Slashdot Mirror
Sci-fi Predictions, True and False (Video 1)
Science fiction is the domain of predicting future technology. But we rarely stop to account for which predictions come true, which don't, and which are fulfilled in... unexpected ways. A panel at the recent science fiction convention in Detroit explored this subject in depth, from Star Trek's communicators to nanotech and cloning. Panelists include writer and forensic science expert Jen Haeger; professor and generally fascinating guy Brian Gray; and expert in Aeronautical Management and 20-year veteran of the Air Force Douglas Johnson. In this video, they run down a list of science fiction predictions, both successful and unsuccessful, and evaluate how realistic or far-fetched each now seems.
TRANSCRIPTS! Do you have them, motherfucker!
...no, it's not.
Science fiction has never been about predicting future technology.
Science fiction is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The gizmos, gadgets, and Mac Guffins are merely there to help us ponder the question of "how would the ability to do such and such impact human life/culture/civilization/etc... ?" If that question is ignored, then the story - regardless of the do-hickeys involved - belongs to another genera: perhaps adventure, fantasy, or something else. The question can be treated at the highest levels of galactic civilization and politics or at the lowest levels of an individual's life, but it is the quintessential aspect of Science Fiction.
...ever. Where are my tractor beams?
In C++, your friends can see your privates.
Then there is the rise of very small dwelling, basically just beds, which are becoming popular in some parts, as predicted by the cyberpunk novels.
The real problem with most prediction in science fiction is that is misses a critical development aspect of the technology, or more often the limitation of the applications of the technology. For instance, at this time everyone expected housecleaning to be done by robots, but astronavigation to still be done by hand.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
These lists of sci fi predictions coming true always seem to bend what it means to 'come true' because the fiction never seems to get it exactly right. They almost always seem to either over predict such as tractor beams and cloaking devices which we "technically" have today but only at the quantum level and not in a way that would be recognizable to the average sci fi fan, or under predict, such as Star Trek PADDs being single use one-object-per-task devices rather than the more useful general-purpose iPads that we actually got. I am having trouble thinking of any futuristic predictions that the author got exactly right.
If there aren't sex robots involved, I'm not interested.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Most real sci-fi was written long ago and most of its authors are either already dead or will be dead real soon now.
Nowadays, sci-fi doesn't have much in the way of the quintessential.
Now it is just another part of the fantasy department along with elves and vampires.
And the impact pondering has been replaced by romantic titillation and other prurient pastimes.
Sadly, we have become one of the very dystopias the real sci-fi authors used to poke fun at.
Anyone who thinks we surpassed TOS flip communicators didn't really pay attention. Those things had a range past orbit without the use of a cell phone tower or any other kind of relay infrastructure. The TNG communicators, on top of that, were hands free speakerphones with perfect audio quality and small enough to pin on your jacket.
I also never noticed them needing a charge.
Here's my general assessment of the pace of progress we've actually made compared to what was predicted since around the Sputnik era:
Earth transportation: D- (relatively cheap air-fare about only gain. NO flying cars.)
Space transportation/exploration: C- (chem rockets still expensive as hell)
Artificial Intelligence: B-
Electronics/Computers: A (arguably only area faster than expected)
Medical: B-
Poverty: D (still not solved)
Reduced Work Week: D+
Population Overload or Resource Shortages: C- (problems less than anticipated)
Big Brother: B
Table-ized A.I.
[citation needed]. The Tesla deification is starting to get annoying.
Orson Scott Card was the guy who "invented" the Internet? Hell, it *EXISTED* when he wrote Ender's game.
And if you're talking about WWW, it was predicted by Vannevar Bush long before then.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Right.
"Science fiction is a domain of predicting future technology -- succes rate of said predictions being comparable to Nostradamus'."
Fixed that for yous.
Kurt Vonnegut had a chillingly accurate prediction of the economy of the future in "Player Piano". While of course it contains the standard 1950s era scifi references to huge computers filled with vaccum tubes and it doesn't accurately predict what will happen with sending work abroad but his point about what we do with the now "useless" people is spot on.
In the book you are either one of the lucky few who have the skills and opportunity to become an engineer or else you have meaningless work found for you, either in the army or one of a large number of mostly pointless public works projects. This is eerily similar to the economies of a lot of the rich world, especially the U.S. while the rabid flag waivers don't want to admit it, most soldiers in the U.S. army today are only there because becoming a soldier was their only real chance to live something resembling a middle class lifestyle. We also have huge numbers of menial jobs whose only real purpose is to create busy work selling chinese made goods to each other. I highly recommend the book to anyone who wants to see the downside of the "maker economy"
Monstar L
Yes, and he wrote about them himself — explaining the topic of such predictions in general and his own failures (and successes) in particular. I can not find those works online now (they are copyrighted, no doubt, you have to buy the book), but here is a critique of him — and a critique of the critique.
You could do (a lot) worse, than reading all of the Heinlein you can get — both Fiction and otherwise...
Myself, I'd add the following prediction for posterity — 50 years later, you can say, you read it on /. first: Anything, that is theoretically possible today, will be be practically possible 50 years from now, unless it is found useless, declared illegal or competes with a government-sponsored alternative (the last two being sides of the same coin). .
And the other way around: whatever is not possible even in theory today (like faster-than-light movement or time-travel), will remain impossible in practice for the upcoming decades.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
>Science fiction is the domain of predicting future technology
the purpose of Science Fiction is not to "predict" future technology, but to tell a story about today either using
1. ficitonal end result of today's technology, mixed with politics, mixed with society, as a socio-political statement about the same.
2. A story about today, with fictional races, nations, people, aliens, and laser beams to abstract way too hot to handle concepts and political ideas. Laser beam weapons are great, because there is rarely too much blood and the bad guys just fall down.
3. A story about history, that like #2, is still too hot to handle, or presents a viewpoint that people would reject on concept without really thinking about it.
Go re-watch the Original Star Trek, but in your mind pretend what all the abstractions, are what they are supposed to represent. It gets dark, and heavy really fucking quickly.
Spain, Italy, and Greece all seem to validate such 'primitive concerns'.
The problem of negative cashflow is such a basic one that it wouldn't even be disputed in any other context.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.