tourism argue erroneously that there are no moral quandaries in exploiting robots simply because they do not feel, they are no humans. This standpoint, which comes from philosophical pragmatism, overlooks the fact that moral issues are not judged by the real effects on the victim, but by the intentions. To set an example, well-illustrated by Harry Frankfurt, I can drive my car while stopping to drink some whiskies. I have no clear intention to crash or to harm a passerby. I get drank after drinking two-litre of finest whisky. By keeping on my trip I finally had a tragic accident where other driver lost his life. As Frankfurt observes, for pragmatism I had no guilty because I had not the intention to kill but as he notes, I am guilty because I imagined the consequences when opted to drink. The opposite is equally true I plan an assassination which is finally thwarted by the police. I failed to kill a person, though I am guilty to try to kill a person. Frankfurt starts from the premise that one of the philosophical limitations of pragmatism consists in believing ethics should be formed by the direct effects over the victim, or the type of victim (if the crime involves a person or an animal), instead of the intentions behind (Frankfurt 1982; 2002).