Does Science Fiction Have Any Predictive Skill?

[Pyrodrew]

War of the Worlds ending is absurd

fixed

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ned
War of the Worlds seems spot on about the bug. I think that may be a major problem we will encounter while visiting other worlds. We may have to send out remote units first to bring back alien bugs in order to develop vaccines. Otherwise, first expeditions will be wiped out.

Bullsh*t. Viruses in particular are generally very specific in what they infect - they have to have appropriate cell surface protein features to bind to and then have an appropriate section of DNA to insert their genome into. So as well as been heavily dependent on the species, we haven't even delved into the impact of completely different biological formats.

Even if a relatively closely related biological system was found, all it would take it for the average body temperature to be 50C (even just a few degrees difference is critical) or for the pH of circulatory fluid to be 4 for any of our pathogens to be useless against them and vice versa. Differing temperature, pH, pressure, etc, makes for massive configurational changes in protein structure and activity. And this is making some assumptions which are so improbable as to not even consider, ie, the same nucleic acids used (including nitrogenous bases) with the same codon allocation, the same amino acids, internal cell structure. The probabilities for any compatibility between xenobiological systems and our own are so low that it is not worth considering.

ie, you've been pwned

[Patroklos]

David Brin made some very good predictions about what character a galactic scale civilization would be like, but again that isn't really science as much as sociology.

[DaShi]

Calling Star Trek "Science Fiction" is like calling Austin Powers "Action". It's marginally related, and shares some common features, but ultimately it's a dramatic action movie/series that happens to be set in space. No attempt to predict actual scientific achievements is made.

So to be SciFi is must attempt to predict actual scientific achievement?

Most SF does not attempt to predict future scientific developments.

So what is SciFi?

[Zkribbler]

H.G. Well's When the Sleeper Wakes predicted VCR's, airplanes (this was five years before Kitty Hawk) and intracity freeways.

It also predicted the centralization of wealth with the concurrent loss of basic rights by ordinary citizens. I first read it in the 60's--a time of rising standards of living and increasing rights, powers and opportunities for common folk--so I thought it was a crock. Since that time, the power of unions and of working folk has rapidly declined and the rule of the plutocrat is upon us. There's a scene in the book where a sick worker is shoveling toxins, which is surprisingly reminicent of the scene in Erin Brokovich which the sick working is working in the pool of toxins.

The Forever War predicts the loss of healthcare for the elderly.

And remember, many Star Trek worlds had the Internet years before Al Gore invented it.

The term "robot" was invented in a science fiction story.

One thing missed by all science fiction writers was the invention of the birth control bill, which in turn led to the movement for women's equality. Watch the original Star Trek episodes and look at the subservient roles women play. One woman even steals Kirk's body so that she can become a starship captain. & I liked the episode where women ran a planet--I especially liked their choice for fashion....miniskirts and go-go boots. Yep, that's what women would choose to wear when they're in charge and there are no men around.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Yep, that's what women would choose to wear when they're in charge and there are no men around.

You think that just cause there are no men around, they aren't having sex?

[BeBMan]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by DaShi
[quote]Most SF does not attempt to predict future scientific developments.

Thankfully. Technobabble isn't what made Star Trek great (in it's best moments). Also in BSG the technological aspects seem secondary, but still I'd call it scifi.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Bullsh*t. Viruses in particular are generally very specific in what they infect - they have to have appropriate cell surface protein features to bind to and then have an appropriate section of DNA to insert their genome into. So as well as been heavily dependent on the species, we haven't even delved into the impact of completely different biological formats.

Even if a relatively closely related biological system was found, all it would take it for the average body temperature to be 50C (even just a few degrees difference is critical) or for the pH of circulatory fluid to be 4 for any of our pathogens to be useless against them and vice versa. Differing temperature, pH, pressure, etc, makes for massive configurational changes in protein structure and activity. And this is making some assumptions which are so improbable as to not even consider, ie, the same nucleic acids used (including nitrogenous bases) with the same codon allocation, the same amino acids, internal cell structure. The probabilities for any compatibility between xenobiological systems and our own are so low that it is not worth considering.

ie, you've been pwned

Bully.

Looks like it is a go for manner exploration of the Solar System.

[bondetamp]

I'm by no means a great reader of SF, but I've always figured that many of them (and by "them" I really mean Political SF, rather than say, Space Operas or Monster Movies) were meant as social comentaries or warnings rather than predictions.

1984 didn't, I believe, try to predict what the world would be like in 1984, and Brave New World didn't really try to predict how the future would look. they tried to say that if we go down x way, we might end up in y situation, and when we get there it will be hard as Hell to change it because Humanity, the People, the Rulers or whomever act in z manner and will continue to do so, it's in their nature.

These stories tend to paint rather bleak pictures because those make for more interesting stories and because SF writers aren't always the people with the most faith in Humanity.

They also tend to say more about the time they were written than the time they're portraying.

[Jon Miller]

Most sci fi is interesting is because it is like a warped mirror, it provides a distorted view of ourselves. Now this is true of all fiction, but SF (speculative fiction) allows more/different warping.

The value in this is that we see ourselves in other ways then we are use to seeing us, and can gain understanding in that way.

Very very little science fiction has provided ideas, one that Clark (I think?) came up with was gyrocychronus orbit sattelites? But these and other 'predictions' are of a material/socialogical nature, not of a scientific nature.

Generally Hard Science science fiction sucks, as it focuses too much on making crap predictions, or detailing 'cool' ideas (which will generally never occur) instead of focusing on developing characters or the society (Where the value in the reflection of us and our society is definitely there).

Jon Miller

[Odin]

A work of science fiction is influenced by the times it is made in and by the personal and ideological biases of the authors. A story written by Isaac Assimov will be different then a story by Kim Stanley Robinson.

[GePap]

Predictions of what?

In terms of technology, certainly Wells and Verne in the 19th century wrote sotries involving machines that would come to be common, aircraft and submarines. They forsaw space travel at a time most people would have thought it a childish dream.

Clarke wrote about comunication satellites in the late 40's and 50's, and certainly countless SciFi writers have written about computers and thier spread into our lives. So if the question is, have sci fi writters forsee possible technological developments, then certainly they have.

As for 1984, We, Brave New World, these sotries did make some predictions about technology, but then set out to explore how that technology could be used to reshape human society. To some extent all three books imagined things that appear to be happening, though for example in the case of 1984 the changing of history was already common in the USSR when the book was written, such as how photographs and movies kept being changed to erase individuals who had become inconvinient.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Bullsh*t. Viruses in particular are generally very specific in what they infect - they have to have appropriate cell surface protein features to bind to and then have an appropriate section of DNA to insert their genome into. So as well as been heavily dependent on the species, we haven't even delved into the impact of completely different biological formats.

Even if a relatively closely related biological system was found, all it would take it for the average body temperature to be 50C (even just a few degrees difference is critical) or for the pH of circulatory fluid to be 4 for any of our pathogens to be useless against them and vice versa. Differing temperature, pH, pressure, etc, makes for massive configurational changes in protein structure and activity. And this is making some assumptions which are so improbable as to not even consider, ie, the same nucleic acids used (including nitrogenous bases) with the same codon allocation, the same amino acids, internal cell structure. The probabilities for any compatibility between xenobiological systems and our own are so low that it is not worth considering.

ie, you've been pwned

smallpox. Ebola, Marburg. AIDS. Yeah, viruses never jump species. BTW, spend a night in Kittum Cave for me, why dontcha!

[loinburger]

I don't think that most sci-fi actually attempts to make any predictions. It's mostly concerned with whether a piece of technology helps or hinders the story.

A more apt question would be "does futurology have any predictive skill," to which the answer is "probably not a whole helluva lot." When you consider how much impact something as relatively innocuous as the silicon integrated circuit has had on the world, it becomes difficult to believe that futurologists have fully considered the ramifications of the more aggressive technologies they've dreamed up (e.g., hovercars, cold fusion, biodomes, etc.).

In my experience, the sci-fi that focuses more on making predictions than on making a decent story tends to suck ass.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GePap
Predictions of what?

In terms of technology, certainly Wells and Verne in the 19th century wrote sotries involving machines that would come to be common, aircraft and submarines. They forsaw space travel at a time most people would have thought it a childish dream.

These are all things that had been actively pursued by scientists since atleast the 1600s



In terms of prediction, the only sci-fi novel that comes to my mind (I have read very few) is Farenheit 451 which has done an excellent job of capturing the essence of our culture and where it has brought us today.