Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sci-fi Predictions, True and False (Video 1)

Posted by Soulskill on from the no-mention-of-the-singularity dept.

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.

16 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. TRANSCRIPT! by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TRANSCRIPTS! Do you have them, motherfucker!

    1. Re:TRANSCRIPT! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, this falls into the category of "Things where text is more useful/interesting than video". Not to mention people who just don't want noise/video.

    2. Re:TRANSCRIPT! by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you for your courteous request, mythosaz. Serving good people is always a pleasure.

    3. Re:TRANSCRIPT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many of us nerds can read (and, possibly, still comprehend what we're reading) quite a bit faster than the average Joe. But few of us watch video any faster!

      (Also, when I read, I can do whatever voices I want. When it's video, I'm stuck with reality.)

    4. Re:TRANSCRIPT! by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Informative

      Directly below the video I see a link "Hide/Show Transcript", and clicking it expands and shows the transcript.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    5. Re:TRANSCRIPT! by Sarius64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Skimming the transcript; wondering if I can get that one minute of my life back for being pulled into reading such a useless publishing. They mentioned almost nothing worthwhile.

  2. Science fiction is the domain of predicting future by acheong87 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...no, it's not.

  3. Faulty premise by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Faulty premise by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      I think you're wrong. Good science fiction is about the possibilities of technology, and how we can use it to become more knowledgeable about ourselves. Bad science fiction is about human soap operas, and isn't really science fiction but more of a romance or fantasy type genre.

    2. Re:Faulty premise by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Good science fiction is about the possibilities of technology, and how we can use it to become more knowledgeable about ourselves.

        The GP was 'more' right. So called "Good" or "Hard" SF is examining a human response to a change in the environment. The key to differentiating SF from space-romance/fantasy etc is whether the plot and conflict is driven by science as a consequence of the change in the environment. If there are "space ships" are they simply used to get from A to B and are nothing more than pretty cars? Or is the plot driven by the unique circumstances that them being spaceships creates.

      Is it an examination of how (comparatively slow) spaceships with no ability to communicate beyond a limited range with large enough crews would evolve into isolated floating city states? Does it explore that in depth? Then it might be hard SF. Is it just assumed that this happened so they could retell a story about city states from Renaissance Italy in space? Then maybe not.

      Or maybe the people sleep in the spaceships, and the story explores the impact of waking up after every trip knowing everyone you knew is now dead and how that might affect the relationships you form. Sounds like Hard SF. Or maybe its just a set piece that has no real impact on the plot, and its not used to larger effect than napping on a jet or a bus.

      But it doesn't need to have space ships or advanced science to be SF.

      Nightfall imagines a world without night encountering it for the first time. They could be less advanced than us.

      Flowers for Algernon and A Clockwork Orange both explore the ethics of human experimentation and the ethics of altering someones mind. The tech to do it isn't really important.

      1984 simply considers a society under government surveillance. (The telescreens were really the extent of advanced technology, but again weren't really important to the plot or theme except as a way to establish the "surveillance" element)

      The Mote in God's Eye is an examination of the evolutionary path of a resource constrained technologically advanced species. (One vision of how we might adapt in few million years if we can't leave the solar system...)

      More than Human is an examination of loneliness and our need to form connections. The selection of both enhanced but broken characters, a telepath, telekinetic,mute teleporters, an infant genius, etc is used to weave a tale about how they might find eachother and cope, even become 'whole'.

      The Demolished Man is police mystery in a future world where telepaths are real. But at its core its a thought experiment examining how to deceive a telepath. The Minority Report is similarly themed (although the movie COMPLETELY screwed up the ending).

      As for "bad SF" I don't like the term. Lots of perfectly good writing is called "bad SF" when there is nothing wrong with it; its just not "Hard SF". But there is nothing wrong with doing Game of Thrones in Space. I thoroughly enjoyed the Judge Dredd remake. It was fun. These aren't Hard SF, but they are not pretending to be. Its soft SF, not "Bad SF".

    3. Re:Faulty premise by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      I think what differentiates science fiction from other types is the science. All fiction can be said to be about human responses to author-created contrivances. But science fiction's focus, apart from the human soap-opera filler, is on scientific contrivances. That's the appeal, for me at any rate. Not the human fluff.

    4. Re:Faulty premise by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      Scotty uses a machine. The machine is assumed to work in accordance with some physical model (more advanced than our models). That's clear from the show, from the dialogs, from the way they talk about their technologies.

      Gandalf is explicitly using magic. He needs no machine. He is tapping into some force that needs no physical model to work. But Star Trek posits some physics model underlying their technologies. Engineers study the physics, and produce and operate transporters, etc.

  4. One real prediction in science fiction by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Heinlein is generally credited with providing a pretty good description of the modern waterbed. I was not that far of a prediction, but it was real. He probably provided the best prediction of the internet.

    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
  5. Star Trek Communicators by BaronAaron · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Star Trek Communicators by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      but them ST communicators were so 20th century. No photos, no video, no music, no surfin' the web, etc. However, I'd love to have one with long range communications with stage quality audio.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  6. Grades by Category by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    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.