Comments on: Science Fiction as a tool for human survival

By: Collapse Survival

Collapse Survival — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:16:57 +0000

I think Hollywood’s current fascination with science fiction is here to stay. Here’s why… video games have made science fiction more profitable than ever before — and the maturation and widespread acceptance of emerging technologies have made it OK to be interested in science fiction where it was viewed as outsider literature before.

By: Joe Haldeman

Joe Haldeman — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:04:47 +0000

As a science fiction writer who also teaches SF (at MIT, since 1983), let me add my voice to Bill’s number 7. “Sci-fi” is a denigrating neologism, even when it’s not intended to be.

Joe Haldeman

By: A. Victoria Mixon, Editor » Blog Archive » Surfing the e-book wave

A. Victoria Mixon, Editor » Blog Archive » Surfing the e-book wave — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:48:41 +0000

[...] the writer’s side of the picture, someone has written a pretty interesting analysis of using sci fi as a tool for human survival. Are you writing speculative sci fi? Maybe you should [...]

By: The Great Geek Manual » Geek Media Round-Up: January 25, 2010

The Great Geek Manual » Geek Media Round-Up: January 25, 2010 — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:38:43 +0000

[...] Netflow Developments discusses Science Fiction as a tool for human survival. [...]

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:27:47 +0000

I’ve often said Future Shock (remember Alvin Toffler?) happens to those who don’t read SF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock

Code word alert: Science Fiction, SF and Speculative Fiction are equivalent.
Sci-Fi should not be used if you are talking about serious themes.
Sci-Fi is used to describe the action oriented, cheesy, technically inaccurate mass entertainment.

There are great big themed Science Fiction books out there.
Those themes are not exclusive to Speculative Fiction.

By: Alley

Alley — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:16:34 +0000

I’ve been reading SF since the early 60′s, and like anything thing else, SF is growing up. Consider looking at the term “specualtive fiction” as a replacement for “science fiction”, “fantasy”, “horror”, and all those sub-genres like slipstream, etc. Spec Fic is an umbrella term and is not separate from SF, F, H, etc. If you’ve read commentary from the Masters like Delany, Aldris, Ellison, etc., they too use spec fic in those terms. Therefore, science fiction (sf, not “sci fi”) is a sub-genre of speculative fiction. Good thoughts.

By: links for 2010-01-25 « Nur mein Standpunkt

links for 2010-01-25 « Nur mein Standpunkt — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:05:12 +0000

[...] Science Fiction as a tool for human survival | Netflow Developments Ja, heute ist SF im Kino halt öfters Effektepopcorn. Avatar soll ja auch etwas Nachdenkenswertes haben. Ansonsten gibts aber immer noch Filme, die zum Nachdenken anregen. Leider sind das dann halt keine Blockbuster… (tags: sf) [...]

By: admin

admin — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:42:31 +0000

it’s not about predicting the future so that we know exactly what is going to happen, it’s more about drawing up a road map of potential pitfalls so that we may have some choice in where our path goes. We’ll never avoid them, but at least we might see some of them coming. Look at how a large corporation plans out it’s business strategy by taking into account every conceivable risk and then adjusting strategy based on that.. Should we be doing something similar for our species?

By: Gordon

Gordon — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:12:30 +0000

Well, that is one viewpoint. I’ve always liked SciFi speculative fiction, and I think it’s helped to broaden my mind.

Life has always been one of change. Life changes day to day, minute to minute. It has always been changing around us. But that’s not comfortable to people. People want a comfort zone, where they can predict just how everything will happen and just what they will do in any circumstance. As a matter of fact, although your article is an excellent read, it promotes this same thought pattern.

I think some people that have always disliked speculative fiction are that way precisely because they do not want to see any change. It will be very hard to sell them on the idea of opening their mind, because they do not want to open their mind, unfortunately.

Are we able to get to the point where we can fully accept that the next stage of human evolution is digital/mechanical? As open-minded as I am, I don’t know if I’m ready for that! And I’m very open-minded! What about the absolutely huge numbers of people who can’t even accept such a thing as ‘evolution’?

We have a long, long road ahead of us! And maybe we should ask ourselves if there is even a point in trying to predict anything about the future, other than fascination and just plain fun.

By: Graham Storrs

Graham Storrs — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:39:49 +0000

You’re spot on about SF being a ‘future simulator’ playing forward from the state we find ourselves in. It has always been the case that SF has concerned itself with today’s issues and has often removed the baggage of current emotional attachment to issues by moving them into alternative places, times, and realities, so we can look at them more dispassionately.

I feel as much as you do, I believe, that the need for this is greater now than it has ever been. The pace of change quickens all the time. Our technology and (especially) our science has gone so far ahead of most people’s comprehension that it might as well be magic. Yet I have the feeling that SF is foundering. The SF writers of recent years have been unable to paint a picture of the future that many people are able or willing to understand. Instead, I see a retreat from probable but incredible futures into fictional worlds of magic and fantasy, a shying away from a future – a present even – that makes no sense, in favour of imaginary worlds that hark back to simpler times and simpler magic.

More than ever, we need writers who can make the future make sense to readers, and not only that, but who can make the future seem worth having.