

And now for the fun stuff:






A by-invitation group blog for busy authors of SFR, Futuristic, or Paranormal romances in which at least one protagonist is an alien, or of alien ancestry.
The September issue of the MAGAZINE OF FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION includes a story about a near future in which most forms of genetic manipulation are legal; the only major crime in that category is cloning someone without the subject's consent. There's an epidemic of public hysteria about the stealing of people's DNA to create cloned children for vile purposes such as sex slavery. The theft usually occurs (or so it's assumed) by the concealment of abrasive objects in places where unwitting victims will be wounded by them. Despite the rarity of this crime (at most five confirmed cases per year), people see evidence of it everywhere, and law enforcement agencies obsess over it. (Sound familiar?) In the story we see this hysteria in action, with the accompanying suspicious, repressive behavior by those in authority.
This tale highlights the way the general public views anything related to cloning with suspicion and fear, even though we've been cloning plants for thousands of years. ("Clone" comes from the Latin for "twig.") The horror of any technology that might subvert the essence of human nature, of course, goes all the way back to what's arguably the first science fiction novel, FRANKENSTEIN. People who are neither scientists nor SF readers tend to think of clones as not-quite-human abominations, forgetting that identical twins are naturally formed clones of each other. Robert Heinlein's novel FRIDAY stars a protagonist who was created in a lab rather than conceived by man and woman and therefore thinks of herself as not-human, even though every bit of her DNA is of human origin. A similar quandary about the definition of humanity surrounds cyborgs, human-machine hybrids. How much of one's body has to be artificial before one crosses the line into nonhumanity? Consider the brain ships of Anne McCaffrey's series, piloted by human beings permanently sealed in metal shells in early childhood, all their sensory input coming through the ship's equipment. Less drastically, how about a "bionic" person, like the Bionic Woman who's going to be the star of a new TV series this fall?
The April/May SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND had an article about brain prostheses, implanted devices that will be able to restore sensory perception for patients such as the blind and deaf. Already “brain-computer interfaces" are being developed that allow paralyzed patients to operate artificial limbs and even computer cursors by thought alone. The latter sounds almost like telepathy! The next step is to create implants within the brain that will transfer information from the outside world into the subject's neurons.
On the biological side of human "improvements," I came across an article that states, "Scientists have succeeded in reprogramming ordinary cells from the tips of mouse tails and rewinding their developmental clocks so they are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells" (in the Baltimore SUN a few weeks ago). The researchers actually managed to grow new mice from these cells. If this technique could be perfected for human beings, each patient could have his or her own replacement organs grown with no need to create and destroy a cloned embryo. Beyond curing such disorders as Parkinson's disease, might this technique eventually enable the rejuvenation of human beings to the point of making near-immortality possible, as many SF authors have speculated (including Heinlein in his Howard Families novels)? Would everyone want corporeal immortality? (I don't think I would.) A more critical question, would all who want this "boon" have access to it, or would it -- more likely -- be restricted to the wealthy? We can easily imagine (again, many SF writers have done so) a society sharply divided between the privileged who take full advantage of genetic manipulation or artificial aids such as brain-computer interfaces, and the massive underclass who suffer disease and disability followed by death from old age as people have done from the beginning of our species.
Heinlein's I WILL FEAR NO EVIL quotes a court case that decreed “identity resides in the brain.” So no matter how drastically modified one's body might become, as long as a person retains a human mind, he or she is human. As an extension of that principle, if computers ever become sentient, a self-conscious computer should have legal status as “human.” (And a sentient computer could fall in love with a human being, as in Heinlein's TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE and Susan Kearney's THE DARE.) Our society already wrestles with ethical and political problems revolving around questions such as the dividing line between “alive” and “dead” and when a human zygote becomes a distinct individual with legal rights. Philosophers of science and bioethics should grapple with these other questions of the definition of “human” before technology becomes advanced enough to make them practical problems.
An article in the April/May issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND, "The Myth of the Teen Brain," offers a thought-provoking rebuttal to the popular belief that the "incompletely developed" brains of teenagers predispose them to immature, impulsive behavior and that adolescent turmoil is an inevitable developmental stage in human growth. The author of this article, Robert Epstein, who has written a book called THE CASE AGAINST ADOLESCENCE, maintains that imaging studies of teenage brains, which purportedly demonstrate a neurological basis for irresponsible behavior in adolescence, don't actually prove what they are claimed to prove. Observed phenomena in brain wiring and chemistry can be the result as well as (or instead of) the cause of environmental factors. Epstein believes the roots of the behaviors that lead people to perceive teenagers as immature and incompetent arise from social rather than neurological sources. He points out that young people in many other societies don't display the same types of "adolescent" behavior (but when exposed to American culture, they often begin to do so). He also cites the findings of historians that "through most of recorded history the teen years were a relatively peaceful time of transition to adulthood. Teens were not trying to break away from adults; rather, they were learning to *become* adults." Teenagers in Western society today, by contrast, have no useful role to play. Stereotypical teenage turmoil results from the "artificial extension of childhood" past puberty. Studies show that teens are as competent as adults "across a wide range of adult abilities." Moreover, in some areas they're superior to adults. For example, as we aging boomers can testify, visual acuity, memory, and the ability to learn new things rapidly. These abilities make evolutionary sense, according to Epstein, because mammals begin to bear young shortly after puberty. If human teenagers hadn't been able to take care of themselves and their offspring competently, the human species would have died out long before the industrial age.
A similar thesis about the roots of teenage angst is proposed in the online article "Why Nerds Are Unpopular." (Google that phrase and read the whole thing. It's fascinating.) The author of this essay begins by asking why intelligence seems to make kids an object of persecution by their peers in high school, but he eventually moves on to the larger issue of what high school is for and the whole issue of how our culture deals with adolescents. Teenagers can't be turned loose to support themselves in a highly technological society, so the "artificial extension of childhood" inevitably ensues. Most American young people, as this author puts it, grow up in an environment "as artificial as a Twinkie," with no function for its form to follow. By contrast, prior to the twentieth century, teenagers were capable of making a genuine contribution to the economic well-being of the family (and, in the working-class level of society, required to do so). In our contemporary U.S. culture (aside from the rare computer-savant prodigies) nobody can earn a living wage without eighteen or more years of school. The only jobs open to most teens are minimum-wage positions in retail and fast food (the latter, as Epstein puts it, having developed specifically to take advantage of this pool of cheap, disposable labor).
Epstein's arguments about the ability of teenagers to learn quickly remind me of the "First Year" phenomenon in Jacqueline's Sime~Gen universe. Young Simes immediately after changeover (which coincides with puberty) have an amazing ability to absorb new knowledge and skills, including language, which for ordinary human beings becomes almost impossible to learn fluently after early childhood. It has been hinted that newly established Gens may also have some of that "First Year" learning capacity. It's easy for readers to forget, when reading HOUSE OF ZEOR and the other books in the series, that most of the "adult" Simes and Gens in the stories are teenagers!
In writing stories of human settlement on distant worlds, we should keep in mind that in a frontier society, young people just past puberty have to take on adult responsibilities. Many of them will marry at that age and start families while they have youthful health and energy, especially if the new colony has a desperate need to increase its population of workers. As Isaac Asimov points out in one of his essays, in preindustrial cultures a boy became a man when he grew a beard, and a girl turned into a woman when she became capable of getting pregnant. (As generations of lovelorn teens have reminded their parents, Juliet was fourteen.) And what about our aliens? Suppose we modeled an intelligent alien species on Terran creatures (many insects, for example) that live only a short time after breeding. They would have to cram all their "adult" living into the life stage we'd ordinarily think of as adolescence.
Theme-Symbolism Integration Part 3 Why Do We Cry At Weddings Part 2 by Jacqueline Lichtenberg Symbolism Bride&Groom Pray Before...