That President Obama. We have a lot in common, he and I.

President Obama and Nichelle Nichols, who plays Lt. Uhura. Image courtesy of ABC News' blog. 

Here, have a list of President Obama's Eight Essential Sci-Fi Films and TV Shows. Many of these you have already studied. It's a solid list!

-Mrs. Swan

Star Trek and a Private Little Directive

Despite dancing around the issue for an entire class, we managed to talk Star Trek without mentioning the Prime Directive! Any exploration of Star Trek as a utopian ideal rather than just a first-world fantasy has to contend with the Prime Directive, that pesky non-interference clause.

In "A Private Little War" Kirk assumes that the Klingons have armed the villagers with flintlock firearms, and he’s furious. How dare they contaminate this planet with their superior (and murderous) technology? He and Bones refuse to give any weapons to the hill people until they’ve proven Klingon involvement, and they keep their identities secret from the tribe—only Tyree and his wife know that they’re from another planet, and they’re none too happy with Nona having this information. All of this fuss about staying out of other people’s business is Starfleet’s Prime Directive, which states that "personnel should refrain from interfering in the natural, unassisted, [sic] developmentof societies, even if such interference [is] well-intentioned." (Thanks to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki.) But Kirk is emotionally involved—these are his friends! This planet was a paradise! Bones, on the other hand, insists throughout that providing these people with flintlocks is a slippery slope. What weapon next? How many people will they enable to kill? Where does it end?

Thanks to Iverson Movie Ranch for the screen capture. 

The thing is, the Prime Directive is really serious business. It means no interference whatsoever, not even in providing knowledge of a larger universe. In the episode "Bread and Circuses," Kirk explains the Prime Directive as: "No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space or the fact that there are other worlds or civilizations." You can pass for one of the natives, or you can hide. Those are your only options. And the Federation is not kidding. This directive is “prime," number one, the very first rule. Starfleet captains vow to uphold it with their lives, if necessary.

Which leaves me wondering—why does it matter? Why is it such a big deal if we interfere in other civilizations? Presumably we’re letting evolution take its course, but what’s the good in doing that? Doesn’t that assume some sort of moral dimension to evolution that doesn’t actually exist? The end result of noninterference may be a people more perfectly suited to the planet they live on, but this compatibility comes at the cost of virtually everyone before them. And at a certain point in the development of a civilization (assuming an intelligent life form that uses tools), we create technology to supplement our imperfect adaptation, anyway—technology lets us triumph over nature. Doesn’t it? Am I missing something? Am I mapping a human adaptation technique onto non-human species unjustly? Is there not a point at which technological invention necessarily dominates other adaptive capabilities? I mean, chameleons are fantastic at camouflage, and bears are the top of their food chain, but you don’t see them curing disease and adapting to climate change. Why should we be cruel and let evolution take its course when it’s going to end in technological innovation, anyway? This has become a tangent, but, I think, a relevant one.  

The real answer to my question is "the Cold War" and "the East Asian theater," right? We talked about humans and Klingons as capitalists and communists in "The Trouble with Tribbles." "A Private Little War" is a clear—blatant!—allegory for the Vietnam War, which was in full swing by the time the episode aired in 1967. The communists provide arms to one side, the capitalists to another, and we sit back and watch those involved in the conflict blow each other to smithereens without having to become involved in the bloodshed ourselves. Until suddenly it escalates, and we are involved. And then we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, right?

Star Trek doesn’t see much of a need to fight at all. And in the context of the Cold War, the never-ending and unwinnable Vietnam War, and the arms race (the pinnacle of which is the civilization-ending nuclear bomb), it’s hard to argue with that claim. Involvement leads to escalation. Involvement leads to bloodshed. They’re better off on their own. Some may die, but certainly not in the kind of mass carnage that our (military) interference would cause. The Garden of Eden may not actually be perfect, but it’s better than the Fall. In its historical context, I see what they mean.

But not all involvement is military involvement, and by the time we get to Star Trek: The Next Generation, we’re looking at the Prime Directive in much trickier situations. In the episode "Homeward," the Enterprise crew is willing to let an entire (intelligent, developed, tool-using, literature-possessing, humanoid) species perish in a natural disaster rather than interfere in their "development." To be perfectly clear, these people wouldn’t develop further; they would all die. Granted, the episode ends with the crew saving one small village while managing to uphold the Prime Directive (sort of): the village never knows that aliens intervened on their behalf. But the show also reaffirms the importance of the Prime Directive, as the most intelligent of the villagers discovers the Enterprise, undergoes an existential crisis, and commits suicide.

One might point out that if the Enterprise had not intervened, he would have died anyway.

As a twelve-year-old watching The Next Generation, I never questioned the moral rightness of Prime Directive, even as I never thought to question all the times our heroes break it. As an adult, I understand that interference in the business of others often leads to a big fat imbroglio, though I wonder if a proxy war conducted for our own gain is the same as something like building infrastructure or providing aid. 

I’m also completely unwilling to stand back and let people die and claim that I’m doing the hard but right thing. So what am I missing? The Prime Directive might be a very good rule from a practical point of view. But is it really so morally correct? 

Here, have a reality check from a science fiction author!

Art from the cover of Robinson's Red Mars, obtained here. 

Sci fi author Kim Stanley Robinson reflects on Elon Musk's vision of travel to Mars. Spoiler alert: He thinks the plan is unrealistic. Read about it in Why Elon Musk's Mars Vision Needs 'Some Real Imagination' (interview by Eric Roston)

I love Mars. Love love love. My first experience reading science fiction was the Young Astronaut series, about--guess what?--colonizing Mars. I made great grades in science for years because of those books. (They are every bit as cheesy as they look, by the way.)

We can't help but be attracted to Mars. Given enough time and resources, it really could be a second home--not as hospitable as earth, but close enough to reach, and viable. The moon...well, the moon doesn't have enough atmosphere to make intensive terraforming possible, and it's just less exciting. Robinson makes a good case for a Moon base, though.

Infecting Mars

Image from Space X, via this Quartz article. 

Did you know that Tesla founder Elon Musk is making plans to send human beings to Mars?

Really. He is. Right now! See? Read this article.

I know it seems like science fiction--or at least something far down the road, considering how big a mess we've made of Earth itself. And clearly we are not going on a field trip to Mars next year. Even if he is successful (and that's a HUGE if), it's going to take a lot of time. But considering how far he's come with Space X, we should probably take Musk seriously.

Which leads us to Mars. This article invokes the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (which is apparently really cool) to claim that Musk's mission might not be ethical, or even legal. The United Nations has pledged to take measures so that we don't contaminate other planets with microbes. (Since human beings are walking bacteria factories, that makes a lot of sense to me.)

I still think it highly unlikely that Mars contains sentient life, or even animal life. We're not going to arrive and be greeted by Ylla. But we have found evidence of running water on the planet. And we're pretty sure that some Antarctic fungus could survive there. The presence of microbial life on Mars is looking...well, if not likely, then at least more and more possible.

"Don't mess up," you optimists say. "Just don't go around contaminating and killing things on Mars, and we'll be fine." But I'd like to remind you that we have a crummy track record, as colonizers, for keeping native populations alive. Remember those woodcuts from 17th century England? "Come to Jamestown! Fertile earth! Uninhabited land!"

Uninhabited! Sometimes we blunder through the places we explore and destroy people and animals and plants in truly accidental carelessness. And sometimes we are blind to the damage we cause, because this blindness suits our purposes. I'm not so sure we would recognize life on Mars, even if it were staring us in the face--at least, not at first.

So I want to ask you, because this is a question that comes up over and over in science fiction: What obligation do we have to the life of other planets? Is terraforming a "dead" planet okay? (How do we recognize a dead planet?) Is it all right to contaminate or replace microbes? Plants? Animals? People? Why, or why not?

Your next stop, the Twilight Zone!

No, seriously, you're entering The Twilight Zone today!

I'm out at a doctor's appointment. I need you guys to help the substitute hook my laptop up to the innovation station, get the projector started, and then play the two episodes of The Twilight Zone that you'll watch in class today. The sub has the specific lesson plans, and you can get Mr. Dehram, in room 220, to help with unlocking my computer, in case it gets locked (which will probably happen). Basically:
-Watch "Time Enough at Last."
-Talk about it. Use the discussion questions.
-Watch "The Star."
-Talk about it. Use the discussion questions.

Both episodes are online. The web addresses and discussion questions are on today's handout. Now, if only there were a way to put that handout online, so you didn't have to type in the whole url to get to the episode...

But wait! Look at THIS!

There's your link to today's assignment. Have fun, guys!

-Mrs. Swan

But are they really MAD SCIENTISTS?

Subtitle: Watch Mrs. Swan juggle eighteen unrelated thoughts all at the same time!

Our Frankenstein discussion this afternoon reminded me of this oldie but goodie from Cowbirds in Love. Are we sure about this "mad scientist" business?

I wonder: Is this comic just nitpicking, or does the typical "mad scientist" in literature actually represent a misunderstanding? Do some representations lump together everything that mainstream culture considers to be bad about science and technology? (Or, to get REALLY broad, why are so many sci fi explorations of future technology either utopias or dystopias? Is there really no middle ground? Must science either save us all or kill us all?)

As long as we're talking about morality and technology, have some more questions: Does Victor Frankenstein even do anything wrong in CREATING the monster? Granted, he sees it, decides that it's ugly, and runs away, abandoning it. And that is not so cool. But is the initial creation of the monster itself a problem? Traditional readings say, "Yes. It's an affront to the laws of nature. He's trying to play with life and death, to play God." Okay. I can see how that's not good if you're killing. But what does he really hurt in creating life? Genuine question.

For those of you joining us at home, a quick recap of our Frankenstein/mad scientist discussion in class today:

-We talked about the mad scientist seeking control over nature.

-We quickly dismissed the idea that controlling nature is, in and of itself, an immoral pursuit. We might find some areas on the fringes where we disagree about this, but at the very least, we all liked having medicine and shelter and tools available.

-N brought up that story about the frogs who were released into the environment of...did we say where?...to eat the pests that were harming the sugarcane. Spoilers: they didn't eat the pests, and just multiplied to a terrifying and squishy extent. Maybe the problem isn't trying to control nature. Maybe the problem comes when our reach--our ability to control the world around us--exceeds the limits of our understanding--our ability to predict all possible outcomes. This doesn't have to mean that all science is mad science, period (of course not!), but since we're not very good at seeing the limits of our understanding, we're probably right to be wary, especially for large-scale, dangerous projects. (Who voted for weighing the risks of a scientific project against its possible benefits? Aa, that was you?)

-As long as the risks aren't large, I, for one, am in favor of the "let's do it and see what happens" approach to science. You never know when some discovery might be useful. We find things out accidentally all the time. It sounded like several of you were with me in the "why the heck not" camp. Anybody want to argue against this position?

-We talked about the real ethical concerns that mad scientists represent, although some of these concerns are different almost 200 years after Frankentein: Stem cell study? Atomic weapons? Growing organs? Eugenics? Biological warfare? Large scale computer worms? Which of these concern you, and which do not? How do you make your decisions about these issues?

-But we ALSO talked about how pejorative the concept of the mad scientist can potentially be. Who actually mentioned the movie Mad Science? (L?) How many genius tinkerers in sci fi movies make a robot girlfriend? (This is a time honored tradition going back at least as far as Pygmalion and Galatea in ancient Greece, by the way.) Why do they need to build a fake girlfriend? Because being a genius isn't enough, and in some cases actually makes them antisocial losers, right? They can't get a girl any other way--so the story goes, at least. The image of the nerd is changing, but in some ways, the mad scientist still reinforces the old idea of the bitter, antisocial little man building a;way in his basement.

Additional thoughts on the pejorative representation: Are there any female mad scientists? In our super thorough in-class survey, we couldn't think of any, except maybe the woman from Divergent, who seems to be in more of a management position. (More on depictions of female bosses as evil later, if you like.) If this is a gendered representation, it's possibly relevant to the huge gender war that's rearing its ugly head in the Hugos and in gamergate right now. Women don't find you attractive? Have trouble talking to them? That's okay: build your own perfect woman! (Or ogle Laura Croft and talk smack with your buddies online.) The fake girlfriend (or the nerd who finally gets the hot girl through trickery) are both really problematic tropes that assume a woman is nothing more than a body to be obtained. Nowhere in this depiction do we see the concept that it's good to talk to women because they have their own ideas and might actually be interesting in conversation. On the other hand, the unhinged, loser nerd stereotype does make life miserable for a lot of kids who go through school more interested in Science Olympiad than in baseball. When we perpetuate this image, we get communities of people--thinkers, inventors, sci fi fans--who feel ostracized themselves. I wonder if both groups--the women and the male sci-fi old guard--don't feel threatened.

Next time in class: Why you don't create life and then abandon when it doesn't live up to your beauty pageant expectations.

What are your thoughts about any of this? 

OH HELP! WHAT DOES A BLOG POST LOOK LIKE?! (?!?!)

"Just write a blog post," she says. "No big deal. Just write about things that interest you. And be interesting. Oh, and write in a way that's easy to understand." That sounds great and all, Mrs. Swan, but what does interesting, casual writing about science fiction even look like?

Fear not! I am here to accumulate lists of geeky stuff for you. This is really the tip of the iceberg--if none of these look like the kind of thing you want to write, that's fine. If you really appreciate seeing examples, though, I've got your back on this one. Voilà!

Look, all of these people put some time into writing these posts and articles. Some are even professionally published. Virtually all of them (except perhaps the "humans are scary" business) are longer and more detailed than I expect from you. These are really just a few suggestions about the type of thing you might enjoy writing.

1) How America's Leading Science Fiction Authors are Shaping Your Future

This impressive (professional) article from Smithsonian.com looks at the intersection of fiction and technological advancement. (written by Eileen Gunn, lead art by Mehreen Murtaza)

Houston, we have liftoff!

As of this afternoon, all of the site's content should be up and running. Check it out. You can find:

     -our very loose class calendar (remember that we're going to be flexible)

     -links to readings, research sources, and pertinent websites

     -classroom documents (everything from the syllabus to supplementary material to discussion 

      guides)

The real blogging--discussing all the interesting questions and ideas that come out of these works--has only just begun. 

I've checked some of the links, but not all of them. And I make no guarantees about formatting as of yet! You should have what you need for the course--but it's probably not all that pretty, yet.

If you have time, I could use your help with proofreading the site. When you see a formatting problem, or click on a link that doesn't work, or find something placed in the wrong category, send me a message. We'll get it fixed up! 

-Mrs. Swan 

About Me

Let's assume that you want to know anything about my personal life or interest in science fiction, okay?

I'm Christina Swan, your sometimes friendly English teacher. This is my eleventh (!) year teaching at LASA. Like all of your teachers, this is what I do in my free time: 

That's a metaphor, of course. Shh!  When you can't find me on campus, I'm at home with these adorable children: