Fringe Science, Kurzweil’s Singularity, and Six Yogas of Naropa

A few weeks ago, I was watching an episode of the popular TV show Fringe about transferring of consciousness, and it reminded me of a popular topic among technophiles over the past few years: the coming Singularity. 

The term “Singularity” was first used by John Von Neumann and later by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge as an age of superintelligent computers which were smarter than humans.  Whether these future computers will be more like Asimov’s benevolent robots, or more like Skynet (which takes over the world, trying to eradicate humans in the Terminator vision of the future), is entirely impossible to predict.  In fact, the term singularity itself implies unpredictability: in physics it refers to a point like a black hole which has an event horizon, beyond which it’s impossible to predict what may happen.

More recently, the term has been popularized by well-known futurist Ray Kurzweil (also an MIT alum), who argues that with advances in computing and medical and nano-technology, we will be able to transfer our brain (and our consciousness) onto a super-human computer (or computer chip, or other computing device), allowing us to effectively live forever on silicon rather than biology!

In the episode of Fringe in question (spoiler alert!), the consciousness of William Bell (played by Leonard Nimoy, best known as Mr. Spock from Star Trek) is able to find its way back after his physical death, and embeds itself into FBI agent Olivia Dunham.  In doing so, Bell’s consciousness “takes over” Olivia’s body for a time.  In an attempt to preserve Bell’s consciousness, uber-mad scientist Walter Bishop comes up with a scheme that sounds a lot like Kurzweil’s singularity – he attempts to transfer the consciousness of the now dead Bell from its organic host (Olivia) to a silicon-based host – an electronic device set up to receive Bell's neural patterns and thus his consciousness.

If this all sounds like science fiction, Kurzweil predicts that the date of this singularity may be in the “near future”, as in 2045, and many others agree with him that “The Singularity is Near”!  Some, like Microsoft Co-Founder Paul Allen, object and don’t think it’s coming anytime soon, but may occur much, much later.  Both do seem to think that that the answer to “preserving consciousness” after physical death of the brain lies in ever more sophisticated technology.

In thinking about this type of projection of consciousness out of the human body to some “other place”, I would say that both Kurzweil and Paul Allen may be looking in the wrong direction – to the technological future rather than the past where human consciousness was a more serious study than it is today. 

In science, proposing theories without understanding the existing literature is pretty much a cardinal sin. A few years ago, I went to talk to professor computer science at Berkeley about doing a PhD thesis on a particular subject that I was working on in my startup.  She seemed very upset, and made clear, in that sort of academic haughty way, that I hadn’t taken time to review the existing literature and wasn't giving proper respect to what had already been published in this field!  I might be surprised to discover, she suggested, that many smart people have trod this path before me and that I might even “learn something” from studying what others have already achieved!

So, is there already existing “literature” about the projection of consciousness outside the human body?  Of course there is – anyone who has studied consciousness seriously through meditation and Yoga will note that the “literature” is full of instances of projecting consciousness outside the human body – everything from out of body experiences to near death experiences. Moreover, these have been going on for hundreds (if not thousands) of years so this isn't exactly a rare phenomenon that no one has taken the time to study (except in recent scientific circles, apparently!).

In my opinion, the most promising place to start in the existing “literature” of human cosnciousness is in the  Six Yogas of Naropa. 

Stories of Naropa, not so well known here in the West, have been carried down through the Tibetan traditions.  Naropa was a academic scholar himself, at the ancient Nalanda University in Kashmir, who believed his studies had taught him all he needed to know about consciousness. 

According to the Tibetan sources, Naropa was surprised to discover that all of his knowledge didn’t account for much – that the only way to study consciousness and gain “freedom” from the human body was through subjective experience, not study and debate, which he (and his fellow academics) excelled in. 

After going through many tribulations at the hands of his teacher, Tilopa (another very interesting and enigmatic figure), Naropa realized the illusory nature of physical reality and finally achieved liberation by seeing the true nature of consciousness and how it attaches to and detaches from the physical body.

Afterwards, he systemized the Six Yogas of Naropa and taught them to, among others, Marpa the Translator, a famous Tibetan seeker who had trudged over the Himalayas to Kashmir to lean from him.  Marpa, in turn, taught Tibet’s most famous Yogi, Milarepa, the ropes.

So what do the Six Yogas of Naropa have to do with this episode of Fringe and the Singularity? 

A lot, actually.   The Six Yogas, which have been taught primarily in secret over the years, are all about what happens to our consciousness when we go to sleep and when we die.  Lest modern scientist dismiss these as simply “religious anecdotes”, the Tibetans have developed elaborate descriptions and models of how this process works, which in my opinion rivals in sophistication the models of the natural and electrical world that I learned at MIT (though they are much less reliant on mathematics and more on “conscious experience”).

Two of the Yogas, that of Consciousness Transference and Forceful Projection, are directly related to transferring the consciousness of a person who is dying \out of the body to “somewhere else” so that it can "live on" in the physical world.  Interestingly, many modern listings of the Yogas of Naropa edit out “forceful projection” because it was considered “too dangerous” for all but the most adept Yogis.

According to the literature, adepts at this Yoga were able, at exactly the time of their death, to “transfer” their consciousness out of their body and “forcefully project” it into another living "host" nearby.   Usually this was practiced with various creatures (birds, chickens, foxes, etc.) in the beginning.  As they became more adept, in scenes that are reminiscent of modern horror films, Yogis would practice forcefully projecting their consciousness onto fresh corpses.   They would re-animate the dead bodies, while their “original bodies” would be sitting in a state of suspended animation until they “returned”.

According to the Six Yogas of Naropa, written by Tsongkhapa and translated by Glenn Mullin, the Indian and Tibetan texts were filled with such anecdotes, and the tradition continued in Tibet for some time with gurus repeatedly demonstrating it for their pupils, though usually only under the strictest terms of secrecy.

In one of the most famous stories of this kind, Marpa’s own son, who had learned this art from his father, had an accident on his horse and his neck was broken. He supposedly used the Yogas of consciousness transference and forceful projection to leave his body and “transfer” his consciousness into a pigeon that was flying nearby.  He then had the pigeon fly to the outskirts of the next town (where there were many dead bodies, since only the rich cremated their bodies at that time), and found a young man who had recently died and transferred his consciousness into this recently dead body.  In this new, youthful body, he then took on the name Tipupa (the Pigeon saint) and began to teach the Six Yogas.  In an interesting twist of events, years later Milarepa sent one of his students to go study this particular Yoga with Tipupa, who was, understandably, the expert!

Which brings us back to the episode of Fringe in question and the prospect of “digital immortality” by transferring consciousness after a singularity.

Could it ever be done? 

In considering this we might learn a little wisdom by looking into the past (the Six Yogas of Naropa).  

If we consider our “consciousness” as able to be separate from our brain, then in order to transfer the “software” of consciousness from one piece of hardware (our brain) to another, it seems to me that we would need to find a “compatible” hardware.  We might even need one with a similar operating system.  And this is exactly what the Yoga of force projection is all about - finding an organic host that can carry on our consciousness, even after the physical body is dead.

On this, both the lineage descendants of Naropa and the writers of this particular episode of Fringe agree: forget the computer and learn to project consciousness to another, organic host first.  In the episode of Fringe in question, consciousness was successfully transferred to an organic host (Olivia), but completely failed and was lost when attempting to transfer it to a technological device.  

So, it seems to me that before we barge ahead trying to transfer our brain's neural patterns to a physical device, we might want to invite in the experts at consciousness (Tibetan and Indian Yogis) and see if we can learn something from them about how consciousness works both while we're alive and when we die.  Once we can reproduce the Yoga of forceful projection in a laboratory setting, we could then move on to how we might project our minds onto a superintelligent computing device.

To those awaiting the singularity, I might suggest, as that professor of computer science at Berkeley reminded me a few years ago:  it pays to study what others have done before us...we might even learn something!

Aliens, Radio Signals, Warp Drive, and Dead Heads: SETI con asks "Are we alone?"

Anyone who’s been reading my blog will know that I’m a big fan of science fiction, and maybe even that I’m a big fan of scientific discovery, which is why I was excited to attend the first ever SETIcon in Santa Clara last weekend.

Although I had read a lot about SETI in the past, my main knowledge of the guys running SETI came from watching the movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster and based on the novel by astronomer Carl Sagan (of “billions and billions” fame).

Those of you who’ve seen the movie will recall Jodie Foster’s radio astronomer character (“Ellie Arroway”) being very upset when the funding for her search for extraterrestrial signals was cut off. In a last ditch effort, after being turned down for funding from everywhere including Hollywood (“Those guys have been making money from aliens forever!”), she ended up getting funding from an eccentric billionaire.

Whether art was imitating life or the other way around, SETI itself used to receive funding from NASA, but this was cut off in the 1990’s. Since then, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen (yes, whom some would call an eccentric billionaire) donated quite a bit of money to set up the Allen Radio Telescope array so that the search for ET could go on utilizing private funding.

For those of you who don’t know, SETI basically studies radio (and now light) signals from various stars in the night sky, looking for evidence of an “intelligent” signal that could only come from an “intelligent” species that at the very least has mastered radio technology. SETI stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, and has been going on in some form or another for almost 50 years.

To date, no confirmed signal has been found, though there have been several “candidate” signals that could never be re-acquired for further study.

The SETI institute is located in Mountain View, CA, which is just down the road from where I live (another benefit of being in Silicon Valley), and I was glad to be able to attend this conference so easily (it was held in Santa Clara). There were attendees from as far away as India and Kuwait, and as close as well, Santa Clara.

A Blending of Science, Science Fiction, and the Grateful Dead??

Since science fiction (in all of its forms) has always been a great way to get the public excited about science (everything from the Alien Attack movies in the 50's to Star Trek in the 60's forward), I was glad to see that this conference was not just about Radio astronomy (which I'm sure is a fascinating subject in and of itself), but included an intelligent blending of scientists and sci-fictionists (for lack of a better term). In my opinion not only did this make the conference more fun, but it also helped to open up our imaginations a bit, something that is necessary because the whole idea of extra-terrestrial intelligence is still speculation.

Despite being the first year of SETIcon, and a relatively small number of attendees, there were some great speakers – all of whom were pretty easy to approach and get to know. Here's a small sampling of SETIcon:

• Mickey Hart - On Friday night, we were treated to seeing a preview of work from Mickey Hart – yes, that Mickey Hart, the drummer of the Grateful Dead , about the “rhythms of the universe”. It turns out he’s been collaborating with the scientists at the SETI institute working on a “sounds of the universe” DVD/CD. Mickey said he loves “timelines” and he always begins his books with a timeline that starts with “The Big Bang” from 13 billion years ago.
  For years, he’s wondered what this most primordial event of the universe (the Big Bang) might sound like. This DVD showed his on-going attempt to capture the sounds of the universe ("Everything is vibrating, so everything has a sound" - Mickey), and mix them with incredible visual images to make "art". Mickey pointed out that the Hindus and others speak of an original sound and the Greeks refer to the music of the spheres, so this isn't a new undertaking.
  Listening to this was almost like having a mystical experience, and added a bit of needed "right brain" creativity to what has been mostly a "left-brained" search for ET, and as a fan of the mystical, I enjoyed Mickey's presentation quite a bit. There were some deadheads in the audience, and you can bet they were more than a little excited to meet Mickey!
  
  
• Dr. Frank Drake – anyone whose investigated the scientific possibility of for Extra Terrestrial intelligence will know of Frank Drake, who started investigating whether radio signals could be coming from intelligent alien signals some 50 years ago, dubbed Project Ozma. Frank Drake is considered the Father of modern day SETI, and he is the creator the of the well known Drake Equation, which is an equation that tries to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations there may be in our galaxy. Anyone who’s looked up at the night sky, marveling at the number of stars and wondering how there couldn’t be any life out there amongst the billions of points of lights will intuitively understand the Drake equation. Wikipedia even has a section on it: click here .
  Basically if you plug in some assumptions about the number of earth like planets orbiting earth like stars, and how many of these might have life on them, and how many of those are intelligent, and how long those intelligent civilizations might last, you end up wtih an estimate of how many intelligent civilizations we might communicate with our galaxy.
  
  Of course the big thing that's open about the Drake Equation are the actual factors - which make the resulting number vary widely. Carl Sagan estimated the number to close to 1 million, while Frank Drake himself estimates closer to 10,000. No matter how you slice it though, it's very difficult to make the number come out to "1", which makes it unlikely we are alone! On Saturday night at the conference, we had a banquet honoring Frank’s 80th birthday and 50th anniversary of Project Ozma, which was a fitting way to start the first SETIcon.
  
  
• Dr. Jill Tartar. Jill is the director of SETI research at the SETI institute, and has a host of honors and recognition as a scientist and educator. Many say she was the inspiration for Jodie Foster’s character in the movie Contact, including being the point person for “pitching” for SETI funding after NASA discontinued it’s funding.
  
  
• Tim Russ and John Billingsley Star Trek fans will recognize these names. Tim Russ played the Vulcan Tuvok on the Star Trek: Voyager series, and John played Dr. Flox in Star Trek: Enterprise series. Tim is an amateur astronomer and really committed to both astronomy and the SETI cause, and it was great to hear him on several panels. Although I couldn’t go to all the sessions, I think that he played out one of the most thought-provoking scenarios about interstellar travel (More on this later).
  

Of course there were many other speakers, including Robert J. Sawyer, an award winning science fiction author (who was the author of the novel that the TV series Flash Forward was based on), Andre Bormanis (who was the science advisor for several Star Trek series), Seth Shostak, SETI’s senior astronomer, who also does their podcast “Are we alone?” each week, Kevin Grazier (science adviser for Battlestar Galactica, who finally answered the question, How does Galactica’s FTL engines work?), Robyn Asmiov (Isaac Asimov’s daughter), and many real scientists - astronomers, astrophysicists and astro-biologists.

The speakers included, on a more personal note, an old mentor of mine from MIT, Greg Papodopolous, who left MIT many years ago to become the Chief Techonology Officer at Sun Microsystems. I did a research project with Greg on parallel computing during my undergrad days at MIT, and it was great fun to see him again and learn that he'd been involved with SETI also.

So, Did we Answer the Question? Are We Alone?

OK , so by now you’ve probably guessed that attending this conference was fun (it definitely was!), and from the speaker list, you probably guessed that I got to mix with a lot of interesting personalities (I did, and am still in touch with some of them!).

But, did I learn anything? More importantly, did it answer the burning question: Are we alone?

Yes and No.

Yes I did learn something, and no it didn’t answer the question of whether we are alone or not (you’d probably have heard about it on CNN if the conference had gone that far!)

But the conference raised a number of related questions which are equally as interesting, and easier to discuss, which the panelists did enthusiastically. On this front, I think mixing science fiction authors and actors with professors and PhD’s was a very smart move, since these questions have no simple answers, and are still to a large part, a matter of speculation.

Here they are, in my humble opinion, five of the most interesting questions raised at SETICON 2010 (other than “Are we alone”, of course), in no particular order:

1. Should we be sending out signals to extra terrestrial societies? If so, what should we send? And Who speaks for the Earth?
   
   • This question came up again and again. Of course, SETI’s official charter is to look for signals, not to broadcast them. But there have been many broadcasts from Earth (including our TV signals starting from the 1940’s and 1950’s, as well as broadcast by Frank Drake from Arecibo, the big radio telescope in Peurto Rico).
     
     As eminent a scientist as Stephen Hawking has suggested that if we broadcast a signal, it could be picked up by a much more advanced civilization than ourselves, and …well you might see something like Independence Day (remember that movie with Will Smith)?
     Actually, joking aside, this a pretty serious concern, as many speakers pointed out that a less technologically advanced civilization has rarely withstood contact with a more technologically advanced civilization (case in point: the Native American population after contact with Europeans). Given my interest in both science fiction and native american history, I find this topic more than a little fascinating … I actually started writing a novel once about what might happen if a more technologically advanced alien civilization arrived here on Earth -it's called Synchronized - and this conference has led me to believe it's worth completing.
     
   
   


2. Will we ever develop warp drive and be able to travel to the stars?
   
   • The scientists discussed this at length along with the science fiction authors and consultants to TV shows like Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek. From the point of view of the scientists, this would require traveling faster than the speed of light, something that is not permitted by Einstein’s theories of relatively. Lots of interesting ideas were discussed for “folding space” which wouldn’t violate Einstein's general theory of relativity, but the answer was that it would take so much energy to do this as to be practically impossible. When many members of the audience objected, the scientist pointed out that they weren't saying this to be negative. In fact, most scientists would love to figure out a way to get around Einstein's laws (they'd land a nobel prize if they could), but as far as we know, travelling to the stars at faster than light speeds would violate the known laws of physics.
     
     I actually thought the best answer to this question came from Tim Russ, of Star Trek: Voyager fame, and the only member of the panel who had actually flown faster than light (at least in a TV series). He said to imagine that we were sitting at a similar symposium at the time of Columbus, and the question we were being asked wasn’t about traveling over the water to the other side of the earth, but of traveling to the moon. Using the technology of the time, wind power and sails, it would seem “impossible” to ever get to the moon, even if all of the wind power on earth was utilized in the effort. So Tim was suggesting that there may be some kind of breakthrough that we don’t know about yet, which will let us travel to the stars – his bet was that it might have something to do with quantum mechanics and parllel realities. The scientists bet was that it wouldn't happen.
     
     I agree whole-headertedly with Tim that most scientists of today, just like the scientists of every other era, are a bit short-sighted and only looking at a limited perception of reality - that which has been proven in the past. I'm reminded of the head of the US patent office who resigned in the early 1900's because "everything that could ever be invented had already been invented"! Boy, was he wrong! Someday, there will probably be some unexpected new discovery or breakthrough that may make it possible to travel to the stars.
   
   


3. If Aliens exist, where are they, why aren’t they here?
   
   • On an not-unrelated note, there was the more serious issue that if travel across stars will ever be possible, then we should assume some technologically advanced races (say a million years more advanced than we are) would have mastered that technology already. So, why haven't they visited us?
     
     This is a pretty controversial topic, because it relates to UFO theories and sightings, which pretty much every speaker on the panel dismissed as "lacking credibility".
     
     The only answer that made sense to me was that Earth is in a relatively uninteresting corner of the galaxy, and given the millions of likely planets out there, it’s unlikely that an intelligent species would visit here without some concrete reason to (other than to abduct us and do experiments on us). Since we've only mastered radio signals in the last 100 years, this means that any star that is more than 100 light years away wouldn’t have received any transmission from us, making Earth an unlikely place that someone from another part of the galaxy would want to visit. This seemed logical answer.
   
   


4. Is Radio Astronomy the right way to look for Alien civilizations? How will we communicate with an alien civilization?
   
   
   • We are taking our current technology (radio signals) and using that as the basis under which a more advanced civilization might be broadcasting to us. This of course, gets at two core questions – will aliens communicate like we do, and is SETI looking in the right place?
     
     In my personal opinion, this is an interesting question and there’s no good way to answer it, and it probably deserves a much more investigation than was done at the conference. The best answer, given by senior Astronomer Seth Shostak, was that this is the best we can do right now, and any advanced civilization might realize that less advanced civilizations “come of age” when they master radio technology or wireless communication. Just as columbus didn't wait for better ships to be built, we can't wait for better radio telescopes to start our quest.
     
     
   
   


5. Is SETI a worthwhile endeavor, should we continue to fund it?
   
   • Underlying many of the other questions, this was the pink elephant in the room. If it's such a difficult task to scan the whole night sky, and aliens might not even be communicating in ways we understand, is SETI worthwhile to do? Well, actually, as I mentioned, the government is no longer funding SETI proper (i.e. the search for radio signals, though NASA does fund astrobiology research at the SETI institute).
     
     100% of funding for SETI proper comes from private donations and tickets for events like SETI con. Personally, I think SETI has the ability to light up the imagination of the young, to make them more interested in math and science in a way that few other “official activities of our day” do. Whether an alien signal is found or not, it makes sense to have a program like SETI. Of course, if an alien signal IS FOUND, then this would probably be the biggest discovery in the history of the human race ... so I think i can speak for everyone at the conference who thought that we should all help fund SETI to a certain extent, since it concerns us all - not a single state or profession or nation. So, let's all chip in - at the very least if you're interested in the answer to these questions, be sure to attend SETICON 2011!
     
   
   

As you can see, answering each of these questions is not simple; I think I could easily write a separate blog post (or even a chapter in a book) on each of these questions. The panelists (and attendees!) brought up many thought-provoking points and counter-points on each of these and many other topics. (see www.seticon.com ) to see the full program.

In short, I think the conference was not only fun, it was also worthwhile. These kinds of questions force us to think of ourselves as a common species on a common planet, and not as individual fiefdoms known as countries or religions, which is why it’s very important to have something like SETI.

In the meantime, while SETI continues to search the heavens, it was pointed out again and again at the conference that that our TV broadcasts have been in space for more than 50 years already, which means that someone out there (within 50 light years) may have detected our presence already.

Which means that even if there were no signals directed at us in the past, there may very well be something – a signal or who knows what - coming our way in the future… all we have to do is keep our eyes (and ears and telescopes) aimed at the sky!

The Day the Earth Was Almost Destroyed

[NOTE: Now that I’m on winter break, I’m taking a partial hiatus from writing Stanford GSB related blog entries, at least until the term starts back up in January]

As a fan of Science Fiction movies, I couldn’t resist going to see “The Day the Earth Stood Still” – the new version with Keanu Reeves, on opening weekend. I’m a big fan of the old version from the 50’s, despite its dated cold war themes, and generally can’t stay away from anything Sci Fi related.

So what did I think of the new movie? I’d love to give it an enthusiastic thumbs up, but can only manage a “so-so” review.

The old and new films are both about the arrival of an alien visitor (who looks human, to make us comfortable, and whose name is Klaatu) who lands in a major American city (Central Park in the new one, and if I’m not mistaken Washington, DC in the old one). One thing that hasn’t changed from the old Cold War theme: The government tries to take possession of the alien, and shoots him. They won’t even consider allowing him to speak to a gathering of World leaders at the UN.

Are we really that parochial? If an alien really visited the Earth and landed in the US, is this the attitude that we would take?

Unfortunately, I think they got this one right, in both versions. I’d like to think that if the representative of an advanced civilization were to arrive to deliver a message to the Earth, just happens to land in the USA, that we would let him speak to the UN – to all the nations of this planet. But I can just see our military whisking away the alien away to Guantanamo as a presumed “enemy combatant” and commandeering his ship as “foreign technology” that we want to re-engineer.

A neat new twist in the movie is the reason for the alien’s visit. In this version, Klaatu is not just the representative of alien civilizations watching the Earth; he says he is a friend of the Earth (though as we learn, this doesn’t mean he’s necessarily a friend of the human race).

He’s here to decide whether we are killing the planet or not. This green theme is a pretty good new spin, if somewhat overused these days. Klaatu tells us that there are only a few habitable planets out there, and he can’t allow us (humans) to kill this one. Quoting Klaatu (Keanu Reeves): If the earth dies, humans die too. If only the humans die, then the earth still lives on. A fair, logical argument.

Like most good science fiction, the first part of this movie actually makes you think about larger issues. It certainly made me think about habitable planets and how many there might be out there. There’s a famous equation, the Drake equation if memory serves, that takes assumptions of the number of stars, the number of planetary systems, the number of habitable planets, and the number of advanced civilizations. If you work out the numbers with only 1% for each variable, you come up with a large number of inhabited worlds.

What would happen if the probabilities were so small that there only a few habited planets out there, as is the case in this movie?

And of course, this movie does make you think about what would really happen if an alien spacecraft were to visit our planet and why.

Those are the positives. Jennifer Connolly does a pretty good job as an astro-biologist (is there such a thing? How much biological material have we actually found in outer space?). She’s also the step-mother of 11-year old Jacob, whose army engineer father she married a few years ago, but who passed away.

This is where, in my opinion, the movie starts to fall apart. Why does this have to be the case with almost all science fiction movies?

They start with an interesting concept that actually makes you think; but, as they try to bring the movie into the standard hollywood three-act script, they all end up with some variation of the standard formulas, ruining the originality of the film and making the second half into a dumb thriller or action or preachy lesson.

I don’t think I’m revealing much when I say that that at first Klaatu decides to destroy humans off the face of the earth, because he views us as a destructive force (which the government cronies and the Secretary of Defense, played excellently by Kathy Bates, do a very good job of convincing Klaatu of).

Eventually, he comes to realize that humans are more than just a destructive force. That we have strong emotions and that they include compassion and longing, etc. This in-and-of-itself is not a problem - The problem is how he comes to this realization; It’s done through the 11-year old Jacob, who single-handedly destroys this multi-million dollar Hollywood production. Well done, kid. At least you saved the Earth, sort of.

So, OK, I have to admit, as a kid, I loved it when kids played an important role in science fiction. E.T. involved kids and aliens. Wesley Crusher had an interesting role in Star Trek the Next Generation.

But this one just doesn’t work. The 11-year old snot-nosed kid, not only disobeys his mother every chance he gets, sporting an “oh I’m so cool” braided hairstyle that’s well beyond his years, but he also tells the government exactly how and where to find Klaatu, leading to the abduction of his step-mom by the government in the process. We're then led to believe that this might have been a good thing becuase he got to spend more time with the Alien.

I have to say I wanted to smack the kid off the screen so that we could get on with a real science fiction movie. Alas, it was not to be.

After seeing the movie, I looked up some reviews to see if I was alone in this sentiment and was just being a cruel, heartless adult. Here’s my favorite part of the CNN review: “Jacob is a whiny, obstinate, and disobedient little boy that would lead most extraterrestrials – and not a few of the rest of us – to reach for the destruct button.” Amen.

For other science fiction fans out there, think Jar Jar Binks. Now I wish someone would get a-hold of this flim and create a phantom edit (for those of you who don’t know someone created an edit of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace which digitally editout out Jar Jar Binks, without whose annoying antics the film might have been a relatively good film). Unfortunately you’d have to chop off the whole third act of the movie to do this. Oops.

Note: As a film-maker myself, I’m not supposed to be suggesting that anyone do anything that infringes on the copyright of Hollywood films, so I can’t really condone a phantom edit. (BUT IF YOU HAVE ONE, LET ME KNOW, I’D BE HAPPY NOT ONLY TO WATCH IT BUT TO WRITE ABOUT IT HERE IN MY BLOG. EVEN BETTER: what if someone were to edit out the kid and put in Jar Jar Binks, the movie might be actually be more fun and less annoying!).