The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

Do you mean:

The History of Science Fiction by Adam Roberts, published by the imprint (?) Palgrave?

There are almost as many definitions of SF as there are fans. And lots and lots of histories, too.

Here is an interesting question for all us classic sci-fi readers: Do we think we can see a changing trend in sci-fi, over the years in respose to environmental concerns?

Backstory is, I posted a review of mine to by Frank Bonham, copyright 1972. The central theme was that the Earth was poisoned beyond it's ability to continue supporting human life.

My review; https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

One comment I got on my blog was I wonder if there was a boom in science fiction books about the environment thanks to Rachel Carsen's 1962 work, Silent Spring. Back then, when people read Silent Spring, they were properly frightened.

And my response Possibly, Certainly a lot of the early science fiction, 60’s and even earlier, was intrigued by environmental collapse or the need to escape Earth into space. These days we seen to have moved on to a strong dystopian genera. I wonder if subconsciously, as whole, humanity have recognised that environmental collapse is now probably inevitable and that is why the fiction trend has changed.

What do you guys think? You have been reading the very early sci-fi - do YOU think there is a swing in environmental concerns over the decades?

I'll certainly agree that Carson kicked off the popular response to many pesticides with "Silent Spring" (1962?) that people had been thinking of as a boon to mankind, but it's complicated & has been a moving target.

100 years ago, we couldn't imagine that we could really change the earth, not in great amounts for ages. The atomic bombs showed that we could quite clearly during the Cold War. For decades we were very afraid only cockroaches might remain. We suddenly KNEW on an emotional level that we could change the world. Coupled with Carson's dire predictions, it can be a bleak picture.

Our population explosion has been completely disproportionate to predictions in the middle of the 20th century. For instance, in The Caves of Steel (1950s), Asimov has a crowded future thousands of years in the future with 8 billion people in it.

Our understanding of the world has advanced incredibly since then, too. Not the best example, but one that caught my attention recently was Carson discussing the history of the world in The Sea Around Us where she says it is 2 billion years old, half the age we now think it is. From astrophysics through zoology, we've come such a long way in such a short time & yet most people don't seem to realize it.

In the 1930s, even rural areas of the US got electric & thus running water often from deeper, uncontaminated wells. Everyone got connected by phones. A couple of decades later, antibiotics were brand new & shiny, the answer to all our ills. There were many new vaccines & hospitals became places to get medical help rather than places to rest & recover or die. (In the 1960s, we got the first nursing homes due to this change.) The number of cars in the US doubled during the 1950s & the Interstates were made as the railways declined.

Up until the 1950s, coal smog was a huge concern. There were some famous instances where it was so bad that it was killing people such as Donora, PA in 1948 & the Great Smog of London in 1952. As that was curbed, the increase in vehicles became a similar problem into the 1970s. LA, NYC, & Mexico City all had a lot of well documented problems & some continue to this day, but a lot were curbed in the US during the 1970s with the Clean Air Act & the formation of the EPA.

Agriculture changed completely during this period, too. For most of history, 90% of the people were involved in food production, but tractors completely displaced horses by the middle of the 20th century which meant a lot more human food could be harvested. Plant genetics were far better understood. Seeds were patented as early as the 1930s, about the same time as livestock factory farming began. Our population went from issues with vitamin deficiency & hunger to issues with obesity & diabetes.

Anyway, SF has had a lot of changes to contend with since its birth. Tremendous changes that have sparked the human imagination & concerns.

I do think SF has looked more to the different ways that we're destroying our biosphere as all the developments that Jim outlines have been worked out and publicized. Some of us tend to think of SF as Outer Space, and Rockets, and Aliens... but we're reminded at every turn that, for some writers, Earth Is Room Enough. (Sorry, that's not really the best example of a book on these themes, but it is a great title and a good book. ;)

Some writers have focused on too many people, and on methods used to force a balance birth/death rate. Stand on Zanzibar was written in 1968, and correctly predicted 7B in 2010.

Others have focused more on the loss of animal life and 'Nature Deficit Disorder.' These tend to assume that we need all arable land for crops and won't have room for ecosystems, even if we all move to towering cities instead of suburban sprawl.

Others focus on the loss of a few key appealing animals, like, iirc, that one Star Trek movie about whales.

And then there are masterful new books like Semiosis that challenge us with the idea of starting fresh and trying to live in harmony with the existing life on a new planet. Does anyone know any worthy examples of this that are older?

Some names that come to mind, that I don't know enough to detail, are David Brin and J.G. Ballard.

Two Listopia lists are Ecopunk Fiction and Biologically Interesting Sci Fi. There have got to be more. A discussion thread with titles is here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... there's also this: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/.... Again, it seems like there should be more. Hmm....

You'll see where a lot of the grist for the SF mill evolved in The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World. It's not SF, but a biography of Borlaug (The Wizard) & Vogt (The Prophet) & the various forces around them. It's great to get a better picture of their lives & missions, especially where their adherents collide head on.

Borlaug believed that technology got us into this mess & could get us out of it. He's credited with saving over a billion lives due to his work with tweaking crops to grow in poor soils. He is credited as the father of the Green Revolution - crops modified to resist disease & deliver more while being fertilized & protected by chemical means. He wanted to feed hungry people now.

Vogt saw humans racing headlong into Malthusian destruction & our only option was to cut back the human population & allow Mother Nature to prosper. He sees the environment as having a 'carrying capacity', being limited in what we can safely take from it. He is the father of the modern conservation movement.

You can read more of my review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Deborah wrote: "Here is an interesting question for all us classic sci-fi readers: Do we think we can see a changing trend in sci-fi, over the years in respose to environmental concerns? ..."

You might consult the Wikipedia article on Ecofiction or the Ecology section of the Encylopedia of SF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofiction
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/...

Both give examples of such stories prior to the 1960s but claim an increase in that type of story around that time. Silent Spring, Glen Canyon Dam, The Dust Bowl, "Ban the Bomb" movement, all likely contributed.

Jim wrote: "I'll certainly agree that Carson kicked off the popular response to many pesticides with "Silent Spring" (1962?) that people had been thinking of as a boon to mankind, but it's complicated & has
I love Carson's The Sea Around Us and a couple of her other books are permanent re-reads (though I never got to the silent spring).

I will also add that incredibly recently, scientists were claiming that the sea could never be depleted. We now know it is happening at an astronomical rate, but in the late 1900's it was still considered by many as impossible.

Cheryl wrote: "I do think SF has looked more to the different ways that we're destroying our biosphere as all the developments that Jim outlines have been worked out and publicized. Some of us tend to think of SF..."

I agree Cheryl - Sci-Fi has always been about speculation and possibilities. I also feel that the modern rise of Dystopian novels is at least partly due to that. I think so much Sci-Fi has worked on crisis that authors and readers have moved on en mass to what comes AFTER the crisis.

I wonder if we aren't concentrating on bad things because most of us have it so good NOW. Sure, there are problems, but relatively our lives are the best that have ever been available. We don't live with the disease, death, filth, lack of light, water &/or food that we used to. We have a lot more time, leisure, & entertainment, too.

It is true that most of us live more richly than most in history could even dream of. One could argue that we have less hope, because we have less to hope *for*....

Cheryl wrote: "It is true that most of us live more richly than most in history could even dream of. One could argue that we have less hope, because we have less to hope *for*...."

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last few words. It's part of the future shock we're experiencing. So much new stuff has come at us so quickly, stuff we didn't dream of just a few decades ago. It's scary & is feuling a lot of back-to-nature "simpler life" trends. We've seen how much cool new tech has a cost & are worried about where the next steps will take us. We're scared of more change & can't imagine what it could be, if we really want to go there.

Reading these last few comments, the joymaker from The Age of the Pussyfoot came into my mind. It's a device that manages most aspects of life for the owner. With the exception of dispensing drugs, my smartphone does most things the joymaker does. This story is set in 2527 so we got there a bit early. We still don't have a robot that can solve crimes though, as far as I know.

Jim wrote: "I wonder if we aren't concentrating on bad things because most of us have it so good NOW. Sure, there are problems, but relatively our lives are the best that have ever been available. We don't liv..."

I don't know that we are concentrating on bad things so much: Conflict, adversity, trials and challenges have always been the central theme for human entertainment. Any period of history, any class of life. Plays, books, movies, I am sure we can all think of examples.

I think that desire for an adrenaline surge is hardwired into our makeup. Now, there are people who prefer romantic comedies to sci-fi, but even those themes come with conflict or challenges.

Good point, Deborah.

Jim wrote: "Good point, Deborah."

Thanks.

I just think the focus, or maybe the 'fashion' for the type of conflict changes. Dystopia is incredibly popular with YA, right now. I expect that will change.

Deborah wrote: "I don't know that we are concentrating on bad things so much"

It's evolution imperative - bad things can kill you, you have to be on constant lookout.

Deborah wrote: "Jim wrote: "I wonder if we aren't concentrating on bad things because most of us have it so good NOW. Sure, there are problems, but relatively our lives are the best that have ever been available. ..."

A very good point.