Shineanthology’s Weblog

An anthology of optimistic, near future SF

Relevant SF…


…or: The world is looking for solutions. Why isn’t SF trying to help, or at least trying to think along?

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve been in airplanes quite a bit. My airplane reading is mostly newspapers and science magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American. So when I flew to Spain about a month ago I delved into the October, 11th New Scientist “A Brighter Future” special issue, and when I flew to Calgary two weeks later I bought Scientific American‘s “Earth 3.0” special issue. Then there’s also Ode Magazine (I read the Dutch version, but there’s also an English one) with a ‘Generation Now’ special report.

The similarities between the three: they’re all worried about the (near) future. Indeed, just like SF, I hear you think. But unlike most SF today, these three magazines are not only analysing the problems, they’re also actively looking for solutions. Why has most SF fixated on the former (often directly extrapolating today’s problems in tomorrow’s dystopias), while greatly ignoring the latter?

I strongly suspect that this is one of the main factors that keeps (written) SF from being relevant to a larger part of the population, especially young people. Not the sole one(*), mind you, but a very important one. I strongly think we need SF that starts thinking about near future solutions for our current problems.

Since our problems are complicated and interlinked, our solutions need to be multifacetted: most of today’s biggest adversities do not exist in isolation, so multiple causes need to be addressed simultaneously. This requires multidisciplinary approach that is both broad and deep: one single specialist in one field (no matter how brilliant) will not do, but a group of ‘intelligent optimists’. These teamworkers and teambuilders realise that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution, but that quintessentially different aspects require tailor-made solutions. They cherry-pick the best solutions from a great variety of sources, attack the problems from a lot of different angles, and are interdisciplinary, practical, forward-thinking go-getters.

Dog help me, I hear some of you think: this is immensely difficult. Indeed, it is. It’s the point: SF can’t afford to be too simple or straightforward anymore. Good near future SF not only reflects the complexity of the real world to a high degree, it also needs to see the intricate problems as tractable if we put our combined minds to it, with sharp intelligence, the will to co-operate, and hope.

So let’s look at this in a broad perspective, and link the three ‘special issues’ I mentioned above:

  1. Our energy and water problems are interlinked: both crises must be solved together (this is the Scientific American “Earth 3.0” cover blurb almost ad verbatim). In the article, they link water usage to huge power plants such as combined gas/steam cycle, coal, oil and nuclear plants. And if alternative vehicles like hydrogen fuel-cells and plug-in electric vehicles get their charge from these huge power plants than they are water hoggers, as well:
  2. But the New Scientist “A Brighter Future” has this highly illuminating graph on pages 32 and 33 that depicts where alternative energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and tidal wave are most abundant across the world showing that the electricity potentially available from renewables (310,600 TWh) is much bigger than the total electricity being generated (19,014 TWh in 2006). Especially solar and wind energy use hardly any water: so if we power our electric or hydrogen fuel-cell or biomass hybrids with them we kill two birds with one stone: the energy and the water dependency. Only 433 TWh is generated by renewables, so the potential is enormous:
  3. Which bring us to Ode Magazine‘s “Generation Now”: it sees higher oil prices as the trigger for decentralised generation of renewable power, both stimulated by governments (as has already happened in Germany and Spain) and by entrepreneurs, as Silicon Valley investors are now turning to investing heavily in green energy, and where people will try to make their houses self-supporting energy-wise (‘energy-free living’);

Again, why do I find this kind of positive, forward-thinking in non-SF magazines?

Two quick, off-the-cuff musings:

  • We need an urgent paradigmatic shift in economic thinking: the planet cannot sustain continuous economic and population growth. So combine a zero-growth (or a shrink-and-expand-to-the-same-size) economy while the population stops growing, as well (UPDATE: the ‘zero-growth’ economy was actually the theme of the 18th October issue of New Scientist, as Anthony G. Williams‘s post ‘The Folly of Growth‘ reminded me. Thanks!). The European Union might be the forerunner in this: less economic growth over the last decade than the US or the new Asian tigers China and India, with a population that is stagnating or even shrinking while its people are growing  older.
  • Suppose a platform like Liftport starts building a space elevator somewehere west of the Galapagos Islands, it could have the hydrocarbons it needs for its complex nanotube tether supplied by a company that is cleaning the Pacific from the accumulated plastic pollution. It uses solar and skysails powered vessels to get supplies to and from the space elevator’s Earth base, it’s presence in the tropics stimulates the nearby Latin American economies in a sustainable way, and more.

This is to get you — and especially the SF writers among you — thinking. Doesn’t SF pride itself for it’s potential for ‘sense of wonder’ and its ability to shift paradigms? The point is, these sensawunda-powered conceptual breakthroughs almost always happened in space, virtual realities and runaway technological singularities (and yes: I’m guilty, too). Bring the gosh-wow, preconception-shattering power of SF to address, if even partly, the current problems plaguing our planet (or help imagine new solutions, new approaches) and SF will become relevant again.

Another maxim has it that SF writers like a challenge. So what are you waiting for?

(*) = I fully agree with Paolo Bacigalupi — see his interview in The Fix and an exchange I had with him on his blog — and Ian McDonald that SF needs to become relevant again (we disagree, and probaly not even that much, on how to recapture that relevance: Paolo’s focus is on environmental issues, while Ian has a thing with the Multiverse, while I think we should troubleshoot the lot — the environment, the economy, the human tendency to short-term thinking, the lack of education, and the elephant in the room called overpopulation): spewing humanity all over the galaxy while we haven’t decently solved our current, highly complex problems is a flight forward. We need to face our challenges now, and instead of fictionally wallowing in them, we need to start thinking our way out of them.

UPDATE: in the November 15 issue (which dropped in my mailbox yesterday) New Scientist muses about the future of sci-fi. Some of the comments in this (small) special report are online. Of particular interest are those of Kim Stanley Robinson (online here):

So we have to do the impossible and imagine the next century. The default probability is bad – not just dystopia but catastrophe, a mass extinction event that we will have caused and then suffered ourselves. That’s a story we should tell, repeatedly, but it’s only half the probability zone. It is also within our powers to create a sustainable permaculture in a healthy biosphere.

(emphasis mine)

Would I like to see a Kim Stanley Robinson story for SHINE? Is the pope catholic?


  How to get Inspiration? wrote @

[…] the rest of this superb post right here No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI […]

  Jason Stoddard wrote @

Jetse, great post. You are absolutely right that we should “troubleshoot the lot.”

We can’t look at any single point example of change, either positive or negative, and extrapolate it into the future, or else we end up with the equivalent of Golden Age stories set in the year 2250 with people still using audio tape and slide rules. We need to look at the continuum of change, because that’s how we’re going to be able to put together all these disparate advances into real solutions.

Difficult? Sure it is. It’s harder than ever to absorb all of this information, let alone weave it into a believable, entertaining narrative. Or to guess the “they’d never believe that” discoveries, like scientists growing diamond films from tequila or Scotch tape emitting x-rays.

But I believe we can embrace enough of the continuum of change to put together workable (and entertaining) answers.

  Links for 17th November 2008 | Velcro City Tourist Board wrote @

[…] Relevant SF […]

  Madeline Ashby wrote @

This post makes me want to hand out t-shirts which read “Be the novum you wish to see in the world.”

I think you’ve nailed exactly why optimistic SF (and near-future that deals with impending environmental and economic collapse) intimidates so many people — it actually requires more realism, more research, and more imagination than simple depictions of misery. Misery may be difficult to fathom, but it’s easy to describe or evoke, especially for a generation of writers familiar with televised depictions of genocide. It’s part of the lexicon in a way that optimism — realistic, informed, non-Gernsback optimism — isn’t (yet). We think of realism and optimism as polar opposites, when in reality nothing kills hope and potential faster than misinformation and ignorance. Optimism without information is a wish, but hope fueled by intelligence creates change.

  shineanthology wrote @

>>>>We think of realism and optimism as polar opposites, when in reality nothing kills hope and potential faster than misinformation and ignorance.<<<<

The cynic in me sometimes thinks that naiveté and pessimism are also not polar opposites, as some fatalists love to play the role of wannabe Cassandra: “I hope it goes wrong, so I can say I told them so.” Then I play some Spock’s Beard and kick the cynic in me back to the dark echelons in which it belongs.

As Michael Laine of the Liftport Group said one post upthread: it takes courage. Uninformed pessimism is easy, informed optimism is very hard, and takes audacity to pull off.

  Paula Stiles wrote @

Apocalyptic hand-wringing always makes me roll my eyes, as it is usually done by those who are well-educated, well-fed, not lacking in basic resources like shelter, and living in stable societies where they have the leisure to sit and moan uselessly. In other words, those who are doing well and whose main worry in life is that someday, the gravy train will stop rolling along.

You do not moan and whine and come up with doomsday scenarios when the wolf is at your door, not if you want to survive long enough to chase the wolf away. You don’t have the time or energy for it. Instead, you come up with solutions.

I also think there is more than a bit of a classist/racist element to this kind of thinking (albeit subconscious and not intentional). Population growth in Africa and China is *bad*, but it’s *good* in Europe and the U.S., at least when the “right” groups are growing. One group’s disaster is another group’s opportunity to get at resources they previously couldn’t access. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that post-apocalyptic scenarios focus almost exclusively on North America (with the odd British or Australian scenario to liven things up) and either ignore the rest of the world or assume it will fare the same way. I guess postapocalyptic scenarios that are actually occurring are too mundane to be worthy of attention.

I think this is why some of Jetse’s naysayers sound threatened rather than merely skeptical.

  Kindred Spirits, part 9 « Shineanthology’s Weblog wrote @

[…] interview with Kim Stanley Robinson (regular visitors know I’ve quoted the man several times on this site already). Io9 summarised it as “Dystopian Fiction Is For Slackers“, and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s