Science, politics, and near-future SF « Suvudu - Science Fiction and Fantasy Books, Movies, Comics, and Games

Did I mention it was dangerous to write about the near-future? I discovered as much when I was speaking in Los Angeles last week and found myself being cross-examined by ace writer/living legend Jerry Pournelle, among others. It’s not my intention to rehash the debate here−if you’re masochistic enough, you can find more details on my blog−but suffice it to say that we disagreed on anthropogenic global warming, among other things, on the basis of which my science fiction was declared by another SF luminary in the room to be more fiction than science. Hey, I’ve heard worse.
But it was nonetheless a reminder to me of just how polarized our society’s getting. Scientific assumptions drive politics. Or maybe it’s the other way around. If it doesn’t conform to your personal world-view, just gnash your teeth and throw out it out the window.
Which may be one reason why so much of near-term science-fiction has been going the same way. To me, SF is about the navigation of an uncertain future. Any assumption I make that underpins that future is by definition provisional. But our politics have become so all-encompassing that they seem to require us to be a lot more certain about the nature of that future than we have any right to be. So while Far Future SF spaceships careen across galaxies safely removed from any Democrats or Republicans, near-term SF becomes a transparent polemic in which one’s choices in the voting booth today get projected directly onto the future, becoming part of the endless political argument that our society seems to be embroiled in.
Perhaps there’s no way to avoid this. Perhaps by definition science-fiction IS political, and that’s just the way it goes. But if that’s the case, I’d hope to be able to steer it toward a broader view of political possibilities. Do we really think that in five hundred years Left vs. Right will be meaningful political distinctions? If we don’t, then what are the implications for the next hundred? Could it be that both Left and Right are caught in the same box, and that at the end of the day neither is focused on the real problems that confound us? I don’t have answers to these questions, but it seems to me that if there’s a way to get beyond these ideological purity tests, SF would be the better for it.

David J. Williams is the author of near-future dystopian thriller THE BURNING SKIES, and posts every Wednesday on Suvudu. Learn more about his work at www.autumnrain2110.com.

6 Responses to “Science, politics, and near-future SF”

kavka says:

June 24, 2009 at 7:01 pm

People can’t separate their personal belief systems for the sake of entertainment much these days (if they ever could). Trying to envision outcomes ties you to them in the minds of some; as if you can’t have various possibilities, only assumed truisms. I see statements all the time that boil down to ‘if you don’t agree with me, I don’t want to listen to you’ – and that’s a dangerous position to take, ignoring contrasting views. It’s even worse when our entertainment even has to agree with us or else we dismiss it. Do we all just want to be surrounded by different-skinned versions of ourselves; and if so, does that mean that self-validation is more important than learning and tolerance? Of course it’s almost impossible to segregate politics and science; they are peanut butter & chocolate (like the old TV ads – ‘Hey! You got your politics in my science; you got your science in my politics!’ and such). Ultimately though, science fiction is meant to be entertaining – thought-provoking, questioning, political, scientific – those are all ingredients that can be adjusted to taste, and I think everyone is better when they respect and embrace all of the possibilities that exist as such, not condemn anyone who doesn’t like their recipe. Will politics matter? Will science? Isn’t it fun to explore the possibilities on either side?
blipvert says:

June 25, 2009 at 4:04 pm

my science fiction was declared by another SF luminary in the room to be more fiction than science.
As if that were a bad thing. Science fiction may have the word “science” in it as an adjective, but it is not science and should never try to be. Slavish adherence to current scientific vogue is the surest way to produce a novel that goes stale within five years.
TomMarcinko says:

June 26, 2009 at 2:53 pm

First of all, my sympathies. : )
The near future has always been a tough call, made only tougher by the fact that so many of us are old enough to remember predictions that went wrong (or, in the case of, say, “2001,” too optimistic).
Seems to be an entry barrier for new readers of sf, too. I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say that Orwell’s “1984″ was out of date.
As to global warming: I don’t know if Isaac Asimov ever wrote this down, but I did hear him say it: “Expect the obvious.”
Colbert’s coinage “truthiness” strikes me as more than just a funny word but a real insight into how we conduct our discourse.
dpomerico says:

June 30, 2009 at 10:41 am

I wonder, though, if it’s necessary (or necessarily a good thing) to disassociate near-future SF with the political impact of today–isn’t much of what such literature is trying to do is establish a world in which they can play out the present political climate–to speculate on the direction the world is going in? In your post about dystopian literature, I think a similar issue was raised, and again, I think I want my near-future SF to have some connection to the present day. If that means politics, or the science of the times, then so be it.
Conversely, do we even see Left vs. Right as distinctive political divisions today? In America, the major differences between Republicans and Democrats are, for the most part, moral–and even then, almost universally in matters of degrees, rather than black-and-white. Which is why I think it’s “easy” for Far Futurists to envision this type of political system to be obsolete, tending, it seems, to focus on the idea of individual power–captain of the ship, governor of the colony, leader of the expedition–rather than law-makers. And isn’t that a natural progression? Aren’t we steadily–in America, at least–moving towards a stronger executive, and weaker legislative?
In the end, I have no problem with the political in my sci-fi–in fact, I think it makes for stronger, more enduring stories (as one commenter mentioned ‘1984′, consider how overtly political that is–and about a system of government we really don’t think about too much anymore–and yet is still perfectly relevant today). And if that means incorporating the science of politics (global warming, euthanasia, cloning, stem cells, population control, eugenics, etc.) into depictions of the near future, all the better. Because, as a cultural and societal artifact, sci-fi plays the role of prognosticator–do this, and this is is the result.
It also makes for some entertaining reads.
David J. Williams says:

June 30, 2009 at 1:11 pm

@ Tom. No sympathies needed, sir, it was all good fun.
@ David P.: I agree with you that it’s impossible to steer clear of current politics altogether, and not even desirable. Certainly all the issues you cite are critical to any coherent analysis of the future.
What I take issue with are the ideologues of both sides. And I think you may be overestimating the extent to which Left vs. Right are becoming irrelevant. . . if anything, that division seems more strident now than ever before. And the certainty of ideology leads to sci-fi that preaches rather than elucidates, that rarely converts anyone who doesn’t already buy into it, and that cripples our sense of possibilities. I don’t think either Left or Right have the answers to the really big challenges we’re facing, and I think Leary was right in saying that “linear” politics is passe . . (and I fully recognize that that’s a political statement in its own right. : )
nbrav says:

July 25, 2009 at 11:04 am

regarding the next step- right you are, space is no place for tourists, except near and “safe”. the real adventure begins as you say with the explorers and the way they get beyond our orbit is definitely driven by $$$$. The next big steps will be taken by governments or corporations to start mining either/both colonies on the moon- lots of resources and nearby, and further out- the astroid belt etc, when the moon/resource mining gets stable, Mars next to explore then set up colony/mining- Only then will the next step to the further reaches of our local Helio-Resource-sphere be attempted.
The science/technology developed by then will drive us further out into extra-Sol space.
This assumes we haven’t destroyed ourselves or been driven back into the stone age by the Radicals/fundamentalists etc. of every persuasion.
Anyone for a responsible world government that can keep us together and moving forward.
Personally, I think that’s what the “god/Higher Power” really intended when he/she/it stopped by for a chat with primeval earth.