The Predator species is not without its own array of assets.  They have mastered technology far beyond human capabilities and are galactic travelers.  The Predators are very large compared to humans; not only are they much taller, but they are far stronger as well.  Its canines, if they can be called canines, spread apart in a very fierce display of aggressiveness.  The Predators are the embodiment of their moniker as they go to great lengths to visit or create their own game preserves.  It is easy to understand why that after the initial successes of the Alien and Predator cinema franchises, the two characters were pitted against each other on video games and in the movies.  However, with all due respect, my favorite sci-fi monster is John Carpenter’s The Thing, not just for its movie-going value, but for the sheer delight of the discussion of its improbable social impact.

 

John Carpenter's The Thing, filmed in 1982, is partly based on an earlier movie titled The Thing from Another World which was released in 1951.  The Thing (1982) is a movie about an alien monster that crash lands on Earth and is discovered ages later by an artic research team.  What is special about this alien is that it can mimic the appearance of any animal by taking over that animal’s body, eradicating entirely the cells of the invaded organism.  More importantly, every cell of The Thing is a complete and sentient (self-aware) life form.  

 

Because every cell is a complete organism like an amoeba, biologically speaking, it's perfectly suited for survival.  In order to kill this alien, every cell has to be wiped-out. For example, to kill a human being you simply have to damage beyond repair one of his or her many important organs in the body (brain, heart, liver, blood, etc.).  After one of these important organs has become minimally functional or non-functional, death soon follows.  This would be an ineffective strategy against The Thing.  Every cell contains all the necessary organs for higher level thought, reproduction, respiration, or digestion.  It is logical to assume that The Thing would be immune to bacteria, fungus, and viruses because it would just absorb them and add them to its collective.

 

The aforementioned biological attributes make John Carpenter’s The Thing a model for a perfect society, The Thing paradigm.  Theoretically and sociologically speaking, its adoption by humankind would result in our greatly enhanced chances of survival.  Even though The Thing, the life-form, does mimic the appearance (inside and out) of different organisms, it most likely sees itself as one organism.  As a paradigm, this quality would make mankind immune to many of the destructive –isms that plague humans.  In addition, as a paradigm, every person would be at once a leader and a follower due to The Thing’s individual/group cell properties.  If one person is hurt or dies, another person seamlessly fills the void.  Consider political movements operating under this paradigm.  Kennedy's "Camelot" and Malcolm X's dream of Pan-Africanism would not have been damaged by the death of their figureheads because someone who was formally a follower would have immediately and effectively become the leader.  A person who is both a leader and a follower is commanding enough to inspire, organize, and delegate tasks and humble enough to perform those tasks well.  This person is simultaneously self-centered and selfless, being able to altruistically serve his community while defending himself (community) from the constant barrage of harmful propaganda (pathogens/afflictions) and enemies.

 

It is this union of opposites, self-centeredness and selflessness, that makes The Thing paradigm so theoretically effective. I see it as Dumas’ Musketeer’s slogan, “All for one, and one for all!” taken to its logical conclusion: “All is one, and one is all!”  The attribute of change is another thing that would make the paradigm successful.  John Carpenter’s Thing is the embodiment of change.  The organism adapts well to harsh environments, having the ability to adopt the look and best practices of creatures already suited to any variety of ecosystems.  

 

Of course, The Thing organism would eventually reap genocide upon the universe.  Furthermore, I have to wonder if the organism is capable of creative thought, or does it just co-opt/add organisms and their ideas to its collective like the Borg of Star Trek.  However, the same would not be true of the paradigm as its practitioners adapt to different sociological systems instead of destroying another’s matrix in favor of its own.  It would incorporate new ideas, yes, but this would be done through a shared experience.  No more extinction of species, cultural or otherwise.  And, creation would be a fundamental aspect of its nature.  Those who adopt the paradigm would exist in harmony with the universe.

 

But how do we get there?  I ask this question because I seriously don’t know.  I know I’m not there.  In fact, I don’t believe that human beings are sufficiently evolved enough to fully understand, incorporate, and execute The Thing paradigm.  We are resistant to change and have trouble adopting an “All is one, and one is all!” attitude.  Some of us only want to lead, and most of us just want to follow.  Regretfully, we are still too much like the Alien (savage) and Predator (masochistic and murderous).  And if you don’t believe me, give some thought as to why we enjoy watching those movies in the first place.  So, while I will be surprised if The Thing paradigm becomes anyone’s way of life, I am sure that it's a pretty good perfect society discussion for sci-fi circles.