Thursday, September 13, 2007

Starship Troopers

Now that I'm finally almost done with my medical school essays, I've decided to take a little time and do some reading. My first selection in what I hope to be a fruitful year is Starship Troopers, which I've read previously. Although I don't have one favorite book, I do have sort of an informal Top Ten list, and this is definitely on it.

The first time I read it, I was intrigued by Heinlein's take on future combat, which he does a great job of portraying first hand through the main character. But what brought me back is that during the training of this soldier, there is a lot of thinly veiled socio-political commentary that I really wanted to digest.

The thing that I find most interesting is a part that talks about the necessity of training individuals through corporal punishment. Not simply in a beat-'em-'til-their-silly, brainwashing kind of way, but using it as discipline all the way from spanking children to using it as punishment for crime. Heinlein (through one of the characters, a teacher) says that morals must be rooted in a person's survival instinct - that is if there is something you don't want a person to do, like rape or kill, the consequence must be so great that they choose not to do it in order to survive. And even for lesser crimes like theft, the society he describes has taken to public floggings as punishment. The book mocks the current prison system, describing it as a minor discomfort where they were able to socialize with other criminals and get ideas of what to do when they got out. The last claim he makes is that people have no moral instinct, and can only be taught one by consequences of actions.

I am intrigued by this idea for several reasons. First I work in a psych ward, where people are brought when their behavior is unnacceptable to society and it appears that they weren't thinking clearly enough to be sent to jail. I have wondered a lot about this thin line, and what would really be best. I have also seen lots of cases where poor parenting is probably the underlying reason for a person's current behavioral problems. Which brings me to number two - I am a parent, and what parent has not gone through the Great Spanking Debate both personally and with their spouse? And third, I am an economist, and modern economics is all about incentives. The basic idea is to provide the incentives, either positive (usually $) or negative (punishment, in this case physical), to get people to do what is best for society.

So where do you stand? Do you think jails work? Would public lashings and more frequent death sentences make things any better? What about the cases where there is uncertainty? How do you factor mental illness into that? If you have also read the book, did I summarize correctly, or did you get something completely different?

10 comments:

Ben said...

Nay, I haven't read the book. I've never read anything by Heinlein. If I had read Starship Troopers, the socio-political commentary would probably have passed me by, just like the religious commentary did in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. I tend to ignore that kind of stuff in favor of just enjoying the story.

But those ideas are interesting to talk about. I tend to think that using corporal punishment to ingrain morality into a person's survival instinct isn't by any means necessary. The vast majority of humans act morally without being afraid of death, let alone many other negative consequences. Many children have learned their morals simply by looking at the examples of their parents. So I don't think it's required.

Whether or not it's better, though, is another question. Would an entire society with such a strict system of punishments really be more well behaved? Probably so, overall, but I don't think bad behavior would be eliminated entirely. There have always been societal fringes throughout human history, people who rebel against the norm. Despite 1984, you can't stifle the human imagination entirely. We are different from other animals that way. Maybe if you actually did kill the criminals consistently for thousands of years, people would evolve so they were essentially more moral. But I doubt it.

Ing said...

Interesting post, and interesting questions.

I've read a couple of Heinlein books...can't remember the names of them, though. One of them involved people in a spaceship for a long time, and dealt a lot with what human interaction and social mores would be like in an ideal setting, isolated from the limiting idiosyncrasies of earthbound society (they all went naked, and loved freely...I can't remember much more than that). :) I might have to read Starship Troopers sometime. (BTW, was the movie based on the book?)

Anyway...

The social concept in Starship Troopers reminds me of Thomas Hobbes' idea of basic human nature, and his assertion that without a strong, potentially brutal guiding force, human life would be "nasty, solitary, brutish, and short" (if memory serves). I think that to a certain point, Hobbes was right.

I also think that to a certain point, harsher punishment and more death sentences would work. But crime will always exist--even in societies where punishment is horrible, some people still will risk it. There might be fewer criminals, but they might be even more desperate and determined.

As far as mental illness and crime go, I'm not a big fan of the insanity defense, especially when it involves murder. I don't think insanity should absolve anyone or lighten the severity of punishment for a really heinous crime. Insane or not, anyone who kills an innocent person on purpose (leaving aside self-defense) deserves to die.

Of course, it's easy to issue simple, ideal answers from my seat at the computer...life is much tougher to categorize than that.

Ben said...

I also wanted to comment that I don't think the only form of reward and punishment need be physical. Often, emotional or psychological values far outweigh a person's physical wants, needs, or expectations.

Karl said...

That's a good point Daeruin - a person has other needs for survival than just food water and shelter. Ing, the movie was based on the book, but I haven't seen the movie for a long, long time, because isn't much like the book at all and quite frankly, if my memory serves, it sucked.

I would also like to clarify that Heinlein wasn't saying that there was no crime in the book, just a lot less than we currently see in our society. Less economic drain from supporting people in jails too. Also, if a child commits a serious crime, the parents are punished as well. Although Heinlein doesn't specify until what age this applies, I got the feeling it was 18.

Last of all, as far as mental illness and crime go, I essentially agree with Heinlein in deciding in favor of the society rather than the individual. That is, even if a person is found innocent due to "mental incompetence" or however they phrase it these days, it isn't fair to society to just let them run free only to do such things again because they don't know any better. The point of this is essentially that our society has built up the rights of the individual, not the rights of the society as a whole.

Ing said...

I saw the movie on video not long ago, and it did suck. :) It wasn't *too* horrible--a reasonably entertaining excuse to eat some Blast-O-Butter microwave popcorn--but it was kind of corny and dumb. I'd probably have considered it a waste of $7.50 if I'd seen it in the theater. I know better than to assume the book is as bad, of course. Hollywood has a way of screwing things up like that.

riotimus said...

The only things the movie had in common with that incredible book were:

- a few character names
- Johnie's basic character
- the bugs

The coolest things about the book, i.e. the suits, did not even make it in and that really gutted the whole point.

I thought that a lot of Heinlein's socio-political views were like the voice of his generation, speaking from a future perspective when all the whipper-snappers have recognized that their point of view about things was all right. But that is just my take. Write on.

R.

Ing said...

In light of Heinlein's social commentary (and ours), here's something you might find interesting--especially our esteemed Lackhand, who is interested in economics (did you major in it?).

I remembered a topic from an online seminar a professor at WSU (Washington State, not Weber, for you Utah folk) does based on ideas in the book Freakonomics. You may have heard of the book before; my only exposure to it is secondhand through this cool seminar, but it sounds like a mindbending, probably enlightening tome. One day I may actually read it.

In one installation of the seminar, the WSU professor looked at the freakonomical possibility that abortion can reduce the crime rate, and whether there's any indication that the death penalty can reduce crime. Looking at it from a logical, evidence-based perspective, the answers are...

Well, if you've read Freakonomics, you might know the answers already. If you haven't, here's a handy link to the WSU online seminar on Freakonomics. :)

I'd be interested to know what y'all think.

Ben said...

Freaky. :)

Anonymous said...

wow its great post..

Anonymous said...

Grazie per questo distacco, รจ stato molto utile e ha detto un sacco