Science fiction and the future: Part Two

Hello readers! In the previous post, we explored the challenges associated with setting a speculative science fiction story in a particular future year. The writer must choose a date that feels plausible to the reader, or else their credibility will be eroded, the foundations of their fictional world will be shaken, and their otherwise carefully-crafted plot will come tumbling down. We discussed how future-based speculative fiction is a relatively new addition to humanity’s storytelling toolkit, and how some future-based science fiction stories quickly become dated, while others remain timeless.

This week, I’m going to list some examples of stories that were set in the future at the time they were written – some of which are now in the past. For each example, we’ll consider the intentions of the writer, and determine whether the choice of year influenced the audience at the time of publication, and whether it influences audiences today.

WARNING: Spoilers ahead! I give summaries of plots and go into detail on some societal and technological aspects – so please feel free to skip examples. I realise that this is a long post – so please go ahead and skim read! Also, this is far from an exhaustive list, so if you think of any others, just let me know.

Childhood’s End (novel), Arthur C. Clarke.

Published: 1952. Set: late 20th century (25+ years later).

Spaceships suddenly appear in the sky above Earth’s principal cities, and aliens announce that that they are going to govern the planet, to prevent humanity’s extinction. The aliens become known as the Overlords, and they remain hidden for the first 50 years of their stay. They then reveal themselves to look like demons, with cloven hooves, horns and barbed tails – but humans are now too reliant on them to be afraid. 100 years after the aliens’ arrival, human children start to display clairvoyance and telekinetic abilities. The Overlords reveal that they are here to connect humanity to the Overmind, a vast cosmic intelligence. The minds of all children merge into a single consciousness, their parents all die or kill themselves, and humanity goes extinct or ascends to a higher plane (the distinction is up for interpretation).

So, does the year matter? The science presented in this book does not align with reality: the US and Russia are in a race to get nuclear-powered spaceships into orbit in the late 20th century, so Clarke underestimated how quickly humans would get into space. However, this book isn’t about the science. I’m not even sure that this book is about first contact with aliens: they are just used as a device to explore what it means to be human, and whether the intrinsic abilities and desires of humans make us a flawed and doomed species. I’d argue that the year of Childhood’s End doesn’t matter at all.

Mars trilogy (novels), Kim Stanley Robinson.

Published: 1992. Set: 2026 (34 years later).

A trilogy about the colonisation of Mars, involving a lot of terraforming. In 2026, Earth is suffering from overpopulation and ecological catastrophe, and a joint US and Russian venture sends the first ship to Mars. Technologies described in the book include: thickening the Martian atmosphere for humans to live there, melting the Martian permafrost with nuclear bombs to create water, and setting up a space elevator to a satellite.

Does the year matter? Safe to say that we’re not seeing any of this happening in 2026.

Perhaps the biggest inconsistency with reality is how far we are from sending hundreds of people to colonies on Mars. The collaboration between the US and Russia is also a product of the early 90s, when everyone was hopeful that the world was moving towards peace, and that the Cold War was behind us. Also, it was only discovered in the 2000s and 2010s that the Martian soil has a high concentration of toxic perchlorate compounds, which would make the terraforming described in these novels utterly impossible. As for the space elevator… Nobody is even daring to dream about building one this century. And throughout these books, there is an astonishing lack of computer assistance – and of course, no mention of AI.

But does anyone care about the discrepancies? A quick scroll through some Reddit threads suggests to me that this book series is still very popular. Although the some of the Martian science might not be entirely accurate, the plot could easily be set on another planet, in another year. The fact that this book is set in 2026 merely provides readers with the opportunity to shake their head, give a sad smile for a future that could have been, then set these woes aside and get invested in the story.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (novel), George Orwell.

Published: 1949. Set: 1984 (35 years later).

Urban legend has it that Orwell merely swapped the numbers of the year in which he wrote the story – in which case, the choice of year for this classic novel holds very little meaning at all. The future it presents is dystopian, seemingly in the wake of a nuclear war, in which three authoritarian super-states are constantly in conflict (or claim to be so). Most people are poor, have basic, manual jobs, and live in urban slums – but a minority of bureaucrats live in slightly nicer houses and get slightly nicer food, but with their behaviour monitored at all times by their technology, their colleagues, and even their children. People are brought up to think (or not to think) in a certain way, and this gives the government unwavering control over their lives. Should people dare to dream otherwise, they get tortured, broken, and eventually cease to exist – not to be remembered by anyone.

The bleakness of this novel, and the intricacy of the ideas that it proposes for controlling the minds of the masses, has made it a timeless classic. The year really doesn’t matter. The world presented in 1984 is so far removed from our own that it might as well be set on a distant planet. The reason it feels so chillingly familiar, and eternally relevant, is because the story is about human nature – about human foibles, needs and desires, and about the simultaneous brilliance and uselessness of the human mind. Despite having the year as its title, the year means very little.

Years and Years (TV series), Russell T. Davies.

Released: 2019. Set: 2019-2034 (0-15 years later).

It’s a bold move, setting your story in the present day and then predicting the near future. In this case, the story follows one UK family as the world descends into chaos. It predicts Trump winning a second term, the UK voting in a far-right populist as prime minister, and the US starting a nuclear war with China. It also includes some robot and cyborg elements that feel very out of place for their 2026 setting.

Although Years and Years describes itself as dystopian science fiction drama, it feels more like a social commentary based in the present-day. It has a clear political purpose, and wants to present itself as a cautionary tale – which makes it feel preachy (very similar to lots of Davies’ recent Doctor Who offerings, actually). The choice of year is, in this case, very important, as it imbues the story’s unsubtle message with a sense of urgency, informing us that terrible events are just around the corner, and that they depend on our own decisions. This adds an extra level of individual responsibility, making viewers feel accused or validated, while at the same time making them feel hopeless to change anything. It certainly isn’t a comfortable watch, whether you agree with the preacher or not.

This type of near-future science fiction often ends up feeling like a public service announcement. Similar stories include the films Don’t Look Up (2021) and Leave the World Behind (2023), just to name a couple off the top of my head. Neither of these specified a precise year, but the shared thread is that they try to convince us that we’re walking blindly towards imminent disaster. The problem with this implication, of course, is that it alienates people with differing political views, and it annoys people with some level of political and scientific literacy, who don’t like being patronised via the over-simplification of nuanced concepts. These immediate-future stories are also likely to age very poorly: the fears that fuel them belong to a very specific time window. Nobody is watching Years and Years in 2025, but they may well watch it in 2125, as a means to research the views of 2019. In this case, the year is critical to understanding the plot.

2012 (film), Roland Emmerich.

Released: 2009. Set: 2012 (3 years later).

This one barely counts as science fiction, but here we go… An undiscovered type of neutrino starts heating the Earth’s core, and this leads to a series of natural disasters, including earthquakes, Yellowstone volcano erupting, and mega-tsunamis hundreds of metres high. This is all based on a real, ancient Mayan calendar that was interpreted (by the uninformed) as predicting the end of the world in 2012 (when in reality, 2012 just marked the start of another Mayan calendar cycle).

For this film, the choice of year was very important. It released in 2009, which was a savvy marketing decision, as it kept the film relevant for the next three years. With all its pseudo-science and misrepresentation, this film invited audiences (particularly kids) to consider whether the world might really end in 2012. Setting the story so soon in the future added a level of urgency – which is a very common tactic for disaster movies.

Setting disaster stories in the immediate future adds a level of plausibility to alien invasions, meteorite strikes, or natural disasters. The audience recognises the real-world technologies and societies presented to them, making it easy for them to consider their own individual responses to the hypothetical scenarios on screen. If an earthquake destroyed your local supermarket next week, what would you do? The concept is easy to grasp because the audience already has most of the component parts at their disposal. If they lost electricity, what then? If they lost the internet, what then? How long could we survive?! The film encourages us to consider human nature, but mostly from an individualistic and short-term perspective.

The Handmaid’s Tale (novel), Margaret Atwood.

Published: 1985. Set: 1994 (9 years later).

This dystopian novel is set in the US, where the government has been overthrown by a religious cult, who create a society following specific Old Testament principles. The “handmaids” are women who are forced to bear children for the “commanders” – who are the ruling class. Women are not allowed to read or write, or own money or property. Safe to say, it is not a happy story, and it does not have a happy ending.

It’s worth noting Margaret Atwood does not consider her novel to be science fiction. However, it is certainly speculative fiction set in the future, so I thought it was worth including. I suppose you could argue that it lacks the “science” element because it is set in the immediate future, but science fiction isn’t always about technology – it often places a heavy emphasis on culture as well. But does the year matter? I don’t think so. The novel is about the oppression women, which could occur at any time in history (and has occurred, to a greater or lesser extent, for most of it). As Atwood put it, “the amount of pure invention is close to nil” – implying that all the ideas she incorporated had already occurred at some point in history. Still, I think she is being humble: her characters and evocative story were great inventions, powerful enough to bring these concepts into the mainstream. Again, we’re looking at timeless art.

Threads (TV film).

Released: 1984. Set: 1980s-90s (0-15 years later).

Again, I’m not happy in classifying this as science fiction, but I’m including it as fiction at the most grounded end of the speculative spectrum. Threads was set in the near future, and based on very accurate science. The story explores the social and environmental consequences of a nuclear bomb being dropped on Sheffield, following an escalation of tensions between NATO and the Soviet Union. It would be crass to describe this film as dystopian horror, because it all feels too real. This film is very much a public awareness campaign: and the year matters, because nuclear war was seen as a genuine immediate threat. It was hard to communicate to people the level of destruction caused by a nuclear bomb, and a film was just about the only way of doing this. Threads is very much a product of its time, and although it is a fascinating historical artefact, its horrors can still be appreciated today. In this case, I think the year both does and doesn’t matter.

The Gods Themselves (novel), Isaac Asimov.

Published: 1972. Set: 2070-2093 (98+ years later).

I included this one because it has some crazy science and some very dated ideas. Also, it feels right to include at least one Asimov book on this list, given his influence over the science fiction genre. Thie one isn’t well known, and to my knowledge hasn’t been adapted, but it was one of Asimov’s personal favourites – and has some questionable physics.

In 2070, the “electron pump” is discovered: a way to exchange matter with a parallel universe in which the rules of radioactive decay are different, thereby providing Earth with a cheap and clean source of nuclear power. Scientists discover that this exchange threatens to explode the sun – in our universe and in the parallel universe – but politicians refuse to stop it. The story then jumps to the parallel universe, which is filled with bizarre ideas. For example, there are three genders with fixed roles: rational beings who do science and have “he” pronouns; emotional beings who give birth to children and have “she” pronouns; and parental beings who raise the children and also have “he” pronouns. You don’t want to know how they reproduce. Or if you do, look it up. I am not repeating such filth on this blog.

So, does the year matter? One of the key ideas in this book is that humanity has created a civilisation on the Moon. In 2093, the people and culture have fully diverged from those on Earth, and Moon-dwellers struggle to reproduce with Earth-dwellers (due to physical inability, not genetics – but again, I will not bring filth to this blog). The 2093 Moon civilisation is certainly optimistic, but some of the elements of this book are timeless; for example, the Earth leaders continuing to use cheap and easy energy despite the risk of destroying their own planet. However, I suspect that many elements of this story have aged very poorly (I’ll admit that I haven’t actually read it).

The Last Man (novel), Mary Shelley.

Published: 1826. Set: 2073-2100 (247+ years later).

This is one of the earliest mainstream speculative fiction novels ever written. Seemingly, writing Frankenstein as the first science-fiction horror wasn’t enough for Mary Shelley, so she went on to write the first dystopian science-fiction too. People certainly weren’t fond of it at the time, as it was far too bleak for their tastes (and for mine, too – I recently finished it, and a review is brewing).

The story follows Lionel Varney, the orphan son of an impoverished nobleman who grows up as a shepherd in Cumberland. He befriends Adrian, the son of the last king of England, which is now a republic. The first part of the book follows their young adult lives, dealing with family drama (lots of characters marry their friends’ sisters). However, a disease is starting to spread in other parts of Europe, and it isn’t long before it spreads around the world. Civilisations crumble, leading to a breakdown of the class system and of food security, leading to violence and plundering. After years of hardship (not a chapter goes by without someone dying in a horrible manner), the last few thousand survivors from Britain travel to France. They all die off, until eventually, in 2100, only Lionel is left. You can’t say the title didn’t spoil it for you…

This novel is decidedly strange. Set in the year 2073, you might expect that it would be filled with futuristic science: but of course it isn’t, because it was written in 1826. Shelley makes reference to airships and steam power, but for the most part, everyone is still riding around on horses, fighting with swords and muskets, and wearing furs. Electricity doesn’t exist. Instantaneous communication doesn’t exist. Nobody understands how disease spreads, and characters are struck down by the plague at random – just as it might have seemed to people in 1826. When characters aren’t dying of plague, they are dying of other diseases that we would cure with antibiotics today. The societal structure also doesn’t seem particularly futuristic: Shelley predicts Britain becoming a republic, but only the aristocracy are allowed to vote, and women are still considered to be property. The novel is a fascinating insight into Mary Shelley’s mind, but it certainly doesn’t feel like science fiction as we know it today. Does the year matter? Not really. This reads like historical fiction, and you soon forget that it is meant to be set in 2073.

The Martian (novel), Andy Weir.

Published: 2011. Set: 2035 (24 years later).

American astronaut Mark Watney is stranded on Mars. A dust storm threatens a research base, and as the crew scrambles to evacuate, Mark is lost and injured. His comrades are forced to leave without him, believing him to be dead. He survives the storm – then realises that he must continue to survive on Mars until someone comes to rescue him. The story is propelled by Mark’s technical and creative solutions to problems, and the narrative is intended to be very gritty and realistic.

So, does the year matter? Andy Weir comes from a scientific background: he is the son of a particle physicist and electrical engineer, and trained as a computer programmer. He did lots of research into the geography of Mars, botany, and the physics of space travel – so we can presume that he considered human missions to Mars in 2035 to be feasible, rather than picking this year at random.

However, there are some glaring scientific inaccuracies in the plot (most famously, the dust storm at the beginning, which wouldn’t have caused that much damage because the Martian atmosphere is so thin). These are mostly deliberate choices by Weir (for example, he knew about the thin atmosphere, but kept the storm because it was cool), but since 2011 there have been scientific discoveries that undermine the plot. A prime example is the discovery of significant water in Martian soil, which means that Mark would only have needed to melt soil to keep himself alive, rather than resorting to the drastic measures outlined in the book.

I find it interesting that most of the technology in the story is similar to what we had in 2011, rather than anything particularly futuristic. This is an interesting choice, given the pace of technological advancement. Computers are limited, and there is certainly no AI to keep Mark company on Mars. However, perhaps one of the biggest inaccuracies is the fact that NASA is running the mission. In 2035, do we expect space exploration to be government funded, or run by private companies? And do we expect the Americans to lead the way? The Martian is now old enough that the choice of 2035 seems questionable, and due to the heavy focus on realism, the year detracts from the enjoyment of the story. Not much – but it does.

2001: A Space Odyssey (book and film), Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke.

Released: 1968. Set: 2001 (33 years later).

Only while researching this post did I realise that the book and film were developed at the same time. Both are regarded as classics, but here I’ll focus on the film, which more people have seen. The story follows a research mission to Jupiter to investigate an alien monolith, with a crew consisting of astronauts, scientists and a sentient supercomputer, HAL 9000. Three of the humans are in suspended animation for the journey, but two of them are awake to keep the ship operational, although HAL 9000 controls most of it. The story mostly concerns HAL’s sentience: when it appears that HAL has made an error, and the astronauts consider disconnecting him, he attacks them to save himself.

Does the year matter? Probably not: this film is a classic. The spacecraft design is regarded as being one of the most well-researched in film history, and Kubrick hired Marvin Minsky (who founded the AI lab at MIT) and Irving Good (who worked with Alan Turing on early computers) to advise on HAL 9000. However, despite their earnest research, Kubrick and Clarke appear to have been overly optimistic, predicting a lunar outpost and civilian space flight by 2001. I can believe that a manned mission might have been sent to Jupiter if an alien monolith had been found there – but in actual 2001, nobody would have dreamed of doing this for basic research. The most glaring inconsistency is probably HAL 9000 itself: I don’t think there was any AI in 2001 that operated on such a level. However, 2001: A Space Odyssey is now regarded as one of the most important pieces of science fiction media ever created, and this is due to its themes and ambition, rather than an accurate prediction of the future. Again, we’re looking at a timeless classic.

Blade Runner (film), Ridley Scott.

Released: 1982. Set: 2019 (37 years later).

This film is based on the 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick. In the first edition of the novel, the story is set in 1992, but later editions moved the year to 2021 after readers pointed out how unrealistic the choice of year was (which, as discussed last week, suggests to me that Philip K. Dick was an author who really didn’t want to be proved wrong). The film sets itself in 2019, in a dystopian Los Angeles.

The story is set in a future where synthetic humans, known as replicants, are used as slave labour. Replicants are so realistic that it is impossible to tell them apart from humans without the aid of a specific test, designed to establish their emotional response to certain questions. Other technologies include video calling, virtual assistants and flying cars. And the world seemingly exists in the aftermath of a nuclear war, where the atmosphere has been damaged so badly that it rains all the time, and many animals have become endangered or extinct.

But does the year matter? Clearly, the 2019 presented in Blade Runner does not align with reality. We didn’t have a nuclear war, and we certainly don’t have robotic humans that can’t be distinguished from the real thing (not as far as I’m aware, anyway). This makes it all the more amusing to me that Philip K. Dick moved the year from 1992 to 2021. He got it wrong twice – and was clearly the type to care about it. To most fans, however, the year doesn’t matter. It’s wildly inaccurate, but the story could be set anywhere, at any time. The plot, themes, and visuals are so strong that the inaccuracy of the date can be overlooked.

Back to the Future Part II (film), Robert Zemeckis.

Released: 1989. Set: 2015 (26 years later).

Let’s end on a happier note! Back to the Future Part II famously predicted hoverboards, self-lacing Nike trainers, and flying cars in 2015. Zemeckis has said that he never intended his predictions to be taken seriously – that he was only ever trying to be funny, not accurate. Still, he managed to make some pretty good predictions: everyone having cameras, flying drones used for news coverage, widescreen flat TVs on walls, video chat systems and payment from personal devices. Also, there have been attempts to make a hoverboard, although none have been truly successful – and this makes me wonder whether science fiction films can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, where people try to invent fictional technologies (discussion for another time, perhaps).

Finally, some honourable mentions:

Akira (film), Katsuhiro Otomo. Released: 1988. Set: 2019 (31 years later): This is quintessential cyberpunk, set after World War III in a city filled with civil unrest and government corruption. Thankfully, most of the dystopian elements failed to come true: but the film predicted that the 2020 Olympics would be held in Tokyo.

Cowboy Bebop (anime series), Shinichiro Watanabe. Released: 1998. Set: late 21st century (75+ years later). I’m including this one because it’s a personal favourite. However, it predicts that the first astral gate for interplanetary travel from Earth is set up in 2021. This allows people to travel to other planets, outside our solar system, in hours. Now wouldn’t that be something?

Event Horizon (film), Paul Anderson. Released: 1997. Set: 2047 (50 years later). I have reviewed this one before, and it isn’t good – although the spaceship designs are pretty cool. It predicts that the first Moon colony is set up in 2015, which is bold (stupid?) for a film released in 1997. Unfortunately, this is a prime example of where the story and characters are not strong enough to stop the inaccuracies detracting from the experience.

In summary…

In creating this list of examples, we have established that timeless classics, in which the year has no bearing on the story, focus on philosophical or emotional themes, typically exploring what it means to be human, or what it means to have freedom. By contrast, the choice of year is of immense importance to cautionary tales set in the near future, especially those with a political message. However, many of these political stories age poorly, and are either forgotten, or become relics – destined to be investigated by future historians.

Something else that I realised while compiling this list is that the most popular date for speculative science fiction appears to be 30-40 years ahead of the time of writing. This could be a result of my relatively small sample size, of course – but I wonder if people like to imagine a time that is close enough for them or their children to experience, but far enough to retain a level of mystery. Perhaps cautionary tales have more impact if they are set within the next generation? Stories set in the very far future might lose that sense of connection, verging into the territory of science fantasy, whereas 30-40 years feels more real.

I hope you enjoyed reading these two posts as much as I enjoyed researching them! Trawling the internet for examples was a lot of fun, and I now have a few more books on my reading list. If you think of other interesting examples, let me know. For now, happy reading, and have a lovely week!