Have you ever suspected that there is something inherently silly about Science Fiction? All those lasers and funny clothing, and folk making the Vulcan sign with their fingers? Do you think that there might be a vast amount of childishness being exhibited by the geeks who go to those conventions and insist on dressing up like Luke Skywalker or the funky green dancing lady from the original Star Trek series? There is, after all, much to commend this line of thought, and if you happen to have a spouse or significant other who -- you discover after three years -- is secretly into his closet light sabre collection and you realize (oh, the horror!) that the writers he has been quoting to you are not French and German philosophers, as you had so innocently supposed, but are actually lines from science fiction novels and movies -- then read on, this hub is for you. And, incidentally, may the force be with you. (Sorry.)

After a recent illness confined me to my house for many months, I discovered just how fascinated I really am with some of the philosophical, political, and social implications of science fiction. Maybe if I explain some of the more philosophic features you will be able to appreciate why this genre is so interesting to people other than the sci fi geeks and tech nerds (neither of which I can claim to be). I couldn't read at the time, and I couldn't concentrate on movie-length features, so I was watching 40 minute episodes of Farscape, Stargate SG-1, and Stargate Atlantis, over and over, and was in a sort of suspended intellectual state of limbo -- probably due to all the drugs they had me taking. Therefore, for this hub, I'll confine myself to a rich area for ethical debate, that of military intervention versus diplomacy.

One of the themes that ran through the original Stargate SG-1 series was the military approach to problem-solving and how different this can be from the manner in which scientists and (in this case) archaeologists think in the same situation. Since every great advancement in science is immediately examined for its potential military application, and since the "Stargate" -- the portal through which travellers can be instantly taken to planets thousands of light years away -- is overseen by the Air Force, the military viewpoint was constantly being brought to the fore, and the political weight of some of the issues being discussed becomes of real significance in some of the episodes -- even, in fact, the debate whether the Stargate should continue to function if it did not allow Earth to amass more firepower of alien origin. Take the example of an episode in Season 4, "Scorched Earth." What starts out as a sort of interstellar equivalent of a UN Peacekeeping Forces diplomatic mission -- refugees from a dying planet are relocated to a new world -- goes awry, when it is discovered that another alien race has also targeted this particular world for settlement. Two peoples, one plot of land. Sound familiar? Territory has long been one of the oldest bones of contention between any two peoples. But this case is further complicated by the fact that the second alien race have sent a huge spacecraft to raze the planet's natural flora and fauna in order to replace it with a totally toxic eco-system more compatible with their own needs (they're in cryogenic sleep, by the way -- well, it's sci fi, after all). So there is no possibility of the two races being able to co-exist: diplomacy not an issue.

O'Neill, the military strategist, is in a difficult situation. He has just overseen the refugees' settlement to this world, and feels protective of them and their lives. His solution is to devise a bomb large enough to destroy the imminent threat, although he has difficulty dealing with Carter's reaction to his plan. But he has surveyed his options, and in all rational consideration he has chosen the only solution open to him that will protect one race, although it will destroy the other (did I mention that this space craft contained the very last of their species?). He orders Carter to build the bomb.

Meanwhile, the alien craft has manufactured a being in the image of the refugees, who can interact with them and explain that they must leave the environment to avoid destruction. A nice touch, as it allows the social anthropologist and liberal humanist in Dr. Jackson to attempt to convince this envoy to think outside his original programming. It also allows the show to raise a debate of philosophical issues that are timely and relevant. We now have a three-way argument (for there are rarely only two sides to any issue, are there?) -- the closed logic of the programmed envoy, the diplomatic and reasoned arguments of Dr. Jackson, and the military solution of O'Neill.

The bomb has been activated, though, and is ticking down. It looks as if the military strategy will determine the outcome for the two alien races. With little time to spare, Dr. Jackson is able to construct his argument for the envoy, stating that, since this envoy has been created to protect the interests of the aliens in stasis, he should protect their integrity as well as their lives -- and prevent their introduction to a new planet being based on the destruction of many lives. The envoy can understand that this circumstance is unfortunate, but he has been programmed to deliver a message, not decide anyone's fate. This gives Jackson the opportunity to pose a (not so) rhetorical question: could the envoy stop the scorching of the planet if he chose to do so? Given an affirmative answer, Jackson poses another question: if the envoy could find an alternate planet for the refugees to live on, would it do so? Again, the answer is yes. Oh, and while you're at it, asks Jackson, could ya defuse that bomb?

Obviously, we cannot reduce all human political situations to such clear-cut or simplistic alternatives. We're humans, programmed to make everything as complicated as possible. But isn't it better to think about such questions, rather than take sides based on our previous leanings? In this episode, O'Neill is spared from a reality where his military solution is the only one available. The envoy is also spared from a reality where his programming, too, seems to provide the only option.

Of course, there are times when military strategy is the correct course to take.  Again, the blending of minds in the SG-1 team provides opportunity for ethical debate and moral dilemma when an alien race, detecting that a probe sent from Earth is accidentally killing them (sci fi rapidfire techspeak interjects at this point to explain this lethal byproduct of Earth's friendly information gathering) infects the Stargate Command computer system in "Entity" (Season 4, episode 20), resisting two attempts by Carter to eradicate this virus.  When confined to a specific area of the network, it builds a platform in the form of a computer terminal to interact with the humans.  Jackson and Carter insist on communication with this entity, against O'Neill's logical assumption that it must be a trap.  Carter is immediately taken over by the entity, who needs the data storage space provided by the human brain (since we're apparently not using it for anything, we have a lot of spare RAM in there) if it is to multiply.  

Now we have a hostage situation to deal with.  Jackson tries to reason with the entity (which is supressing Carter's personality in order to communicate with the rest of the team), but again, O'Neill's training realizes that the entity, which has returned to Earth as retaliation, is not going to give up this hostage if it wants to survive (it's like a big zip drive, which has been unzipping itself into larger and larger dataspace).  He therefore threatens to send more probes to the entity's planet if it will not release Carter and, as a last resort, shoots her (aw gee -- and we just learned in episode five that he's sweet on her, too).  His instinct and training save Earth (phew! and in the nick of time, too!).  Oh, and the doctor saves Carter, so that their unresolved romance can continue to be repressed by the chain of command.     

If you're looking for avenues of exploration in Science Fiction, this is only one small foray into the genre. I'd like to do a series of pop culture Hubs on sci fi's growing popularity even as a contender for mainstream programming. There are many intelligent and even esoteric reasons why this stuff is so engrossing, from consideration of what makes us human (think Data, Cylon, Tin Man) to what makes us laugh. As with any popular franchise, however, there are a lot of bad imitations. Avoid Starship Troopers in favor of Aliens, if you're into the potential future of the Marine Corps -- and whatever you do, stay away from that singularly dreadful Event Horizon (no; it won't even suck you in). It is interesting to note that the two-hundredth episode of SG-1 ended with the following from Isaac Asimov: "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinded critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."