Stranger in a Strange Land: Exploring the Possibility of Science Fiction in a Utopian Setting

it's been a hot minute since i posted anything whoops!! I've been a little busier with academics recently because I kept having exams every other week and all my classes would have them during the same week, ugh. This is a paper I wrote for my bioethics in sci-fi class! The goal was to write honestly anything as long as it related to bioethics. So like organ donations, genetic modification, so on and so forth. It was really fun because I got to learn and talk about different ethical concerns in medicine and research along with what rules are put in place to keep experiments/treatments from being unethical. The best part of the class, though, was that we got to watch different sci-fi movies and I LOOOOOVE sci-fi. In my essay, I explore whether sci-fi can exist in an utopian setting given most sci-fis are dystopian works. If you somehow read the whole thing and have questions or comments, please let me know! I really enjoyed writing this and would love to hear yalls thoughts!

In media, science fiction is often coupled with dystopian elements. Their stories are often about the ways in which humans use science to take advantage of others or of how robots revolt and take over. The focus of this essay will be on the stories concerning the societies that humans create in a science fiction world and not on the evil robots. In these near-dystopian societies, technology is not the root cause of the dystopia. In the film Gattaca, parents are able select their children based on their genetics. While there are many issues surrounding this ability, such as this being a form of eugenics, being able to access one’s genetic code could lead to personalized therapies for disorders like lupus or cystic fibrosis. This begs the question of whether these same technologies that are so crucial to making these science fiction stories dystopian are able to exist in a utopian setting.  

Utopia, as proposed by Sir Thomas More in his book Utopia, is a type of society in which there is little to no human evil and suffering. Everyone can live worry-free as they are all equal in social and economic standing (“Utopia (Concept)”). Based on the provided definition of a utopia, many science fiction worlds have the potential to be utopian. Science fiction often touches on the aspect of perfecting health and the curing of avoidable diseases similar to that of the flu is a utopian ideal. To ensure that nobody must suffer just from existing is a nice thought. However, there are many ethical dilemmas that science fiction presents as a potential problem to be encountered during these processes. One example of a science fiction work that had the potential to be a utopia is the novel, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In this novel, science has progressed enough to allow total immunization against diseases while a human is still an embryo. While they were able to improve health, the government used this technology to build a strict caste system. Another failure to properly utilize their technology is their focus on using science to create entertainment for people, an example of which being “soma.” Their technology becomes a tool that the citizens use to keep themselves from being bored, however it makes the need for interpersonal connections obsolete. There is no such thing as a “family” in their world, they laugh at the thought of having a mother or father, and they resort to attending overwhelming, nonsensical productions to experience some sort of emotion. The reason they got to this point is because of utopian-aligned thinking—they wanted to escape suffering and chaos. On page 41, the thought process behind getting rid of emotion is explained. 

What with mothers and lovers, what with the prohibitions they were not conditioned to obey, what with the temptations and the lonely remorses, what with all the diseases and the endless isolating pain, what with the uncertainties and the poverty – they were forced to feel strongly. And feeling strongly (and strongly, what was more, in solitude, in hopelessly individual isolation), how could they be stable? (Huxley 41)

Their solution to create a stable civilization was to take away emotions from humans and thus their desire for change. The different castes are made to believe that they are happy because they have worth. Even if the worth meant they were to have their oxygen limited as a fetus. Having perfected the science behind making a person healthy for life, the founders of the “Brave New World” used their twisted thought processes to use utopian technologies to build a world in which everyone is unequal.

Another piece of science fiction media that could have been utopian is the film Gattaca. The premise of Gattaca is that their technology enables people to be born with the best genetics. While it is ideal to be born healthy, their society takes it to the next level and implements a prejudiced system like that in Brave New World. The only difference between their caste systems is that the government in Gattaca does not directly determine who will be considered lower and is entirely based on conscious discrimination between each other. For context, those that are of “utero” birth and not of perfect genetics are physically unable to enter buildings that are built by powerful organizations using blood testing. Again, science and technology are not necessarily the ones at fault, and it is understandable that the people in the world of Gattaca want to have children that are happy and healthy life.  Having access to genetic information from individuals with certain disorders can allow researchers to analyze a potential universal target for that disorder. Even if not to edit the gene, they can still find the product the gene codes for and target that. All this to say, science is not entirely to blame for the fact that science fiction works are often set in dystopian worlds. While advanced machinery may physically keep people separated, it is the people in these worlds that are first coming up with the idea that they should be separated. The higher ups are the ones deciding who should be considered less than and making it so that they are.

The one common thread that makes Brave New World and Gattaca dystopian while having otherwise utopian technologies is the breach of individual autonomy and informed consent. Although the rules implemented in these worlds are meant to be beneficial to their respective societies, the individuals living in these worlds are not given a choice. This lack of freedom of choice in a fictional world reflects real-world events. A relevant concern for the autonomy of an individual can be found in arguments made against the concept of a mandatory vaccination mandate.  During the 2025 measles outbreak, nearly all of the cases involved the patient having not had a measles vaccination (“U.S. Measles Cases Hit Highest Level since Declared Eliminated in 2000”). One parent of a patient that lost her life to measles told a reporter that they would “absolutely not take the MMR” claiming that measles was not as bad as it is made out to be. Her four surviving children that recovered from measles were treated with castor oil and inhaled steroids (Langford). For background, the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is recommended to be given in two doses, one at 12-15 months and the second at 4-6 years. These two shots can provide someone with lifetime immunity. While they may not provide full protection, they can still lessen the effects that could potentially lead to serious harm (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Had those involved with the outbreak taken the vaccine, there probably would not have been an outbreak to that extent. This is where the ethical problem arises. While it would be the best for everyone to be vaccinated with MMR as it would lead to the potential eradication of measles in the United States (Novilla), this would mean those who do not want to take the vaccine would lose some sense of bodily autonomy. This  could be considered a violation of the ethical rule concerning respect for an individual. An argument can be made that this ethical concern could be ignored when considering a mandatory vaccination mandate as the state has a compelling interest in doing so. Personally, this is a very agreeable take. Health should be the main concern of the state, both out of the goodness of their heart and because there would be no reason to have a government if there was no one to govern. They should be able to ignore this ethical concern. However, it does not take away from the fact that imposing something on someone that does not want it does indeed violate the right to individual autonomy and should be avoided.

This problem could be avoided through proper informed consent. Many of the reasons for hesitancy around vaccines is the misbelief that they can cause autism or do not actually work (Boulanger). Research done on Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy by Dr. Kountouris showed that the hesitancy was related to the level of education in literature related to the vaccine. They point out that a sample from the UK taken by Dr. Steinert showed a decrease of 16% in the probability of hesitancy for those with an education level higher than primary education (Kountouris, Remoundou). If more people are properly informed on vaccines by trusted individuals, bodily autonomy would likely become less of an argument used against mandatory vaccines. This is an increasingly difficult process to carry out as there is an observed rise in decreased interest in proper education that is encouraged by the government, an institution we should be able to trust. In March of 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that would “begin shutting down several functions of the Department of Education”. This opens the door to eliminating free, publicly funded education for children (“Executive Order on Closing the Department of Education.”). The Department of Education is not in charge of setting the rules on what should and can be taught in schools, however, the defunding of the department increases the federal control of state and local education as the executive order restricted what programs federal funds could be allocated to (U.S. Department of Education). This could lead to the government decreasing access to proper education of topics that one may need to understand. Going back to the example of vaccines, Robert F Kennedy Jr is currently the Secretary of Health. He has made many incorrect statements about vaccinations, such as saying they cause autism (“Fact -checking RFK Jr's views on health policy.”). Those that have been properly educated that the study done was wildly incorrect and understand how vaccines work would easily catch on to the fact that RFK Jr is spreading misinformation. However, with the government on the path to control what can and cannot be discussed in an academic setting by targeting funding, less people will be able to fully understand vaccinations and more people will believe future false statements that the Secretary of Health may make. This in turn takes away a person’s ability to give proper informed consent for a public health initiative due to the spread of misinformation. In a survey conducted in 2019, the Pew Research Center found that 59% of Republicans  were found to see higher education as negatively effecting the country. Compared to the surveyed Democrats, also in 2019, having only 18% of them sharing the same belief (Rohland). This is likely because of anti-intellectualism.

Anti-intellectualism, as the name suggests, is a concept relating to distrust and the tendency to be dismissive towards the necessity of having intellectual thought  (“Anti-intellectualism”). This can further be seen in the defunding of research being done in the United States by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Another reason for defunding research likely stems from anti-elitism. In her article “Anti-Intellectualism is on the Rise in America,” Garriga points out anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism are not the rejection of critical thinking but the rejection of institutions and their progress in “impractical” solutions. Most research that had their funding cut was because they were found to be “outrageous” and “wasteful”. The article listing some of the most “outrageous” studies do sound outlandish as the names that are used to label them seem like the studies have no relation to the benefit of humanity. Further investigation shows that these studies are indeed beneficial and have some importance. For example, the study titled “Gambling for Pigeons.” It does not have any clear connection to human health, so it is understandable as to why people would agree to its defunding (Sturge). After a simple internet search, it is possible to find the exact abstract the researchers submitted for their grant. After reading the abstract, one would be able to understand how the study is indeed relevant to public health as it concerns the development and maintenance of gambling behavior. However, many blindly agree that cutting the budget for that research was a good idea as they did not feel it necessary to investigate the study further. 

The lack of interest in pursuing higher education likely leads to the fear of technological advancements, or technophobia, along with its intensity as it can play on the natural fear of the unknown. Technophobia is not new as can be seen by the introduction of electricity to the public during the 19th century and, more recently, the introduction of 5G and mRNA vaccines. When electricity was introduced, there was a rise in anti-electricity propaganda. People began connecting electricity to death and evil forces, a belief that is reflected in the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (Voltolina). Granted, with electricity still being somewhat new, proper safety precautions were likely not in place and pictures of electricity towers in 19th century New York show a very daunting scene of wires crowding the space above walkways between buildings. It would make sense why people were suspicious about this new technology. Technophobia increased drastically when a lineman named John Feeks incorrectly assumed how safe a job would be after strong winds the night before and was electrocuted in front of the many people in one of Manhattan’s busiest streets (J. P. Sullivan). Now, electricity is a part of everyday life. The science behind electricity is understood more now and there is less fear around it. Another example of technophobia is 5G internet. The only reason some people are scared and suspicious about 5G is because they do not fully understand it and are being enhanced by others in their circle. There is no interest in looking into credible sources that say power of the radio waves is too low to harm humans and even if they were informed about this, they would be highly distrustful of the scientist, connecting to elements of anti-elitism (Duffy). Vaccines are also a technology that has a lot of misconceptions surrounding it in the groups that are misinformed or unwilling to believe the facts. 

For a public health procedure such as a mandatory vaccination mandate  to be fully ethical, the public must have access to proper education regarding that vaccine. If that access is denied by someone in a higher position, then implementing even the most beneficial mandate will become unethical as it will impede an individual’s bodily autonomy. Humans will almost always disagree on any topic for as long as someone questions it, as can be seen in society’s constant struggle with technological advancements. If this thought process is reflected into a fictional world the way many issues are explored, this implies that the technology provided by science fiction cannot have a place in a utopia as it would violate ethical laws. Being in a utopia implies that there is little to no disagreement over decisions that would affect the whole. Using a mandatory vaccine as an example, it can only be ethical if everyone involved agrees. Which brings up the question, how would it be possible for everyone to agree if it is known that people are very bad at coming to a unanimous decision. Either not everyone involved was there when agreeing to the mandate or those who would have disagreed were somehow wiped out, naturally or not. Either way, this implies the exclusion of a certain group which is not ethical in respect to justice. The only way this technology could exist in a utopia is if the entire world started from the very beginning as a hivemind, which in and of itself would have its own issues concerning who is making the final decision and how they even got connected in the first place.

While it is possible to use science fiction technologies in a way to pursue utopian ideals, human nature limits the ability to fully embrace those advancements in an ethical manner. To be able to have those technologies in place, it would require manipulation, coercion, or brainwashing. All these options are obviously not ethical and if they were to occur under the excuse that it is for the betterment of society, then that society simply cannot be utopian.