• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Things That Science Fiction Got Wrong…

Bob Blaylock

Forklift Operator
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
3,005
Location
N38°35' W121°29'
Playing with one of my several laser pointers, I realized something.

When I was a child, science fiction movies and TV shows depicted a laser as an exotic weapon, a “ray gun”, that would disintegrate anyone shot therewith.

Now, lasers have become very common items. Research into laser-based weapons has so far failed to produce any practical technology in that category, but lasers have come to have quite a few more benign applications.



Science fiction from my childhood also predicted that by now, we'd be much farther along in manned space travel. 2001: A Space Odyssey predicted that we'd have colonized the moon by that time, and be sending a manned spacecraft to Jupiter. The Star Trek character Khan Noonian Singh was supposed to have departed the Earth in an interstellar sleeper ship before the end of the 20th century. Space 1999 predicted that by that time, we'd have colonized the moon, and been using it as a dumping ground for nuclear waste for long enough to accumulate enough such waste to create a catastrophic explosion that would knock the moon out of orbit and send it speeding off into space at a sufficient rate of speed or the occupants to encounters new alien civilizations every week.

We sent men to the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but since then, the farthest that any humans have gone has been in orbit around the Earth.


Computers used to be huge, massively-expensive machines, that filled whole rooms, or even whole buildings. A very large company might own one or two. It seems that back in the day, no science fiction author ever predicted that computers would be otherwise. They certainly didn't predict them becoming as small and as inexpensive and as common as they have become; to the point that most modern households have at least one or two general-purpose computers; with more application-specific computers commonly serving as cellular telephones, watches, clocks, MP3-players, digital cameras, and such.


What else?
 
Sure, there's no flying cars. But seriously, you'd think that in 2011 you'd have toothpaste that didn't ruin the taste of OJ.
 
I think Blade Runner's setting was less than a decade in the future, and it's pretty clear that Los Angeles won't be crawling with replicants by then. Common language will not be a portmanteau of English, Japanese, and Spanish.

Skynet has not become self-aware, and rained nuclear destruction on the cities of the world. Dozens of other nuclear armageddon stories have also not come to pass within their allotted times, though perhaps there is still a possibility if terrorists get nuclear weapons (as depicted on an old National Lampoon Radio Hour segment) that a city or two will disappear in our lifetime.
 
Computers used to be huge, massively-expensive machines, that filled whole rooms, or even whole buildings. A very large company might own one or two. It seems that back in the day, no science fiction author ever predicted that computers would be otherwise.

I disagree with this, science fiction authors were on the money considering what today's super computers look like. I believe you're mistaken about miniaturization, I think smart phones are very inline with what sci-fi authors described. I seem to recall Heinlein in particular describing devices that would be virtually identical.

They sure put a lot of stock in the value of switches and flashing lights though. Knobs too.
 
Asimov said that one of the things sci-fi "got wrong" was computers. He had envisioned huge, centralized machines with a large number of remote public-access "nodes" where one could ask questions and such.
The notion that everyone would have their own (or several!) was pretty unlikely.

I recall reading Dick Tracy as a kid, what with the "two-way wrist radio" and other wonders which are indeed commonplace now. However, the magnetic-levitation scooter still eludes us...
Weaponry as mentioned.... I recall a very long time ago reading a short story about a device called (foggy memory here...) the "wabbler", which was in effect a self-guided smart bomb, operating under water. That we've pretty much got.
However, "blasters", laser pistols, "needle guns" and the like haven't put in much of an appearance.
I guess authors were figuring we'd have some sort of compact, super-efficient power source by now.
 
"blasters" and "Phasers" are on the way, give the a little time.
 
What "science fiction" got wrong is really a function of who wrote the science fiction in question.

"Star Trek," for instance, was fairly spot on with the communicator - everyone carried a small device capable of planet-wide (or surface to orbit, anyway) communication. William Gibson's "Neuromancer" on the other hand still had people tethered to land line telephones something like 50 years in our future.
 
Anthropomorphic robots in the home.

Not science, but a lot of sci-fi had the USSR continuing for a long time (ex. 2010).

That we would be eating food cubes. A lot of sci-fi discounted the pleasure people get from making and enjoying food.
 
The biggest mistake any science fiction author can make is putting an actual date on the setting of his story, unless it's at least a thousand years in the future. For people with such incredible imagination and vision, so many of them who wrote in the 50s and 60s seemed to think that the 90s and 00s were in the unforeseeable future.

As for meals in pill form, Wired had an article that explained that the required amount of protein, fat, and carbohydrates that a human needs each day still requires a certain mass of actual substance, no matter how concentrated. You just can't compress an entire meal into a pill. There is just no way around it.
 
Speaking very broadly, SF writers get things wrong when they take current trends and extrapolate them. Trends CHANGE.

Also when they take current social mores and transport them into futuristic setting. Social mores are very much technology-dependent. Although in all fairness, writers seem to have figured it out some time in the 70's, and a lot of SF since then takes into account (if not based on) that fact.

Anyway, entire books have been published on what science fiction writers got wrong. There are too many obvious examples. More interesting question IMO:

Which SF predictions, whether scientific or cultural, looked completely absurd, impossible, when first dreamed up, yet actually came to be? Or something like them came to be – it would be too much to expect a precise match?

Off the bat, I can think of two. One is cloning mammals. Up until 1997 it was very much in the realm of science fiction – "not happening any time soon," possibly ever. Then all of a sudden it is here.

The other is TV shows where people compete for money in degrading semi-gladiatorial contests. Common in 1970's SF, and totally farfetched then. Of course, reality (pun intended) turned out a lot less lethal than portrayed back then, but still no one in his right (or even wrong) mind would have imagined 30 years ago the otherwise very peaceful and safety-minded society revel in people humiliating themselves.

Anythng else come to mind?
 
The bit you're missing here is the word "fiction". That's what it is, fiction. It's seldom, if ever, an attempt to predict the actual future.

Sometimes it's just a rollicking adventure story with just-plausible technological toys. Sometimes it's a deep philosophical and political treatise commenting on the present day or human nature, but using the conceit of alien societies or an imagined future to make that commentary.

Sometimes it's a deliberate attempt to construct A plausible future, and have fun with the concept.

I can't really think of anyone reputable whose aim is to try to construct an accurate prediction of what will actually happen. That's not what fiction writers want to do, and it's not what they do.

Sometimes these imagined futures turn out to be uncannily prescient. Well, fancy that. But to take the attitude that the purpose of science fiction is to predict the future, and then accuse authors of "getting it wrong" when their imagined futures don't transpire, is to profoundly misunderstand the entire genre.

I don't even believe it's necessarily a mistake to put a near-future date on a story. Most of these works are meant for short-term consumption in any case, and in fact the arrival of the actual date can often give the story a new lease of life as fans pick up on it again for that reason. If it shows somewhere we might plausibly have got by that time, then even if we didn't, it's still interesting, if it's a good story.

It's FICTION, not prophecy.

Rolfe.
 
Firemen don't burn books. It is interesting that printed work has been in decline and it's value has decreased. Sad really.
 
But look at the things SF got right:

From Star Trek alone we have:
Automatic doors
Floppy disks (now obsolete of course)
Communicators
Computer Chess
Flat panel screens
Touchpads
Computers that talk
Navigation systems that talk

Fiction mimics reality, but obviously the success rate as a prediction tool is not any better than random chance.
 
Monorails
Driverless cars
Voice-activated computers
Food synthesizers
Jumpsuits
Space travel
Mass extinctions (but wait...)
Exotic propulsion methods
Exotic power generators
Flying cars
Nonlethal weaponry (exists but not common)
Ice 9
Harnessing black holes
Extended lifetimes
Holograms
Minimalist housing design
 

Back
Top Bottom