Writing about science fiction in this politically charged era is extremely challenging. Why is that, though? Stories centered on technological possibility, alien cultures, exploration, discovery, and interplanetary conflict should be immune from controversy, right? Alas, it is not so. 

But again, I ask myself, why? 

I believe the reason is, more so than other genres, sci-fi functions not only as a vision of the future but also a mirror reflecting current power and belief structures (hereafter, “the Paradigm”… how very Postmodern of me). Sci-fi invariably describes, regardless of whether technological development leads to Utopia or Inferno, how the seeds of tomorrow’s problems (and their solutions) are sown today. By humanity, of course. Viewed this way, the sci-fi writer emerges as a strange combination of historian, philosopher, science enthusiast, and prophet. 

For example, here is an easy prediction: The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing—and the social, political, and economic impact they are having and could have—are going to be a focal point of the sci-fi genre for the next decade or more. 

On its own, there is nothing controversial in this statement. It is almost certainly true. But there’s no story here. We have mind (science and technology) and body (a world with people and governments), but no soul (no self, no meaning… no point). 

So, let’s contemplate the following future. Hard cold science and mathematics have forced a gradual acceptance among the intellectual and ruling classes that Original Darwinism and Uniformitarianism do not fit the evidence. Replacing them are things you might expect (e.g., Neo Darwinism and Refined Unitarianism) as well as things you might not (e.g., due to a political groundswell of traditionalism, theories of Intelligent Design are now considered scientifically viable and accepted). In this future, mankind has advanced AI to such an extent that we have the technology to make interplanetary travel and colonization a reality. 

Humanity, a majority of us having long since moved on from the Nietzschean proclamation that “God is dead,” races into space to seek evidence of the event that allowed life to exist. Then, based on carefully constructed input data sets and coaching, a highly trusted AI model maps a course through the universe that it claims leads to the hypothetical source of life. This could be what made the Primordial Soup or it could be God. Who knows? 

Future people ask themselves questions that “evolve” from significant ones being asked today: 

• How did the information (essentially, code) written into the DNA of all life on Earth get there?
• Where did the human sense of self, which is unique to us, come from? 

Is that future controversial? I think it is. Explaining why is the difficult part, but it is an interesting thought exercise (to me, at least). 

If you think the above future is improbable, consider how the Enlightenment thinkers would feel regarding the state of things—of people and their predispositions—in 2025. Prior to the 19th century, the world’s greatest scientific minds viewed science itself as an examination of Creation and the one who created it. Having grown up in the aftermath of the Reformation, Counter Reformation, etc.—movements that not only shifted the role of the Roman Catholic faith in the West but also cracked the foundation of ancient power structures and enabled the rise of new empires—these thinkers inherited conditions favorable to scientific and technological advancement. These pioneers, who essentially codified modern science and its methods, regarded faith not as a constraint but a boon. 

And now consider how controversial their ideas must have been in context. Arguably, and logically, this is the era in which science fiction was truly born as a genre. [Note: The Verae Historiae ("True Histories") by Lucian of Samosata, written in the 2nd century AD, is widely considered the earliest example of science fiction. But the genre itself was established much later.] 

My point is that well-constructed science fiction, like science itself, will always exist in controversy. This is because it attempts to predict, explain, and imply meaning about the present and future. In a sense, technology is secondary… it becomes, perhaps poetically, merely a vehicle. A plot device. 

Sci-fi attempts to, through descriptions of technological possibilities and their impacts on the current Paradigm, predict what the world will look like after the next Paradigm shift. Simply put, writers/people develop theories and projections in-context (contemporary thought patterns, political climate, etc.). 

Looking at philosophical eras for a moment, from the Reformation to the Enlightenment to the Modern Era and into the Postmodern Era, each represents at least one major shift in the Paradigm that led to an explosion of ideas and technology. More importantly, each era marked sharp differences in how thinkers viewed science, technology and their role in then-unwritten history. The Industrial Age supercharged the imagination of authors like Poe, Shelley, Verne, and Wells. And, while these writers’ ideas certainly influenced and inspired future generations, it seems evident that later sci-fi icons like Burroughs and then Azimov, Heinlein, and Clarke drew more from their own context and the Paradigm of their times than anything else—even the technology. Certainly, Orwell and others like him did. 

These writers challenged the accepted norms of their times. It was Azimov who said, “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.” I tend to agree in general terms. My longhand translation is: Do not let presupposed truths driven by the Paradigm keep you from thinking critically and taking action. This is, of course, easier said than done. Inherently, suggesting there are flaws in the current Paradigm and that these flaws will eventually lead to catastrophe will not please those most vested in said Paradigm. Hence the controversy surrounding science fiction. 

My opinion is that a good sci-fi story must incorporate three elements: mind, body, and soul. I’ll grant that I need to work on the definitions for these and other concepts presented in this article, and that is why this is only a “half-baked take.” 

That said, the final element of “soul”—in my opinion the most necessary—can be dangerous when considered a threat by defenders of the current Paradigm, whatever that is. For example, challenging the position that “God is dead” is an activity that unquestionably does not fit within or adjacent to the current Paradigm. Doing so often leads to people being ostracized and/or relegated to the realm of quaint, albeit far from harmless, practitioners of broken myth and backward superstition. In summary, there is a wall between science and faith—we can’t climb over it, we can’t question why it’s there, and most of the time we can’t even acknowledge its existence. 

Whatever, man. 

After all, we should not pretend that the current foundations of the academic worldview and belief system is absent this concept of soul.  With an origin story steeped in the near-mythology of the Big Bang and Darwinism, a tragedy unfolds as humanity’s self-created demise abruptly manifests, known only by a pariah of some kind. Do we rush in to save ourselves? Or do we merely narrowly escape? 2012, anyone? Yeah, me neither. [Aside: Truth be told, even though these stories are based on a Paradigm that I frequently disagree with, I find them entertaining all the same. BS, but enjoyable BS.] 

And so, knowingly running the risk of being regarded as a crackpot, I am of course drawn to challenging the Paradigm on principle. Because, following my own thought process to its conclusion, an author of meaningful sci-fi must challenge the current Paradigm. (Or maybe I just like to argue.) 

In conclusion, one of my goals as a “science fantasy” author is to challenge the current Paradigm. I think this is what makes the genre entertaining. Whether we examine how AI could evolve from being, essentially, a mind without a soul—i.e., it is simply a machine/code that has no sense of self—or we pursue the answer to life in the stars or under the ocean, sci-fi authors will plant the seeds of possibility in the minds of tomorrow’s achievers. Dreams move us forward, even if they prove to be totally unrealistic. 

The Paradigm shift we create together will, as in past eras, absolutely be both progressive and regressive. As an example, the generalized and binary view that the Dark Ages broke the figurative fever of superstitious beliefs and ushered in an era of enlightened thought and reason… is wrong. Utterly wrong. Did some things move forward? Definitely. Did some go the other direction? Indubitably. 

So, I say, bring on the new Paradigm. If I can inspire even a little part of it, I think that’s a lofty enough goal.