15 Crucial Sci-Fi Films

Brave New World(1932)
Aldous Huxley was the godfather of science fiction. Very early on, he recognized the dangers of emerging technology, and predicted a world that few of his contemporaries thought possible. Though it was only made into a TV movie, to me the book was the first instance of these new concepts in literature, media, and the world.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb(1964)
The first Stanley Kubrick film and only black & white movie on this list is about a pre-emptive nuclear dilemma involving the United States and the Soviet Union. The film is extremely ironic and satirical, showing how our own machines, especially the weapons, can get out of control and lead to destruction.


2001: A Space Odyssey(1968)
Another Kubrick film with a man vs. machine theme, only this time it's in the future. The film focuses on human evolution, artificial intelligence and even extraterrestrial life. It is especially known for its realistic accuracy(e.g. no noise in space). The ultimate battle is between the crew of the ship and the supposedly error-free computer, HAL 9000. This episode shows the danger of Artifical Intelligence cognizing and resisting a shutdown.


Beneath the Planet of the Apes(1970)
Another future tale about evolution and nuclear disaster, this film is about a battle over an infertile earth between mutant humans and apes that can speak. The mutants have telepathic powers and worship an unexploded nuclear bomb. They eventually detonate upon realizing they cannot win a battle against the apes, causing the total destruction of earth.


THX 1138(1971)
George Lucas' first film, THX 1138 is very Orwelian in theme, in showing the the total control a government can attain through technological and scientific advances. The danger of humans becoming more robotic, mechanical, and generic in nature is emphasized.


1984(novel in 1949, movie in 1984)
The film adaptation of the very famous Orwell novel, is not the same as the novel, but very close. Still, “Big Brother is watching YOU” was coined in the original novel, as Orwell imagined a possible post WWII future. The “Big Brother” concept has grown to be a quite relevant discussion on personal privacy rights balanced with security and surveillance, despite whether it is one's own government, large companies, or other people.

Terminator(trilogy 1984, 1991, 2003)
An epic action flick showing the danger of a cyborg company taking over the world and destroying humanity. It also touches on time travel and the possible effects.

Hackers(1995)
Definately the most hokey of the bunch, Hackers is a modern film about a group of misfit-hacker teens who end up having to use their destructive and disruptive hacking abilities to battle a large corporation with their own 1337 hacker of their own.

12 Monkeys(1995)
Terry Gilliam directed this futuristic movie about a prisoner who is sent back in time to try to find a pure form of a virus that wiped out most of mankind on earth, only everyone in the past thinks he's crazy. The movie deals with the issue of creating a virus that could kill the world, as well as the dangers and paradoxes of time travel. Gilliam also directed Brazil(1985) which was his own more futuristic rendition of 1984.


Gattaca(1997)
Gattaca takes place in near future, where a naturally conceived(as opposed to genetically modified) man attempts to surpass the limitations put on him by society. Major themes include the dangers of genetic engineering as well as the random, inexplicable nature of the universe.


Matrix(1999)
If you haven't seen this movie, then you've probably been asleep for the past 10 years. Basically it is an epic movie about humans fighting to destroy their own creation, the Robot, which has turned against its creators and enslaved mankind. It's similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey in that it shows the danger of creating a cognitive machine that resists termination. An interesting idea, when the computer entity, Mr. Smith, notes that humans are more like a virus than any other creature(shown in the following trailer).


Minority Report(2002)
“Set in Washington, D.C. in the year 2054, where a special police department called "pre-crime" apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge, provided by three psychics termed 'pre-cogs'.” -Wikipedia The movie deals with the moral issues of altering people for unnatural purposes as well as the blind total reliance on new technologies, and the unknown unknowns.


Equilibrium(2002)
Very much like Brave New World and THX 1138, this film is about a society controlled by a totalitarian government who forces its population to take pills to eradicate emotions. The main character is a special soldier who is supposed to apprehend those who don't take the pills. He eventually stops taking them and begins to struggle over right and wrong.

I, Robot(book 1950, movie 2004)
Though the original book by Isaac Asimov was a collection of short stories about depicting a future with robots, the film focuses on a story where a robot is charged for the murder of his master. Almost all of Asimov's books dealt with new technology and its interworking with humanity in the not-so-distant future. My personal favorite, Foundation, is coming to theaters in 2008. Foundation is the first book of a series about a man who develops a method to predict the future and sees the destruction of civilization. He then establishes a distant colony to ensure the survival of the human race.

The Real Superhumans And The Quest For The Future Fantastic(2008)
The only movie on this list that isn't science fiction, it is a documentary dealing with modern people with superhuman abilities. The film also focuses on human evolution, genetics, and aging. A geneticist in this film successfully creates a chimera between two species more genetically disparate than humans and monkeys. He sees genetic engineering of humans inevitable, while warns of the possible biological(as opposed to social)stratification. Still, the super-humans are by far the most fascinating, and definitely worth a look.

Public Intellectual Part I: Democracy and Religion

Currently, the term “Public Intellectual” is often construed as a vague notion of any semi-qualified person speaking his mind on a specific subject. This unclear meaning has a positive side – it allows the position to be appealing to many people - not just elite academia who believe they hold a monopoly on knowledge. Although Public Intellectuals are often thought of as a dying breed - or believed to be watered down - their existence and relevance has never been so widespread.

Stephen Mack seeks to lay these theories of decline to rest in his essay, “The 'Decline' of Public Intellectuals?” Mack traces the source of the supposed American anti-intellectualism to - ironically enough – the academics. He summarizes, arguing that this problem is a misconception, if not non-existent:

“Without replaying the whole debate, two points will suffice: One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum”

Mack then criticizes another academic, Richard Posner, for his attempt to categorize the position rather than explain it on a functional basis. He argues:

we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

It's the actions, not the man that matters.

With so much modern development, it's hard to believe some scholars think Public Intellectuals aren't popular anymore. Still, the core idea is resonant. Alan Lightman begins his own contemplation of the function of the Public Intellectual by analyzing Ralph Waldo Emerson's own concept:

“Emerson put forth the idea of the "One Man," by which he meant the complete person, or the person who embodies all dimensions of human potential and actuality”

Lightman then compares this idea to a more modern Public Intellectual, Edward Said:

“According to Said, an intellectual's mission in life is to advance human freedom and knowledge.”

Lightman goes on to create a hierarchy of levels of public intellectuals(while Stephen Mack cringes), defines their responsibilities, and even lists a few examples. Lightman also recognizes a new trend in the sphere of Public Intellect: “...many more such people, these days, have come from the sciences.” I would disagree with the belief that this trend is recent, though it is clear Lightman does not see any lack of intellectuals in the public sphere.

By default, Americans will always be aware of this position because the Public Intellectual is a byproduct of both democracy and religion, the important foundations of our country. The United States is the world's largest and most successful democracy, making it an apt measure for the status of the Public Intellectual. America is a breeding ground for thinkers – an elite technological culture with a large reliance on information flow and creative ideas – an arena for the daily battles between religion and science.

With the increasing importance of knowledge and information comes the reliance on and need for effective distributors. The Public Intellectual carries this burden – he must transmit vital issues and messages, however seemingly taboo, to his audience while accepting criticism or possible ostracization. Noam Chomsky, a current PI, explains the dilemma:

In fact one of the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many intellectuals.”

Perhaps the notion of waning existence has been mistaken for a common unpopularity of the Public Intellectual. Regardless, this notion is way off the mark.


The religious figurehead is one of the earliest examples of a Public Intellectual. Humans have always had metaphysical questions, and because of the oligarchical tendency of previous cultures, religion has been a main source for guidance and answers. Whether it is the Pope, Martin Luther, the Dalai Lama, or some other revered spiritual leader, these people are considered to have the required specialization and ability to transmit their knowledge required of a Public Intellectual. Now, many academics question whether experts of religion, arts, and humanities qualify as a Public Intellectual. Stephen Mack points out the error in this judgement:

One of the great ironies of this debate is that historically, public intellectuals in America are a product of both our secular and religious traditions

The dissidents hold an elitist view, believing that only experts in the academic community should be considered as qualified to lead people in this role. This rift between science and religion can be traced back to the first extra-religious Public Intellectual in the first democracy, where modern logic was conceived.

To find the first non-cleric Public Intellectual, one must think back to the first democracy in ancient Athens. The new concept of openly discussing important issues necessitated that people had the ability to negotiate and communicate in public situations, as well as be aware of what was transpiring in the community. These circumstances gave rise to the original expert on intellect, Socrates. The new system needed to be tested – and Socrates would do just that.


Famous for his paradoxical ideal stated, “One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing”, Socrates epitomized the Public Intellectual before any existed, and successfully communicated his message to people more than 2000 years after his death. Socrates strongly believed that thought is the highest human function, emphasizing “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Even during his time he was widely known and regarded for his intellectual prowess- The Oracle at Delphi claimed that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. Socrates developed a method of learning where one embarks on a dialectic, playing devil's advocate to whatever topic is being discussed, regardless of personal stance. He would engage in his method with many citizens of Athens, constantly searching for truth and knowledge. This process has developed into what is now called the scientific method and has been critical in the development of logic. Socrates held no double standards when performing this analysis, and often made enemies for it. He went so far as to question the meaning of natural phenomenon beyond religious explanation, a dangerous endeavor. Though many people followed him for his brilliance of teaching, he was eventually tried and sentenced to death for teaching heresy. Even when the court offered amnesty for an apology, he refused because he firmly believed his teaching and questioning of the world was not wrong. He was so popular among the citizens of Athens that a group of supporters arranged to have him freed prior to his execution. Socrates refused, arguing that escaping is an injustice and that two wrongs don't make a right – he would be guilty of two crimes. He felt he had agreed in principle to live under the law in Athens, and by breaking those laws he was subject to the consequences like any other citizen. Further, Socrates added that one should not fear death. He accepted his punishment for the good of the many and the integrity of the democratic system. By drinking the vile of hemlock, Socrates martyred himself and set a key precedents for the Public Intellectual. Despite all his achievements, it was his inquisitiveness that made him an intellectual and a his open sharing of ideas that qualified him as public.

Considering he only discoursed and never recorded any ideas, it is amazing that Socrates' message has survived so long. Conversely, one can see the immense effects that developing modes of communication have had on the Public Intellectual. Instead of being restricted to the people within hearing distance, a PI can now reach any audience on a global scale. One can transmit his ideas very effectively using not only words, but sound, pictures, and film too. The ease in communicating allows intellectuals to be aware of each other so they can share information. With a a computer, a blog or a website, a Public Intellectual can make his message available at any time of the day to any person, anywhere. Consequently, education and intellectualism no longer hinges solely on the institutions – a person can become an expert through curiosity alone.

The religious and democratic framework of our country coupled with our technological communicative abilities creates an atmosphere ideal for intellectualism. Since the United States remains successful, and because the integrity of our system relies on people actively debating important issues, it is evident that intellectualism is thriving. It is just ridiculous to think the most advanced country in the world is a nation full of idiots.

Must we draw a line?

In the battle for net neutraliy, there are no neutral parties. For this two sided debate, each side carries a double edged sword. The current debate is reminiscent of the lasseiz-faire argument earlier in America's history that also focused on regulation and government intervention in big business. Though to many it seems ideal to have an unrestricted flow of information while allowing the large companies to do as they please, some problems are evident. By allowing the large internet companies to run free, we may see the microsoft anti-trust dilemma resurface with Google, Time Warner, or any other telecomm/net conglomerate. With the ability to takeover threatening companies and boycott competing apps, it is more than feasible that a company aquire a monopolistic market share. A proposed legislation would force a minimum amount of internet service providers in order to avoid such a situation. Also, legislation may be used to promote innovation of internet services and technology to ensure a high quality of service. Despite the seeming familiarity of the situation, the Internet is a new and unique phenomenon, behaving unlike any entity the world has ever seen.

It seems paradoxical for net neutralists to push for a rule for the internet, but the sort of rule they are pushing for would merely ensure the sanctity of personal freedom and equality on the web. They don't want government censorship and regulation of information and they certainly dont want to have to pay for extra services. Because of the polarizing nature of the debate, it sometimes becomes difficult to discern friend from foe.

To me, it seems that the large telecomm corporations should be feared most since they have the most to gain. Though Google and Microsoft seem to be friendly and pro-user, they are essentially the ones in control now, and should not be totally trusted either. This debate has huge implications for American's individual freedoms. I think the best course of action would be to keep an open debate without rushing to any rash decisions with the goal of a compromise in mind.

here is a video produced by an anti-neutrality lobbyist. notice how it almost seems to be pro-neutral - the key is the diction. the comments are insightful as well.



what no neutrality could mean: