Battlestar Galactica

The critically-acclaimed Sci Fi Channel hit "Battlestar Galactica" is now in the home stretch. The second half of the final season—dubbed "Battlestar Galactica 4.5"—premiered in January, and the final original episode aired this past Friday. For one critic's fond farewell to the series see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/mar/19/battlestar-galactica-review

The producers have one more surprise in store for fans: a second telemovie (after last year's "Battlestar Galactica: Razor") entitled "Battlestar Galactica: The Plan," that will air on the Sci Fi Channel in June 2009. The writer of the telemovie, Jane Espenson, says that it will tie up loose ends and cap off the series.

The end of this excellent series got me thinking about a couple of things. The first is the number of laudable science fiction series that have graced the small screen over the years. Any such list has to start with Rod Serling's now-classic "Twilight Zone" that ran on CBS from 1959 to 1964. "The Twilight Zone" not only introduced millions of viewers to science fiction but also showcased the genre as serious—as opposed to simply escapist—drama.

This is just off the top of my head, but other series that have captured the imagination of viewers—and advanced the genre—include: "Star Trek," probably the killer app and certainly one of the most loved of sci fi franchises; "My Favorite Martian"; "Mork and Mindy"; "The Outer Limits"; "Twin Peaks"; ""Sliders"; "The Incredible Hulk"; "The X-Files"; "Heroes"; and "The 4400." I'm sure I've left some important names out. Feel free to post your suggestions.

The second thing that "Battlestar's" swan song has me thinking about is the primary issue raised by the series—and that's the prospect that the robots we create might some day turn on us. On "Battlestar," the Cylons were created for use as slaves and warriors, but became sentient and turned on their creators.

Technology run amok has been a fear—and issue—almost since the emergence of computers. Who can forget the computer HAL from Stanley Kubrick's classic "2001: A Space Odyssey?" Or, all its imitators?

I recently read P.W. Singer's Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century and it readdresses the issue in light of the giant leaps being made in robotics. See my review here: http://www.military.com/entertainment/books/book-reviews/military-bookshelf--grand-strategy-x-2

After four years of research, Singer concludes that we might be approaching "the end of humans' monopoly on war"—a development that "will literally transform human history."

The unmanned vehicles already in use in Iraq and Afghanistan are only the tip of the iceberg. DARPA—the Pentagon's main research lab—is working on "22 different prototypes of intelligent vehicles." Then, there's the Army's massive $230 billion Future Combat System project that aims to network the battle space.

My sense is that machines aren't likely to take over any time soon. It's natural to fear what we don't truly understand, and how many of us truly understand how these infernal machines work?

I think the more relevant real-world issues are whether unmanned weapons' platforms make war more likely since they remove the likelihood of human casualties, and how the widespread use of battlefield robots will change what it means to be a warrior.

What do you think?