We’re living in a time of extreme technological change. Gadgets
that didn’t exist a decade ago are shaping your existence. So we need science
fiction, more than ever, to speculate about the future of technology. But
here’s the hard part: You can’t speculate about technological change without
also speculating about social change.
Top image: Surrogates.
People sometimes talk about the distinction between
“hard science fiction” and “social science fiction.” The former focuses on science and technology,
the latter on social science, and on speculations about future societies or different
cultures. (As opposed to “soft science fiction,” where the science is
less rigorous.)
But there’s a bit of a false dichotomy involved in making
such a clear-cut distinction — just look out your window or take a walk down
the street if you don’t believe me. New technologies, including smartphones but
also including the relatively portable ultrasound machine, have changed our world
in all sorts of ways. But those technological shifts have happened at the same
time as massive social change, and it’s hard to separate the two threads.
Tech changes society, but society shapes tech. That is,
social change and technological change go hand in hand, but neither one drives
the other.
Everybody in the
world doesn’t start doing the same thing
Sure, the pervasive internet allows people to communicate in
new ways, making it easier for formerly marginalized groups (like LGBT people) to
organize and become a cohesive social force. And you could argue that one
reason for the rise of income inequality today is the fact that so much of our
economy is tied up in tech companies and increasingly computerized banking
companies.
But at the same time, you can think of lots of examples of
society shaping technology. People start using new gadgets in ways that their
makers never imagined, and (ideally) that means the next iterations of those
gadgets are more geared towards those originally-unexpected uses. Also, social
change creates new needs and desires, which technology arises to cope with.
I am always skeptical of stories that go, “Somebody invents
a technology, and everybody in the world starts _____ing.” (Often, except
for one brave hold-out.) There has never been an example of a new technology
that everybody in the world used in the exact same way, and it seems unlikely
to happen in future. (Although, Flappy Bird, I guess.)
If you were trying to imagine a world of smartphones 20
years ago, you probably wouldn’t have dreamed up sexting. Or the use of phone
cameras for bullying. Or Grindr. Or the use of GPS data to help people but also
track them. The smartphone has been tied up with changing sexual mores but also
the rise of the surveillance state and dwindling concerns about personal
privacy.
But at the same time, you have to account for
counter-trends, and people finding ways to value what’s being displaced. I was
just working on a story set in the near future, with lots of weird neuroscience
and computers grown in silicon gardens, and I threw in “futuristic”
touches like genetically engineered kraken sushi and giant beetles that shed
hallucinogenic tears into your mouth. I ended up scrapping a lot of that stuff
because it was distracting — but also because in a future where brains were
more hackable, people would probably cling to carefully sliced, perfectly
handmade sandwiches. Just look at the rise of “artisanal” culture
today.
All the reasons
technological change won’t ever be uniform
One thing to keep in mind when writing about technological
change is the importance of generational
shifts. Younger people embrace technology more readily than older people,
but also use it in very different ways. And today’s teenagers are going to have
a very different attitude to the next thing that comes along, 20 years from
now, than today’s twenty-somethings or thirty-somethings.
Another trend to think about is the increasing
population density in urban areas. Studies show that higher-density
populations make new technologies spread
more quickly, but meanwhile people in rural or suburban areas may be much
slower to catch on to a new technology — exacerbating existing cultural
divides between city-dwellers and exurban populations.
https://gizmodo.com/cities-are-the-future-of-human-evolution-493082761
And yes, you really can’t speculate about future tech and
social change without thinking about the hot-button issue of income inequality.
Not least because new technologies are expensive, and thus the wealthy are
often the ultimate early adopters — but also, some technology may be designed
only for the rich. Or for the poor — there could be gadgets to help the poor
make tiny living spaces appear giant, using holograms, for example.
You can’t really imagine the future of technology without
thinking about the people who make the gadgets, as well as the people who use them.
You can’t get a complete picture without focusing on demographic trends — like
in a future America that’s majority-Latino, how would that change the way
people might use your magical brain implant?
This is why representing the majority of human beings in pop
culture — and not just straight white dudes — is so important. Your
worldbuilding will be poor and broken if you only represent part of the human
race.
Cultural shocks are
like an incursion of madness
When a new technology appears on the scene, it often feels
as though a bubble of insanity has appeared in the sane world. It turns
everything sideways. This is somewhat like the moment where you suddenly
realize that the cultural frame of reference has shifted and the formerly unthinkable
is now thinkable.
In fact, technology does cause shifts in the frame of sanity
— talking to yourself on the street is no longer the sign ofa crazy person, and neither is talking in doge-speak.
Imagining a future society dealing with a future technology
requires shocking yourself out of reality. It’s like trying to imagine the
death of a loved one or your house falling down — except maybe not so
catastrophic. What I’m trying to drive at is, it’s not a social change, but
also a huge change that affects you personally.
And the best stories often come out of the friction between
society in aggregate responding to a change, versus one individual responding
to that change.
There is a wealth of great memoir and fiction about the
Sexual Revolution, which came out of the rise of the birth-control pill but
also a postwar change in attitudes towards religion and authority. And you can
see how people felt both liberated and oppressed by the new normal — it was a complex
shift that involved freedom from conformity but also new peer pressure.
Bottom line: if it’s not messy, it’s not real. If you find
yourself writing about a clear-cut sea change, then you have to go back and
start over.
