Originally published in 1950.
- First, to understand this story, we have to understand the word "evitable," which doesn't get used a lot (but is recognized by the average spellchecker); since "inevitable" means "unavoidable," you might be able to guess that "evitable" means "avoidable." It's not a common word, so we just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page.
- It's 2052. This story starts with a conversation between Stephen Byerley, the World Co-Ordinator (and possible robot), and Susan Calvin, robopsychologist (and almost certainly a human). They are in his private study, sitting by a fire.
- Byerley is worried because there have been a number of economic hiccups recently. These aren't huge problems—World Steel produced too much steel recently, the Mexican Canal is behind schedule, the Mercury mines aren't producing as much as they should, etc. (10). But still, they're problems.
- Byerley suspects that the Machines that help humans run the world might be about to wage a war against humans (18). In other words, he's got a Frankenstein complex.
- (Byerley lays out a theory of human history here that gives this story its title. That is, he's interested in how certain conflicts seem inevitable in human history, but then are swept aside by new conflicts (21-25).)
- The new head of research at US Robots, Vincent, can't help Byerley because the computers are too complex for any human. That is, today's computers were built with help from yesterday's computers. So there's no way to do a purely human check of the computer system (44).
- And when Byerley asked the Machines themselves about the economic problems, they said, "The matter admits of no explanation" (49).
- Calvin doesn't know if she can help since these Machines are so specialized that they don't have a lot of personality (53). But they do have positronic brains and are constrained by the Three Laws. (And if anyone is an expert about the Three Laws, it's Susan Calvin, Ph.D.)
- Byerley has actually toured the four regions of the world and he plays back for Calvin the interviews he had with the four regional co-ordinators. But first he asks her if she's heard about the Society for Humanity (60), a group of people against robots.
- First, Byerley went to the Eastern Region (64). (Asimov gives stats for each of these regions as if this were a little encyclopedia entry—area, population, capital.)
- Regional Co-Ordinator Ching Hso-lin in Shanghai knows his job isn't so important because the Machine does all the work (69).
- But he does tell Byerley all about their food production, which is so complicated that they need the computer to help them.
- Although Ching Hso-lin does remember the curious case of Rama Vraasayan, a factory owner whose factory was closed because the Machine didn't give him the right advice. He lost his factory, but got another job elsewhere (94). Besides that example, all is well in the Eastern Region.
- Second, Byerley went to the Tropic Region to meet co-ordinator Lincoln Ngoma in Capital City, Nigeria (102).
- Ngoma isn't worried about the Mexican Canal being a little late. Most of that was just because someone didn't feed the right labor data in the machine.
- Although, Ngoma tells Byerley, there was the case of Francisco Villafranca: Villafranca was an engineer on the canal who caused a little accident and blamed it on the Machine giving him the wrong data (124).
- But Villafranca was a Machine-hater who belonged to the Society for Humanity, so that is the sort of excuse he would give (130).
- Third, Byerley visited the European Region, where he spoke with Regional Co-Ordinator Madame Szegeczowska.
- Szegeczowska guesses that Byerley is here because he distrusts the Machines, which is, she thinks, a very Northern Region attitude (149).
- For instance, the mines on Mercury were being run by a Northern Region company, and that company didn't trust the Machines, so it's not surprising that their output was lower than expected. Now the mines are being run by a European Region company and everything's going to work out fine.
- Fourth, Byerley visited the Northern region and spoke with Regional Vice Co-Ordinator Hiram Mackenzie.
- Mackenzie isn't worried about the Machines taking over because they just free people up:
- "The Machine is only a tool after all, which can help humanity progress faster by taking some of the burdens of calculations and interpretations off its back. The task of the human brain remains what it has always been; that of discovering new data to be analyzed, and of devising new concepts to be tested" (177).
- Back in New York, Byerley asks Calvin for her opinion. Well, first he tells her his opinion—that the Society for Humanity is behind it all, since they have people in powerful positions; and that he should outlaw them and make people sign loyalty oaths (195-7).
- And now, as she always does, Calvin points out the truth about the Machines:
- "They are robots, and they follow the First Law. But the Machines work not for any single human being, but for all humanity, so that the First Law becomes: 'No Machine may harm humanity; or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm'" (212).
- So the Machines are trying to help Humanity as a whole by causing minor economic disturbances. Why? In order to knock members of the Society for Humanity out of powerful positions.
- Byerley worries that humans have lost control over their own destiny (224). But Calvin points out that humans were always subject to forces beyond our control: we are always subject to the weather, to economic and social forces, to war, etc. (225).
- So maybe the Machines know best and can help us avoid all conflicts (227).
- And then the fire in Byerley's private study goes out. What does that mean?
- If you can believe it, that's how the story ends.
- Back in the present day, Calvin makes one final statement to the interviewer (which is worth re-reading):
- "I saw it from the beginning, when the poor robots couldn't speak, to the end, when they stand between mankind and destruction. I will see no more. My life is over. You will see what comes next" (229).
- And then the interviewer tells us that she died last month at the age of 82 (in the year 2064). (So, in between the second-to-last line and the last line, we've jumped from her retirement in 2058 to her death in 2064.)