A Fond Farewell to Leonard Nimoy

I was sad to learn that Leonard Nimoy passed away today at the age of 83.

Since I was a child, I've known him as Mr. Spock.  His contributions to the world are many, and he will be missed.

You lived long and prospered, Mr. Nimoy.  Thank you.

W is for Warfare

If there’s anything we’ve become better at over the course of human history, it’s waging war.  There was a time when we were limited to the use of bows and arrows, swords, or similar weapons.  The invention of the gun made it a bit easier to kill your enemy, but now we have nuclear weapons.  Such weapons of mass destruction can take out large numbers of people at a time, as well as devastate the ecology of the area.

It isn’t surprising that science fiction often shows us war in the future.  As much as I hope we eventually get past our tendency for destruction, it isn’t unrealistic to assume that warfare will continue to change as we advance technologically.

In Star Wars, The Empire constructs the Death Star, which is capable of destroying an entire planet without much problem.  Babylon 5 also shows that both the Vorlons and the Shadows have their own planet killers.  These aren’t the only examples of such technology being used.  Never mind the issue of how you’d begin to power such a device.  How can we ethically justify destroying an entire planet?  Would it ever be justifiable?  Does it depend upon the level of threat the inhabitants of that world pose to our own people?  How do we determine whether they are a big enough threat to justify resorting to such drastic means?

Babylon 5 also shows a kind of brutal planetary assault at the end of the Narn-Centauri war.  The Centauri used mass drivers to accelerate asteroids to hit the Narn home world.  Mass Drivers had been outlawed by every civilized planet, so this action stirred up a lot of controversy.  This assault killed millions of Narns, destroyed the Narn infrastructure, and wreaked havoc on the environment.  How does this compare to an action such as dropping an atomic bomb?  What use of weaponry is too barbaric?  Too widespread?

Warfare also includes gathering information.  We frequently encounter telepaths in science fiction, who could easily be used as intelligence operatives.  Would employing such a method be unethical, or could it be justified if doing so saves lives?  Is there a fundamental difference between searching someone’s desk for information vs. invading their mind?  They are both forms of intrusion, after all, though one seems a tad more personal than the other. 

Various forms of torture could also be used to extract information from people.  The use of torture is controversial as it is, but time will surely help us develop new and more effective means of extracting information from unwilling people.  In your mind, can torturing someone for information be justified under certain conditions, or is it always wrong?

V is for Virtual Reality

Virtual reality is frequently seen in science fiction, and that can hardly come as a surprise.  Today people spend considerable amounts of time and money on video games, as well as movies and books.  People love to immerse themselves in worlds outside their own reality.  There’s no reason to believe the desire to do this will disappear anytime soon.  And as technology progresses, we can likely expected even greater levels of realism when it comes to such recreational activities.

Image courtesy of
Victor Habbick/
FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The benefit of video games for many is that they’re interactive.  However, something like the holodeck from Star Trek is completely immersive.  Red Dwarf also deals with this concept with total immersion games.  These games could allow you the opportunity to visit any place and to live any life that you want.  (I’ve also read the Red Dwarf novels, which delve into greater detail about these.  Apparently some people become so addicted to the games that they actually starve to death in the real world.  For some, real life might genuinely be the unappealing a prospect, I suppose.)

Holodeck addiction also became an issue in Star Trek TNG.  Reginald Barclay struggled to deal with people.  He was nervous, and generally didn’t know how to interact with living, breathing people.  Within the simulated world of the holodeck, he could act without fear of judgment.  It gave him the freedom to be who he wanted to be.  Of course, he also allowed his holodeck time interfere with his duties from time to time.  In the Star Trek Voyager episode “Human Error”, Seven of Nine also had a problem with this when she used to holodeck to perfect her social skills and try her hand at having an intimate relationship.  Janeway also had a holo-romance in “Fair Haven,” though she questioned the wisdom of such a relationship, primarily because he wasn’t real.  Why are real world experiences considered more valuable or meaningful than the ones you can have on the holodeck?  Is it because of our responsibility to real people?  Or do we, subconsciously or otherwise, consider simulated experiences fundamentally inferior?

Is virtual reality pure escapism?  After all, one of the benefits of the holodeck and other such inventions is that it can make the experience feel intensely real.  If we wanted only to escape reality, why would the realism inherent in virtual reality technology be so important?  Or would we use virtual reality to live the kind of life that real-world circumstances might deny us?  If it adds something meaningful to our lives, should we consider those experiences as inferior, or should we celebrate them with the understanding that we need to balance them with real life experiences?

U is for Utopia

In the realm of science fiction, we often try to imagine societies that have improved past the arguably dire state of our own.  If you look at today’s world as a whole, there’s a lot of room for improvement.  The question is, how do we work on our problems in a way to make things better for everyone?  Is that even possible?  Differences in ideologies and values systems, as well as personal experience, mean that we’ll all have a different idea on how to go about turning our world into an ideal place.  We may have an idea of how we want the world to be, but there will undoubtedly be plenty of people who disagree.

Many kinds of utopian societies have been envisioned.  Perhaps someone’s idea of utopia is to live within a tight-knit community of people who hold the same religious beliefs as they do.  Historically, plenty of communities have been founded for this express purpose.  I live in Iowa, so I am inclined to mention the Amana Colonies as an example.

The proposed religious utopian community New Harmony.
Image found here.

There were also communes in the 1960’s that sought to bring people together to live off the land and come up with new ways to govern themselves as a group.  That is also the same time period that brought us feminist utopias presented within the realm of science fiction.  Joanna Russ’ The Female Man is an example of this.  In this novel, four different women from parallel worlds encounter one another, and the conflicting ideas of gender roles they each have challenges them and the reader to question the assumptions of gender that we might make.  Books like this were born at that time because women were fighting to be seen as equals and yearned to be able to define themselves on their own terms.

Star Trek shows us a kind of utopian society.  They’ve abolished money, poverty and war are nonexistent (at least between human beings-worlds that exist outside The Federation still cause plenty of problems), and people work with the goal of bettering themselves and the rest of humanity.  Science and technology add to the quality of life.  It’s not all perfect, of course.  Individuals can still be corrupt, can still crave power for personal gain.  And since not all sentient beings ascribe to the same ideals and live within this utopian society, threats still exist.

What would your idea of a utopian society be?  Is it even possible to come anywhere near creating a utopian society?  If you don’t believe it’s possible, do you think it’s even worth trying?  If you were to go about creating a utopia, how would you engage with those who disagree with your ideas about what a utopia would be?  Do you find depictions of utopian societies interesting, or do dystopian narratives resonate with you more?  Why? 

S if for Symbiosis

Symbiosis refers to an interdependency between two different species.  We see examples of symbiosis all the time, though we may not always recognize them for what they are.  Our own digestive tracts are filled with bacteria.  The bacteria have a warm, nutrient-filled environment in which to thrive, and they help us process the foods that we eat.

The following video does a great job of explaining the different types of symbiotic relationships in greater detail.

We see plenty of examples of symbiotic relationships in science fiction.  In the Star Trek universe, we see the Trill, a species that can play host to a symbiont.  Not all Trill are paired with a symbiont, but those who are gain the memories of the new creature inhabiting their body.  The person playing host is permanently altered by the experience, and the symbiont is able to have a many new experiences they wouldn’t have been able to enjoy before.  The joining undeniably changes them both, but what kind of symbiotic relationship do they have?  It’s certainly beneficial for the symbiont, but could it be beneficial for the Trill as well?  Trill society, after all, reveres the idea of being a host, perhaps because it has been a fact of life for so long that it’s become an integral part of the culture.  Not all Trill can be hosts, so perhaps this too makes it seem like being chosen is an honor rather than an obligation.  How would you feel about having another intelligent organism living inside your body, knowing that you would never be the same as you were beforehand?

We also have the terrifying scenario in Alien, where the xenomorphs reproduce using the bodies of other creatures to reproduce.  The process is nonconsensual, and the births are violent, resulting in a gruesome death for the host.  We are treated as little more than incubators, our humanity denied.  Does this make the xenomorphs monstrous?  Or, since it is crucial to their survival, should we look at it merely as a creature acting according to its instincts?

There are also plenty of examples of science fiction where we see alien intelligences taking over a creature altogether.  These body-snatching scenarios seem far more sinister than mutually beneficial symbiotic relationships, in that there seems to be no semblance of the original person left.  For beings that value the freedom to make decisions and to act of our own volition above all else, this is a horrifying prospect.  Why are body-snatching and mind control scenarios so prevalent in science fiction?  What real world fears do these stories touch upon that make them so scary for audiences?

What other symbiotic relationships can you think of?  Which kind of symbiotic relationship do you find the most disturbing, and why?

Q is for the Q and Other Powerful Beings

Given that the universe is estimated to be approximately 13.8 billion years old, and the Earth a mere 4.54 billion years old (with the appearance of modern humans occurring far more recently than that), it isn’t unreasonable to assume that of the intelligent alien species that may exist, a number of them came before us.  If they came before us, that means they’ve had longer to evolve and to develop their technological capabilities.

Babylon 5 shows this with the First Ones.  For the most part, the First Ones are unconcerned with the affairs of less advances species.  To them, we are like the insects you pass by on your way to run important errands.  Unless we grab their attention by being exceptionally irritating, they go about their business as if we aren’t there.

Anyone who has spent enough time immersed in the Star Trek universe knows about the Q.  At least, we know as much as they want us to know.  To humans, the Q seem to be omnipotent, immortal, god-like beings.  They can manipulate events with the snap of a finger.  They can transport your ship to another time, or a distant region of space.  They can make people disappear and reappear with little effort.  Some consider them to be a threat, while others view them as a nuisance.  Either way, when the Q show up, it can be difficult to convince them to leave.

Take this quote from Arthur C. Clarke: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”  The Q may appear to us to be all-powerful, but that’s because they’ve got a huge head start on us.  If we stood in their shoes, the ability to manipulate matter with the snap of a finger would not be considered magical.  Imagine a person from the modern day traveling back in time a thousand years with a supply of modern medicines.  You give a sick person antibiotics, and they get better.  Would that seem magical to them?  It probably would, simply because they don’t have the knowledge to understand how medicine works.

Why do we inject these kinds of beings into our science fiction narratives?  Is a part of us naturally drawn to the idea of beings that are infinitely more powerful than ourselves?  Do we hope that we too could achieve the kind of evolutionary pinnacle we see with the Q?  Are we acknowledging the idea that even the most bizarre of things we encounter probably has a rational explanation, even when we may not have any idea as to what it might be?  Is this a symptom of our scientific minds and our drive to unlock the secrets of our universe?  Or do we force the heroes of our stories to encounter such creatures because, in facing them and coming out on top in some way, those heroes reaffirm the idea that with determination and ingenuity, human beings are capable of accomplishing anything?

P is for Population Control

One way of coping with the issues of overpopulation and dwindling resources is to institute policies concerning population control.  Today we see population control being implemented in China, where the population already exceeds 1 billion. It is hardly surprising that science fiction writers have envisioned worlds where such control is mandated by the government.

One way of controlling the population is to control who gives birth and how many babies are allowed.  In the novel Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, Ender Wiggin is bullied for being a “third.”  In a world where families are almost always restricted to bearing only two children, Ender is singled out by this.  Some see him as someone who shouldn’t exist in the first place.

We also see futures where people are required to obtain a license before having children.  In worlds where this is the norm, how do you decide who gets a license and who doesn’t?  Is it based on genetics and intelligence?  What are the ethical implications of this kind of eugenics program?  How do you balance the interests of humanity as a whole with the rights of the individual?  Should the government have any right to limit how many children their citizens have?

Sometimes people are expected to forfeit their lives.  This helps control the population, as well as eliminates many issues associated with end-of-life care.  We see this in Logan’s Run and the episode “Half a Life” from Star Trek TNG.  Should the government be able to determine when its citizens die?  How do you determine when a person’s life should end?  How can such a determination ever be made when each person’s circumstances are different?  Consider all the contributions these people might have possibly been able to make to the world had they been allowed to live.  Is the harm done to society by cutting off that potential worth the benefits of such a policy?

In the Sliders episode “Luck of the Draw,” people voluntarily take part in the lottery.  Those who win get money and all sorts of perks, but most of that will be enjoyed by their families as the winners will forfeit their lives soon after.  Should people be encouraged to make that kind of sacrifice?  Is this kind of voluntary system preferable to one that limits one’s right to have children, or should the lives of those who already exist take precedence?

What other versions of population control have you seen depicted, and what are the ethical ramifications?

O is for Original vs. Copy

Today I want to address the topic of duplicates.  In science fiction, a duplicate can be created through cloning, or through some kind of freak accident.  When this happens, the story in question has a great opportunity to explore the nature of identity.

Now, in thinking about how I wanted to tackle this issue, I realized a post that I wrote months ago on my writing blog addressed most of the issues that I wanted to talk about here.  So, I decided to re-post it here, not out of laziness, but because I think it's worth sharing here.  You can see the original post HERE.

*               *               *

Descartes penned the famous words "I think, therefore I am."  We know we exist because we are thinking beings.  And our thoughts, our memories, are a large part of who we are.  Even when we stand at a crossroads in life, confused about which path to take, we still feel confident about our identity.  We know our name, we know about our past, we know what our dreams were as children (even when real life forces us to change gears). When someone asks us who we are, we can typically provide them with an answer deemed satisfactory by both parties.

However, life can become complicated.  And in the realm of science fiction, life altering complications are the norm.  I recently re-watched the Star Trek TNG episode "Second Chances" (Season 6, Episode 24).  In this episode, a visit to a science outpost reveals that there are two William T. Rikers.  When Riker served aboard the Potempkin eight years earlier, a transporter accident resulted in the materialization of two Rikers: one aboard the Potempkin, and one on the science station.  After living alone on the science station for eight years, Lieutenant Riker is shocked to learn of the existence of Commander Riker.

Is one of them the real Riker?  After all, we each have an idea of our own unique identity.  Would the presence of a copy threaten that unique identity?  (In thinking about this question, I wrote a poem.)  Let's run with our intuition for a minute in thinking about this question.  Say you were to walk into a scientist's lab and scanned.  Before your eyes, a perfect duplicate materializes, complete with a record of your memories.  You'd intuitively say "I'm the real me.  They're the copy."  Yet, possessing your memories up to the point of being scanned, your duplicate would likely make an impassioned case that they're the real you. Why wouldn't they?  They possess everything you do that makes you who you are.  You are both thinking beings, and you think you possess the same identity. How can that be?

In the case of this episode, Riker didn't even see a duplicate materialized.  His body was disassembled, and the information ended up manufacturing two Rikers.  Both of them came into existence at the same time with the same DNA and the same memories.  In a very real sense, there's no way to point to one of the Rikers and say "This is the real one."  At the moment they both materialized, they both had an equal right to declare the same identity. It is my assertion that for that one moment, the Rikers were very much the same person, though they inhabited different bodies.  After that moment of genesis, however, their lives proceeded down very different paths, producing distinct memories and attitudes.  Each passing day differentiated them from one another a little more. The identities they possessed became more recognizably their own.  When we see the two of them together on the Enterprise eight years later, they are certainly similar in more ways that not, and a casual observer might say they are the same person, though that is no longer the case.

If you think this scenario seems disconcerting, you're not alone.  Lieutenant Riker and Commander Riker clearly rubbed each other the wrong way.  They saw in one another what might have happened, what may have been.  They also likely felt intruded upon.  Lieutenant Riker expresses interest in rekindling his romance with Deanna Troi, which Commander Riker had left behind in the pursuit of his career.  So long as the two of them remained on the same ship, it seemed inevitable they would tread on each others toes.  It seems clear there's only enough room in our lives for one of us.

In the end, Lieutenant Riker leaves the ship to restart his career.  There was little doubt this would happen.  He has to make a new life for himself, and he could never do that on the Enterprise.  Commander Riker is our Riker.  He's the one who serves as Picard's right hand man.  He's the one we've watched play poker and trombone.  While it was fun to see the other Riker for a time, one feels more authentic than the other.  We may know intellectually that this is ridiculous, but that doesn't change the gut feeling we have.  Had we begun the series following Lieutenant Riker on the science station, our feelings would be different.

Perhaps this is why, before he goes, Lieutenant Riker decides to go by his middle name: Thomas.  He understandably wants to claim a life for himself, though to be fair, he could have just as easily said Commander Riker should change his name. Except one of them has been alone for eight years, and when he did set foot on a starship again, he clearly stood in the shadow of our Riker.  He changes because he's put in a position where he feels like an imposter, regardless of how strongly he feels about who he is.  One Riker has an entire ship of colleagues who can attest to who he is and can say that he's the Riker they know.  The other doesn't have that.  He needs to seek that out.  Deciding to claim the name Thomas is, in my opinion, an attempt on his part to embrace his own path and make a place for himself.

I know I've covered a lot here, but I'm encouraged by the questions I've raised.

• How is our sense of self enforced by the people around us?
• Why would a duplicate threaten our sense of identity?
• What constitutes identity?
• How do experiences shape our identity?  What about biology?  (Nature vs. Nurture is an old philosophical debate)

N is for Nationalism

Nationalism is the way one identifies with and is attached to one’s nation.  A nation is typically understood, at least at this time, as the country in which one resides.  Our national identity is part of who we are.  When we honor a nation’s flag, we honor what that nation values.  We value its people, and the culture of those people.  It’s about more than borders drawn on a map.

However, ideas of what constitutes a nation can change.  If you research the definition of the word “nation” you’ll see that the concept is not so easy to pin down.  A nation can be a group of people who share a particular culture or language.  It can be a group of people represented by a formal government, which is the way we typically seem to understand it now.

Image courtesy of http://flagburningworld.com.

What does nationalism have to do with science fiction?  I can’t help but notice that, living in the United States, I hear people talk fearfully about the idea of a world government.  People have a genuine fear that a world government will not only come into being, but that such a government will inevitably change the way we live our lives.  What strikes me as interesting is that a lot of science fiction that takes place in the future depicts us as living under a world government.  Perhaps the writers simply didn’t want to get into the nitty gritty details of politics between individual nations, so they used single world government to simplify things.  Or perhaps it is because, in the future, we have learned to resolve our petty disagreements and come together.  Perhaps we have learned to see ourselves as one people who happen to have different traditions instead of different peoples altogether.  This would be more in line with what we see in Star Trek.

If we were to meet an alien race, how would the politics play out if our planet is still a conglomeration of more than 200 individual nations?  Who would have the right to speak for the world?  What would happen if one country committed an act of aggression against our alien visitors?  How would we interact with an otherworldly visitor without the benefit of a united front?

In Star Trek, we also see the Federation.  The Federation allows for each member world to govern itself, but there are still overriding principles that member worlds must uphold.  It could be seen as a nation of sorts, one that is defined by a group of core principles.  If our world were to one day belong to such an organization, what would our national identity look like?  We would surely identify heavily with our home world, but we would also be part of something beyond that, something that unites us with creatures who are much different than ourselves.  Is this a desirable thing, or do we risk losing our culture altogether under such a scenario?

Nationalism is something that can both unite and divide us.  Here’s a quote that I found quite interesting, as it highlights the divisive nature of nationalism that we’ve seen in our own world.

“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”

Charles de Gaulle

Can the concept of nationalism be expansive enough to be useful in the future as times continue to change, or is it a concept that should be abandoned altogether?  What new ways of identifying ourselves could potentially replace it?

B is for the Borg

Cyborgs represent the combining of the biological and the synthetic.  They are a complex amalgam of flesh and metal, and have frequently been viewed in science fiction with unease.  The Borg from the Star Trek universe are a prime example of this.

The Borg add to their numbers through assimilation.  This assimilation process bears a striking similarity to Colonialism.  The invaders, in this case being the nanoprobes, spread throughout the host’s body, sprouting implants and erasing the host’s autonomy.  They rid them of emotion.  This is the kind of invasion that frightens us most.  The kind that purges us of our freedom, wiping away that which distinguishes us.  That which makes us unique.  This is reminiscent of the way invaders have operated in the past, subjugating indigenous peoples and replacing their cultures with the culture of the conquerors.

In science fiction, we often see technology as that which destroys our humanity.  Is this really how it will turn out to be?  As we devise implants to regulate bodily functions that have gone awry, to treat conditions that would otherwise be devastating, or to hook in to technology in more intimate ways for our own pursuit of pleasure, are we truly sacrificing a piece of our humanity in the process?  As we engage the world in increasingly technological ways, are we changing what it means to be human?

Picard Sings "Let it Snow"

A British Star Trek Themed Commercial Featuring William Shatner and James Doohan

Here's a bizarre little commercial for your amusement.

Z is for the Zoo Hypothesis

Since this is the last day of the challenge, I wanted to have a little fun.  That's why I decided to post about the Zoo Hypothesis.

The Drake Equation is useful for calculating the possible number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.  The answer garnered varies depending upon the values used for each variable (we know some values fairly well, while some are more of an educated guess), but it's a fun intellectual exercise even if we don't get any solid answers from it.

I believe there's life elsewhere in the universe.  It's too large and amazing for me to think otherwise. Still, I'm not holding my breath while I wait for a spaceship to come down and take me for a ride, no matter how cool it would be!

There's debate over whether we've ever been visited by extraterrestrial life.  Some contend we have, while the official consensus is that we haven't.  Those who believe in alien life often claim that we haven't been visited due to large cosmic distances, but this isn't the only hypothesis out there.

The Zoo Hypothesis speculates that intelligent alien life hasn't contacted us in order to allow for us to evolve and mature on our own without interference.  If they observe us at all, we're like animals in a zoo (except we don't know we're in a zoo and we can't see those who are watching us).  Maybe it should be renamed the Prime Directive Hypothesis.  That name seems more appropriate to me.

And for a little bit of fun and deep thinking, here's a clip from Star Trek TNG where the crew of the Enterprise debates the scope of the Prime Directive.  Enjoy!

Klingon Style Video

Here's a wonderfully ridiculous video.  My favorite part is the elevator scene.  My husband and I watched that scene over and over again, and we couldn't stop laughing!

You Can Always Count on Patrick Stewart

All children need Patrick Stewart to help them learn to count!

This next video is an interview in which Patrick Stewart discusses what it was like to go bald at 19.  It may have been traumatic at the time, but can we imagine him any other way?

Love to the Enterprise!

I agree.  The Enterprise rules!  And if Neil deGrasse Tyson says it, it must be so.

Oh, Those Wacky Scientists!

Here is a little tribute to the scientists of the world who strive everyday to learn about the universe we live in. A lot of people think that scientists are dry, boring people, but the reality is often the exact opposite.  All of the pictures in this post come from HERE.

Now, this last one doesn't have to do with real life scientists, but Starfleet is loaded with scientifically-minded people and artificial beings.  So it counts, right?  Oh well.  Whether it does or not, this is my post and I'll put it here if I want to.

Star Trek Fan Talk

We all know Trek fans can be a dedicated bunch.  I too am dedicated, but not to this extreme.

The Enterprise Lands in Illinois!

What a fitting flight!  With the popularity of sending inanimate objects into near space, why not send an Enterprise equipped with Captain Kirk and Captain Picard?

Hmmmm.  I wonder who took charge of this mission.

Trekking Into the Absurd

Here are some Star Trek GIFs that are bound to brighten any geek's day.  I found them in the Gif Bin.

Spock isn't all that different from Kirk in many ways.

Who got into the Romulan Ale again?

It must have been another strange day on the Enterprise.

Even futuristic technology is imperfect!