I've recently been reading more science fiction than I normally do. I used to read lots of it back when I was in my late teens and could recognise the covers almost by instinct.
(Back then they used to arrange everything alphabetically by author under 'fiction' in libraries so you couldn't ignore almost everything and head straight for your favourite genre. It also meant that you didn't have to fight past a gang of spotty, spoddy oiks next to the Sci-Fi section to get to crime novels!)
However, just lately the science press (the serious science press) have started commenting on science fiction and the way it is headed. Thirty or forty years ago most sci-fi was based around space, because that was the big news, and any terrifying potential disasters took the form of aliens. Shortly after that (when the world realised that actually we weren't too good at space travel and we managed to kill a lot of people trying it) there were the 'lump of space debris/comet/abandoned atomic-powered rocket engine is falling towards earth and will hit it with such force that it'll dislodge the planet/wipe it out completely/kill everyone in an atomic-bomb-like explosion' stories.
Then there were the post-Apocalypse tales where humans prove to be a bit sh*t at maintaining civilisation once the balance of power shifts.
Now, apparently, it's all to do with genes. And scientists are getting worried that ordinary, non-scientific folk are believing the horror stories, so that's why we're all scared of genetically modified plants/animals/food etc. They want more 'realistic' stories - aka hard science fiction - where the outcomes are actually scientifically possible.
What do you think? Do you want your science real? Or do you want true fantasy?
Photo details:
The photo is the
National Space Centre in Leicester. It's quite a cool place to visit. There's a full-size rocket inside that pod. Thor - the largest rocket ever built in the UK. (You might just be able to make it out in the photo)
