Why I Like _Starship Troopers_...

In my formative years, I read a lot of Science Fiction. This is partly due to the fact that I grew up what could be called a "Golden Age" of Science Fiction movies and TV, from the late 70's and through the 80's. Star Wars brought about a whole slew of Science Fiction, both good and bad. However, I loved it all. When I couldn't get enough on the big screen and the little screen, I turned to the written word. One interesting thing was that I seemed to be drawn to the "masters" of Sci Fi: Bradbury, Clarke, Asimov, Herbert. However, the one book that I loved more than any other during my teen years was Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein.

I must have read that book at least a hundred times! I remember one summer where I would take that book out of the library almost continuously. After a month of reading it, I'd return it to the library and then go back the next day to take it out again! At first, I was drawn in by its portrait of the military of the future: the men, the training, the weapons (I LOVED those powered jumpsuits!), and especially the battles on futuristic worlds. At that time in my life, I was fascinated with the military, as many young men are before they encounter Born on the Fourth of July, so this book seemed like the ultimate bible of future warfare.

However, after a couple of readings, I started to gain some more insight into the philosophical and political aspects of the book. While I still do not agree with all of these ideas, Heinlein does give you a lot to think about, if you are open to the experience:

The most controversal idea is that only people who have participated in "Federal Service" (i.e. the military) should be allowed to vote. Heinlein's idea is that only people who have "proven" that they are willing to put the welfare of society above their own should be entrusted with the right to vote. This idea seems controversal to us since we have been raised in a society which values democracy and "the will of the people". Any governmental structure which would disenfranchise a majority of its population unless they put their lives on the line seems anti-thetical to this notion. However, his idea does have some merits, even if you don't totally agree. Currently, the percentage of people who exercise their right to vote is quite low, and those who do vote often do so without much thought ("Oh, Clinton is soooo dreamy, so I will vote for him!"). The idea that people should have to prove their worthiness to vote doesn't seem so bad, all things considered. I don't know if "joining the army" is a suitable proof, but it is an idea that shouldn't be thrown out via a knee jerk reaction.

Another controversial idea is that corporal punishment should be expanded in order to deter crime. In the book, even the most minor infractions are punished by having to endure the whip. The rationale is that the pain and embarrassment of this sort of thing leaves a lasting impression on both the punished and those who witness the punishment. Thus, it acts as a powerful deterrent. In a way, it sort of reminds me a little bit of Rudy Guliani's crackdown on minor, "quality of life" crimes. While his crackdown was met with resistance and anger, you can't argue with the results. Is Heinlein simply taking this concept to the next level? From an emotional standpoint, my initial reaction is to strongly opposed this expansion of corporal punishment. After all, I find spanking and the like quite distasteful. However, from a logical standpoint, there is some common sense to this approach. Certainly, if people were whipped for speeding and other traffic offenses, our highways would be much safer! Although I am not sold on Heinlein's idea, his vision certainly gives one food for thought.

One final idea that permeates this book is the role of violence in society and nature. Heinlein's idea is that war and violence are a natural part of the universe that we live in. After all, nature is ruled by "survival of the fittest", where species need to adapt to their environment or die in favor of a stronger species. In the _Starship Troopers_ universe, the human race has encountered a variety of other life forms, some of which are bent on our destruction. If we decide to just throw away our weapons and live peacefully, we would be wiped out and become a tiny footnote in the history of the universe. If we want to survive, we have to wage war, because that is the "law of the jungle". This idea is also an interesting one, although I strongly disagree with it. In nature, it isn't always the strongest who survives. Species adapt to the presense of more aggressive species in a variety of ways that don't involve violence. Why can't this principle be applied to relations between so-called "intelligent" species? This principle certainly applies when the other species is ourselves!

This is just a taste of some of the thought-provoking ideas that brought me back to _Starship Troopers_ again and again. While I may not agree with all of Heinlein's ideas, he does have a way of forcing you to question the beliefs which you may take for granted. In the end, you might still hold those beliefs, but at least you have taken the time to consider another point of view. And isn't that what good literature (both Sci-Fi and non Sci-fi) is supposed to do?