J is for Justice

If someone commits a crime against you, what would it take for you to believe that justice had been done?  Most people would agree that it depends upon the crime, but in some fictional societies, the punishment for all crimes is the same.  We see this in Star Trek TNG, in the episode “Justice.”  In this episode, Wesley accidentally sets foot in an area that is off limits.  The punishment for that or any other transgression is the same: death.  The belief is that with such a harsh punishment for all crimes in place, people will obey the law.  This is a more extreme example of the kind of no-tolerance policies we see in many schools today.  Could this be considered justice, or is utilizing human judgment better, even though human judgments can admittedly be flawed?

In the British sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf, we see another episode entitled “Justice.”  In this scenario, the crew encounters the justice zone.  Within the zone, any crime you attempt to commit is instead committed against you.  For example, if you try to commit arson, a part of your body, or the clothing covering it, will go up in flames.  This is the old eye-for-an-eye view of justice.

Image courtesy
Pearson Scott Foresman via
Wikimedia Commons

Babylon 5 explores an alternative to the death penalty, though it isn’t much different in reality.  Criminals can have their personalities wiped, and a new personality is programmed in, and this new person is expected to repay society through doing public service.  Though the physical body lives on, everything that made them who they were is gone.  Is this truly a more humane alternative to the death penalty?  Is it ultimately any different than the death penalty?  Will people feel that justice has been served?

In the Star Trek Voyager episode “Repentance” we meet a convicted murderer who has been sentenced to death for his crimes.  He initially feels no remorse for what he’s done.  After being injured, he’s injected with Borg nanoprobes.  Those nanoprobes end up repairing an abnormality in his brain, which allows him to finally feel remorse for what he’s done.  The Voyager crew contend that he is essentially a different person than he was when he committed the crime, and that he is no longer a danger to society.  However, the justice system with jurisdiction in this case leaves the punishment in the hands of the victim’s family.  The family initially refuses to examine the evidence.  They eventually look at it, but decide to go forward with the execution.  This raises many questions.  Could victims or their families possibly be objective enough to make a choice like this?  Does this kind of system really allow for justice to be done?  If the family make is the choice for someone to die, does this also make them killers, or is this choice justified by the heinous nature of the crime committed against them?

What is justice?  Can any legal system truly bring about justice, or is the term too subjective?  Or is life simply full of too many variables for any justice system to be foolproof?

(I don’t have enough space to discuss it here, but the novel The Dosadi Experiment by Frank Herbert presents Gowachin law, which is one of the more interesting legal systems I’ve ever read about.  If you haven’t read it, I recommend it.)

I is for Immortality

Humans spend a lot of time contemplating death.  In general, though we know we’ll die eventually, we do what we can to prevent it.  Medical advances have been increasing life expectancy, and there is good reason to believe that scientists will continue to research cures for the ailments that afflict us.  Will those efforts one day lead us to virtual immortality?  Would that even be a desirable outcome?

One way we could potentially extend life is through replacing body parts as they wear out.  This could either be through building mechanical replacements, turning one into a cyborg.  It could also entail cloning human organs and transplanting them.  (The film The Island shows entire cloned people being kept in reserve for the instance when the original might need a transplant from them.)  Or perhaps the entire body could be cloned, and the memories of the person transferred from the old, worn-out body into the new one.  Could such a transfer be possible?  If you attempt to transfer a person’s memories and personality, could something be lost in that transfer?  Do you think he/she would count as being the same person after undergoing such a procedure?

Image courtesy of emtotskee/
DeviantArt

Science fiction has also played with the idea of downloading a person’s consciousness into a computer.  In the Doctor Who episodes “Silence in the Library” and “Forest of the Dead” we see people kept as digital information inside the planet’s data core.  The upcoming film Transcendence also deals with downloading someone to cheat death.  The question is, is this really cheating death?  How do you know that the downloaded consciousness is the same person?  What if something is lost in the transfer?  Could a human consciousness cope with being taken away from a physical body, or would the shift be so dramatic that it could drive them to madness?  Or would they be liberated to become something superior to humans?  Would they even count as human beings anymore?

There are so many unknowns that it’s impossible to answer these questions with absolute certainty.  I’d like to leave you with one final question though.  If you could become immortal, would you want to?  Would living forever be a gift, or a burden?  (I’m thinking of the Star Trek Voyager episode “Death Wish” as I write this.)

H is for Heroes

Science fiction is filled with heroes and heroines.  They defeat the bad guys, and keep us entertained in the process.  However, many of them do not fall in line with our more traditional idea of what it means to be a hero.  In our culture, we see heroes as being courageous, selfless, virtuous, and idealistic.  They aren’t plagued by vices.

Instead, science fiction is populated by what we would call anti-heroes.  They may be the protagonists of the story, and they may defeat the enemy, but they don’t usually do it in the clean way that a more traditional hero would.  Anti-heroes might drink too much, or gamble.  They may say crude things and generally be rough around the edges.  They may in fact be wanted criminals.

Image courtesy of
verucasalt82/
DeviantArt

Han Solo from Star Wars (as if I even need to clarify this) and Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly are two good examples of anti-heroes.  They might have their own code that they operate by, but it certainly doesn’t take into consideration what society would like them to be.  They may do some less-than-noble things, but we find ourselves rooting for them.  Why?  And why are there so many anti-heroes?

Space is vast.  There is always a frontier, and where there is a frontier, there’s an element of lawlessness.  When you’re away from a centralized authority, you may have to be a little rough to get things done and win the day.  Or perhaps we have anti-heroes because we recognize that human beings are imperfect.  Sometimes we’re selfish.  Sometimes we bend or break the rules because it suits us to do so.  Sometimes we lie.  The anti-hero reflects our own imperfections.  We want to see them win, because if the little guy who’s made mistakes in the past can triumph, then we can too.  We can relate to them more than we can to the hero who’s never done a dishonest thing, who puts the needs of others ahead of their own at all times.  The traditional heroes are perhaps good role models, but they’re not always realistic ones.

What kind of heroes do you like to see?  Do you prefer heroes or anti-heroes?  Why do we need heroes in the first place?

G is for Genetic Engineering

As science progresses and we learn more about genetics, we become more capable of manipulating genetic codes.  The human genome has been mapped, and we’re gaining new understandings as to how our genetics influence our lives.  Some people are genetically predisposed to certain kinds of cancers.  Genetic defects lead to lifelong diseases, some fatal, some debilitating.  With time and additional research, scientists hope to devise ways of treating such diseases.

Image courtesy of  Caroline Davis2010/
Flickr

As we look upon this new frontier, we need to understand where this new frontier might lead us.  It’s one thing to use our existing knowledge to cure existing diseases, but it is another altogether to use that knowledge to engineer humans to circumvent these issues in the first place.  In the film Gattaca, parents can choose which traits should be eliminated from their children.  This includes diseases, but can also include myopia, a propensity for obesity, and other things of that nature.  Parents can select eye and hair color.  Embryos that do not meet the specified requirements are discarded.

Countless people who have revolutionized our world would never have been born in this world.  Is this a valid argument against genetic engineering, or could the case be made that the generations of genetically enhanced people might accomplish even more?  Does that even matter?  Is it unethical despite any positive results that might come from it?  Or is it simply our fear of the unknown that makes us hesitant?  Would it be more unethical to allow people to suffer from debilitating diseases that could have been prevented altogether?

Science fiction has also explored the possibility of splicing human DNA with that of other animals in the interest of enhancing our strength or other physical attributes.  What are the ethical implications of this?  What unforeseen consequences might result?  How would this kind of experimentation change what it means to be human?

F is for First Contact

Mankind will undoubtedly be changed if/when we make contact with an alien species.  The nature of this change has been explored in various science fiction narratives, and many stories show humanity coming together as a result of first contact.

Sometimes the aliens come in peace, and sometimes they don’t.  How do these two scenarios differ, and how does that effect humanity?

When aliens come with a purpose to conquer, you see humans banding together to vanquish the enemy.  United in a common purpose, people and countries set aside their petty squabbles.  Though these invasion stories are just as much a reflection of our own violent past as they are a speculation about what might happen if aliens come to Earth with hostile intentions, in doing so they showcase the best of us.  These stories are also a good excuse to have big explosions, but that’s another matter entirely.

However, what happens when aliens come in peace?  According to the future portrayed by Star Trek, the revelation that we aren’t alone unites us in a way never thought possible.  War, and famine disappear.  (War still exists, but it no longer takes place between different segments of humanity.  We all know conflict was still prevalent in Star Trek.)  The need for material wealth no longer exists.  We see ourselves as one race instead of a multitude of groups.  Humanity is also generally accepting of alien cultures.  While disagreements happen, humanity as a whole prides itself on having moved beyond prejudice.

Image from Star Trek: First Contact

Babylon 5 paints a different picture.  While the people of Earth have generally come together, there is still homelessness and prejudice.  You hear people describe the Marsies with disdain, and there are groups that vehemently distrust alien races.  Government corruption ultimately leads to a civil war.

Given humanity’s past, is the Star Trek vision of the future too optimistic, or do you think we could eventually get there?  What implications would first contact have for religious belief?  For politics?  What new avenues would science have to explore?  Could we genuinely relate with and find common ground with a species that is vastly different from our own?

E is for Extrasensory Perception

The term "extrasensory perception" (ESP) can encapsulate many abilities, but the main one I'd like to discuss is telepathy.  Telepathy is frequently seen in science fiction and is often viewed as the next stage in human evolution.  One of my favorite shows of all time, Babylon 5, featured telepaths.  In Star Trek, we see telepathic races such as the people of Betazed.  We see Deanna Troi, who has empathic abilities.

Having the power to read someone’s mind comes with all sorts of problems.  Concerns about privacy inevitably arise.  How can you keep secrets from someone who can simply reach into your mind to look for the answers?  Governments may wish to use those with telepathic abilities for their own purposes.  In Babylon 5, telepaths are forced to choose between joining the Psi Corps, taking drugs to suppress their abilities, or go to prison.  The freedoms of telepaths are strictly curtailed in order to protect the general population (that’s what people are told, anyway).  In the Star Trek Voyager episode “Counterpoint,” telepaths are put into labor camps to keep them isolated.

Source

Which right should take precedence: the right of a person to have their private thoughts protected from intrusion, or the right of the telepath to have autonomy?  There isn’t an easy question to answer, though one can hardly help but cringe at some of the rigid restrictions some fictional governments have placed upon people with telepathic abilities.  What kind of restrictions would be appropriate?  How do you prevent government entities aimed at policing telepaths from using them merely as tools?  Is it possible that, as humans evolve, we might have to answer these questions one day?

D is for Dystopian Fiction

Dystopian futures have often been depicted in science fiction.  George Orwell’s 1984, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, and the more recent Hunger Games trilogy from Suzanne Collins are just a few well-known examples of a dystopian fiction.  Dystopian novels and films have long been a popular part of sci-fi.  As humans, we know that darkness looms within us, and human-built societal structures can either bring out the best or the worst in us.  Anything we as humans build, after all, are reflections of ourselves.  Those flawed systems benefit a select few at the expense of others.  Personal liberties are curtailed in a myriad of ways, whether it be through a restriction of speech, of personal belief, of political power, of personal relationships, etc.  In a dystopian society, poverty is often a fact of life, as those in power keep a majority of wealth for themselves.

Though I could perform an in-depth analysis of each kind of dystopian society portrayed in fiction, I would instead like to contemplate why people enjoy reading about them or seeing them depicted in film.  Often times we indulge in fantasy to escape the real world, but dystopian fiction is hardly the type of fiction that promotes escapism.  Perhaps reading about such a stark existence may help you to appreciate the things you have, but there’s something more to our love of these bleak scenarios.

Maybe we are intrigued by fictional dystopian societies because our world has its own history of them, and that kind of darkness that exists in our past intrigues us.  Perhaps we simply like the see the hero or heroine of the story stand up against incredible odds and triumph.  Who doesn’t like to see an underdog succeed, or at the very least, put up a brave fight until the bitter end?  Perhaps it gives us hope to see that, no matter how bad things get, the better nature of humanity still shines bright.

Which elements of various dystopian futures do you see in today’s society?  Why do you think dystopian stories captivate readers?  What would you count as a dystopian society, taking into account that said society is creating a comfortable existence for some?

Image courtesy of shadow9020/
DeviantArt