I would say this is because SciFi authors rarely are scientists which have to do with the development and progress of the technologies they depicture in their works. They're just... you know, dreamers. They dream of something, not deal very much with the material realization of that
( ... )
Dreamers, yes ... and most of this science fiction was escapist entertainment written for a quick buck. But it has political effects on science fiction fans - for example, I know some who, when I bring up the problems of global warming, answer me with a brazen assumption that new (nonexistent!) technologies will fix the problem. I feel the Green New Deal is a direct descendant of science fiction in its assumption that we can simultaneously increase living standards for workers while replacing 80% of our current energy fuel/infrastructure within 10 years. The appearance of new technologies over the past 200 years has people thinking they can imagine whatever new technology they want and it will magically pop into existence if they vote for their favorite politician.
If that was true, then anything that came up after steam engines would have decreased the amount of energy it takes to make an engine go... But has it? No, the amounts only climbed. Maybe the visible dirt got less and effectivity to get everything possible out of the energy used has improved over time. But mankind consumes definitely more energy than as it started with steam engines and burning mostly coal - actually the development path would point to "every new technology mankind invents only uses up more energy than ever before". Seriously!
"The problem with science fiction is the endless extrapolation of positive trends."
I think that may be the problem with science fiction of the 1950s and 1960s. Some more recent SF has extrapolated negative trends. I offer you the SF works of Octavia Butler, Mira Grant, Sarah Pinsker, J.K. Jemesin, Margaret Atwood, Suzanne Collins, etc.
Comments 5
They're just... you know, dreamers. They dream of something, not deal very much with the material realization of that ( ... )
Reply
Reply
But mankind consumes definitely more energy than as it started with steam engines and burning mostly coal - actually the development path would point to "every new technology mankind invents only uses up more energy than ever before". Seriously!
Reply
I think that may be the problem with science fiction of the 1950s and 1960s. Some more recent SF has extrapolated negative trends. I offer you the SF works of Octavia Butler, Mira Grant, Sarah Pinsker, J.K. Jemesin, Margaret Atwood, Suzanne Collins, etc.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment