Dumpy ships, Robinhood's Merry Band, and Fringe society - is it as glorious as it sounds?

      For a show that focuses so heavily on the libertarian ideals, of free will in political, monetary, and social spheres, it made a bit of a humbling criticism of renegade culture. Jayne the obvious stand out in this episode proves how the legend of the civilian hero, is more of a myth, an important myth at that, but based more on hope and expectations than reality.
    It's seems reasonable that an oppressed and destitute community, much like the serfs throughout much of medieval history, would be happy to believe in a "robin hood" character - a person who gives to the poor and takes from the rich based on nothing but integrity and morals, with little regard for personal safety or necessity. Firefly sheds and realistic light on this idealistic archetype, and shows that this person does not exist, want and greed are universal. Even though Jayne is essentially a fraud, the show uses a softer tone to show how, even just a story is enough to keep a hope going for a people in distress.
      Firefly doesn't completely trash on the Robinhood story, in fact it still very much fancies it. With it's use of a mostly provincial crew and run down ship it creates an endearing image of a mostly good crew of citizen heroes. Firefly likes the idea of a libertarian society, but also is willing to cater to the idea that even that would not be a utopia - people are still greedy and insecure, regardless of power structure.
    

Yo where the Nadias at!?.. and other issues with an over philosophized political climate in the face of critical issues.

    It's news to most people over the age of 7 (sadly) that the world has a lot of problems that we are forced to deal with, albeit many of them are conflated non-issues, but there are usually no easy solutions. In an era where many of our most impactful issues are attempted to be resolved through hypothetical debate and deliberation in order to find the "right" solution, "Nadias" are as rare as ever. "Nadias" don't spend too much time wondering what the easiest course of action is, they instead focus on finding and putting a solution into action.
    When a person is drowning, they don't usually think about designing a new Eco-friendly scuba device, usually they are focused on figuring out which way the bubbles are going; maybe afterwards they'll devise a sustainable and hardy flotation device. "Nadias" are just people who apply that basic logic to the real world, which is easier said then done. A "Nadias" true strength lies in their ability to look past extraneous details and instead evaluate a situation in realistic and modifiable terms.
      This does not go to say that we don't need earth shatter-ers like Arkady or legendary inspiring figures like John, just to say that a healthy balance will never be achieved for society if progress relies solely on a battle of ideologies. Nadia shows that work and progress can still be done during times of non-harmony - stalemate or even revolution.
     By focusing heavily on characterization, for characters such as Nadia, Robinson finely evaluates the underpinnings of human cultures and civilizations, as each character represents certain parts of a functioning (and non-functioning society). Robinson never admits to his fictional society becoming a Utopia, more that it is a society that is chronically striving to not be a dystopia. A society is a continuously adapting thing that requires maintenance from all sorts of people, "Nadias" included, and there is no piece of paper, no matter how well written, that will solve all future and current issues. They say a society is only as good as the people within it, if by good they mean full of integrity and well intentions, then by all means I agree.  

What is the important similarity between Captain Jean Picard, Christopher Columbus, and the BOOOOOORRRGGG??

      Hint: They're all pasty white guys!! (I'm only kind of kidding). After putting that thought aside, we can see that the obvious similarity is that the are all men of conquest, with that being the case, the real question is why do we generally have such extremely different impressions of each of them? What makes a "good" or "bad" conquistador?
     I think many people would be inclined to say how they treat the land and people on which they arrived, is the defining factor in deciding if they are moral or amoral. I rather, would suggest that it is actually the adventurers motive or mondus operandi, or at least the one that they proclaim, that shifts our perception of that person and possibly even turn a blind eye to their less humane actions. People live vicariously through stories of adventure and like to identify with the main character, so we like a story with a main character with a motive we can aspire to; "To go where no man has gone before", "To discover the New World", but "Resistance is Futile"?, not so much. Because of our bias, we would rather chalk up mortality at the hands of a conqueror we "like", or maybe just their carelessness as just symptom of adventure, than instead destroy our perfectillusion of grandeur, especially if that conqueror is from our direct history.
     In the case of Christopher Columbus many American people will put aside the genocide he committed in their mind as to not destroy the romantic vision of "the Discoverer" and effectively themselves, it's borderline narcissistic. I'm in no way saying that Picard has a similar moral compass to Columbus, just a similar motto. For the same reason that we look past Colombus's atrocities, we look past Picards shortcomings, even if they are partly due to some kind of Butterfly effect. He used his confidence to explore as a way to pick up alot of responsibility, that viewers sometimes let him shed when something goes wrong. For example, because of how Picard handles Q and the Borg, thousands of people die in battle. At the very least, Picard is not mindless, we are just apt to look over the messiness and dark side that inevitably come along with having the drastic influence of leading a civilization to new explorations.
             I think what is most distressing about the Borg, besides the fact that they kill entire species, is that they don't seem to have any heroic motive, at least not from the human perspective. They seem to have a mindless appetite for over consumption and destruction. It doesn't make sense to us, they seem like viruses; why would they even bother with conquest? How can we logically reason with or make sense of a race that's motive is not "self-improvement" or adventure. It is scary to think that a species could erase something so immense like an entire species with out any passion, even if it is nefarious, how do we as humans wrap our heads around it?

Why I love Octavia Butler's Writing style and how she conquers sensitive topic with it.....also a random thing about the femal victim role in sci fi.

    Octavia Butler is already so wildly celebrated and recognized, but that won't stop me from doing the same :). I found her writing to be refreshing and flowing; no info dumps, pretentious science explanations that sound like a 12 year old boy wrote it, just pure narrative from a fictional source that is actually experiencing whatever strange new world Octavia drops us into.

    Needless to say, Octavia Butler is into some WEIRD stuff, but in my eyes that's not exactly a deterrent. Her work turns things that could easily be considered campy or simply gross into something interesting and thought provoking, but that's because she digs DEEP and gives every detail of the story special attention and care - but really that's all you need to make any story worth reading.

I think that is what made the first story we read in class so sophisticated - I say while still being mindful of it's terribly disturbing aspects (it would be pretty hard for Butler to downplay those traits anyways). The truth is the weird sexual/farming slavery of humans by aliens is super interesting, and maybe just as plausible as one of the common alien invasion tropes. Besides, the characterization of all of the humans and aliens is incredible, the interpersonal social aspects of post invasion world is not something I had really considered before ( I kind of assumed we'd be mostly dead). I think this story also drew some strong real-life parallels of slavery, abuse, and Stockholm syndrome. Honestly, the way she wrote for the main alien almost made me understand it's side, ALMOST. (did I almost get Stockholm syndromes by Butler?). This story also made me think a lot about how we treat the animals we use for food, clothing, etc. Even in the case of the aliens being superior to humans (as many assume we are to animals), everything they do to the humans seem incredibly wrong; it's even more sickening when you think about how we violate animals in just as inhumane ways (Maybe we don't try to use them to grow our parasitic offspring, but we still do some terrible things that we try to justify.) Overall the power dynamic between the alien and her human is totally disconcerting, it would almost be easier to understand if she was just overtly physically abusive, and did not act as some kind of family member.
          And now for the last little bit that I kind of built up in the title. What I found completely interesting was how I perceived the protagonist, the stereotypical victim character to be female, even thought he was overtly defined as male. While I don't like the fact that I subconsciously assumed that, I think Butler may intentionally written the main character as a doted on, but raped and manipulated young person, in order to make the statement that we are biased to assume that a victim is female, for good or bad reason I'm not sure.

Are AIs and uncontained consciousness the next step for the human race?

     Neuromancer may have been the beginning of the new cyberpunk sub-genre, but the theme of escaping our physical existence in it's ending is pretty common through out the science fiction genre as a whole.
     According to many beliefs, or at least a lot of authors, the best alternative to our current existence is one without flesh. Think about it, in the Christian religion, and many other similar beliefs systems there is the idea that we could eventually be free from our bodies and live in eternal joy (i.e heaven). I don't want to step on any toes here, but it also makes a lot of sense to me that now that we have the distant possibility, with our current progress in technology, we are intrigued by the idea uploading our consciousness or neural makeup to some sort of digital "matrix.", in the same way people yearn for heaven. It makes sense that human's would be into that idea of being free of physical shells - freedom from discrimination, non-mental illnesses, aging, death, etc.
      For Case, when he is taken out of a virtual world where he is limitless, he falls into a path of self destruction and depression. Even at the end when he is given access to hack, he still gets his body back in shape for drug abuse (another type of escape from the physical world). Overall, Case is big in escapism. However his dream is eventually realized by the Necromancer (bringer of neural activity?), and he is allowed to live with Linda forever, as they are both uploaded to the Matrix.

90's Kid's toys + Medical 3-D printing = the scientific advancement we've all been waiting for.

    Have you ever thought to yourself that most band aids are kind of an eye-sore?.. Even the hello kitty kind? Besides, there's just got to be a more effective way to help the skin heal than just slapping a piece of sticky cloth to the skin, right?.... and fun, did we slap skinmention fun?  

   Well lucky you! You're thinking just like the engineers at the Aislinn Incorporated Labs! Here we believe in practicality, innovation, customizability, and style above all. Dreamed up by the same person who claimed thy "could make anything" with a 3-D printer and the genius behind Lisa Frank's marketing, we bring you Slap Skin!  Combining the amazing kinetic abilities of the classic slap on bracelet, and the cutting edge science of printing out tissue made of live human cells. With this amazing invention we promise a sterile and discreet healing of superficial scratches to 3rd degree burns. Just open up your packaged Slap Skin (covered with a sanitizing protectant), press the edge gently to the skin surrounding the wound (little force is necessary with our amazing new design), and wait for the skin adjusting technology to adapt to your healthy skin color, texture, and dimensions of your trauma for the ideal and efficient skin repair. We now offer a 20 pack of standard Slap Skins! for the low price of $50, which should last for about a year (since the individual strips have the ability to cell replicate, on strip should be sufficient for any size scathe)    

       Based off of this medical technology, Aislinn Incorporated has also created a cosmetic version called Slap Style! This is not for tissue repair, but rather harmless and painless body modification. With a quick slap onto the wrist this 2nd layer of skin will spread across the body and cover it with a variety of different colors, patterns, finishes, and or disguises of your choice. This is perfect for the daring fashionista or the undercover spy; either way this is only temporary, as it is absorbed by the bloodstream at the end of the week.  These are perfect for recreational purposes, but also great for corporate uniform (please place a custom order in bulk for us). 

     This is a new product, but we are sure that it's possibilities are endless. Please purchase the product off of our website within the next 24 hours for a 20% discount!

                                                                          

Synthesis between West World and the first 30 minutes of Blade Runner

         So, as the title suggests I've only watched a bit of blade runner, but given the fact I'm neck deep in the HBO show West World (The prospect of a 2nd season is the only thing that has kept my faith in humanity over the last year), I think I can provide at least a semi-intelligent opinion on the ethics of human like and possibly sentient androids.

To get straight to the point, the thing that is really interesting about the seemingly universally acknowledged fear of highly intelligent machines, is that our fear is not really of the machine like qualities, but rather their perceptibly human-like characteristics. Generally, the things we fear in machines are things like empathy, sentience, self-preservation, vengeance, and personal sovereignty. I have two theories that could explain why we have such a fundamental fear of man-like machines.  

Theory 1: To allow machines to posess these qualities would put humans in a state of moral murkiness or ambiguity based on the often inhumane treatment of these machines
      Evidence by how customers treat the hosts in West World. They purge their unacceptable behaviors because they believe, or at least want to believe, that hosts are non sentient which excuses those behaviors.

Theory 1b: A less forgiving addition to theory 1 is that the reason behind humans not wanting to infringe on humane rights of man-like machines because they fear that machines with superior abilities would then try to defend their humanity through violence.
     ie the entire plot of Blade Runner

Theory 2: Man made machines will never be identical to humans, but will instead be so incredibly similar that it would unsettling or creepy to humans. Humans avoid "creepy" things because they are an unknown quantity; should we fear or accept? - we just don't know. The biologically ingrained reaction to the unknown is fear; think Hal's macabre voice. 
     Think about the robot vs human test in Blade Runner; while it is 100% accurate at predicting the classification of the examined, if the only thing separating a man and an advanced robot a flash of non-empathy at a single image, is the difference between man and machine even significant? Who knows? .. eerie.