Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future
An anonymous reader writes: A few years ago, author Neal Stephenson argued that sci-fi had forgotten how to inspire people to do great things. Indeed, much of recent science fiction has been pessimistic and skeptical, focusing on all the ways our inventions could go wrong, and how hostile the universe is to humankind. Now, a group of scientists, engineers, and authors (including Stephenson himself) is trying to change that. Arizona State University recently launched Project Hieroglyph, a hub for ideas that will influence science fiction to be more optimistic and accurate, and to focus on the great things humanity is capable of doing.
For example, in the development of a short story, Stephenson wanted to know if it's possible to build a tower that's 20 kilometers tall. Keith Hjelmsad, an expert in structural stability and computational mechanics, wrote a detailed response about the challenge involved in building such a tower. Other authors are contributing questions as well, and researchers are chiming in with fascinating, science-based replies. Roboticist Srikanth Saripalli makes this interesting point: "If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions mostly from science fiction rather than what's being published in technical papers."
For example, in the development of a short story, Stephenson wanted to know if it's possible to build a tower that's 20 kilometers tall. Keith Hjelmsad, an expert in structural stability and computational mechanics, wrote a detailed response about the challenge involved in building such a tower. Other authors are contributing questions as well, and researchers are chiming in with fascinating, science-based replies. Roboticist Srikanth Saripalli makes this interesting point: "If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions mostly from science fiction rather than what's being published in technical papers."
Star Trek painted a very optimistic picture of humanity, of a few generations from now mankind not being focused on money, but instead ideas, and progress/wellbeing for all of humanity. About technology (foremost the replicators) really making the world a better place.
Contrast this to the reboot of Battlestar Galactica , which paints a very dreary portrait of advancement of science/artificial intelligence causing the downfall of humanity..
Yes.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Anyone remember the seventies pre-Star Wars? You couldn't produce an SF film unless it had a downer ending. The magazine of fantasy and science fiction was full of depressing dystopian stories. Dangerous Visions, Last Days of Man on Earth, Driftglass... The book stands were loaded with depressing scifi. It wasn't a particularly uplifting time. I remember wondering at the time whether the industry go through cycles, where to differentiate yourself you have to write depressing fiction, and then everyone follows along, and then to differentiate yourself you have to go with, I dunno, a happy ending, and everyone follows suit, back and forth. Or whether literature and media tend to track some manic-depressive cycle of society. Or drives it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The thing about the extremes of positive and negative stories.. Dystopian = everything is rotten, yet there is some hope Utopian = everything seems perfect at first, yet these is something is deepely wrong in the background. Now what is the positive story? The reader decides to focus on positive or negative overall aspects. Take a utopian version of hunger games. The main character of hunger games. She grows up in the capital. There is welth and lots of great food, parties and everything. There is even a great yearly entertainment thing where less fortunate kids from the districts get the opertunity to show worrier skills and make themselves and their families rich. When she volentiers for a job to help these kids prepare (a job that can make you famous) the harsh reality becomes apparent. These kids and family are repressed and live awful lives just to make the life in the capital possible. When she tries to speak up she gets to feel just how awfull the powers in the can be, even her family and friends are punnished for her attempts to speak up. Same world other view. In the end what story is more positive?
There are currently a lot of smart and well funded global efforts to create alternative energy sources. And people would be surprised how much money the current Oil companies are investing in alternative fuel research. They know eventually that fossil fuel use will decline and they would like to be as dominate in the alternative energy market as they are in the hydrocarbon extraction market. Whoever gets there first with a viable alternative energy source will reap enormous profits. And as long as we are talking about science fiction I think harnessing zero-point energy technologies would be really cool.
I'm a private contractor working at the NIH, and this is 100% true. The grant review process is so strict that when ARRA gave billions of dollars to the NIH to fund *new* research, the NIH had to go back to the President and say, "we have to be able to use some of this money to supplement *existing* research too ... we can't just start awarding grants to people who didn't make the cut because their *science* was bad."
There are a lot of M.D.s and Ph.D.s here, and they take that stuff *really* seriously. The NIH is trying to fund research to cure or treat conditions that affect us, our friends, our relatives, etc. They will terminate a grant early if they find reason to.
You don't get to screw around with the American taxpayer's money if you're getting it from here.
I'm not sure there's even really a market for science fiction
There is always a market for good scientific fiction, inspiring stories that will bring the readers towards a universe which they never experience before
What was that last Star Trek movie? I can't even remember the name of it now. It wasn't science fiction. It was an action flick with more explosions than ideas. It just happened to be set on a spaceship
I am totally with you on that flick --- the flick is a perfect example of how severely the lacking of the ability to imagine, on current crop of writers, has become!
I suspect that the current definition of "sci-fi" is no longer similar to what we are accustomed to. Nowadays the thinking is that if something happens on board of a space-ship it automatically qualifies as "sci-fi". Gone are the days that sci-fi offered the readers a glimpse of what could-be, thus inspiring the readers (many of them young) to strive to make the world that they read in sci-fi comes alive
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !