Science and Science Fiction: America’s Past and Future Hope

By Allen J Duffis
Published: November 6, 2005

     “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon – that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. ”

Dr. Condoleezza Rice
White House National Security Advisor
At a press conference on August 16, 2002

     In this century or the last, that was an incredible statement to be issued by someone supposedly well read and highly educated. Particularly when such an individual, at the time, occupied the position of National Security Advisor to the elected leader of most powerful nation on Earth.

     This is especially true, when one realizes that the same 9/11 terrorist scenario employed, had been predicted and meticulously outlined, by a host of Science Fiction writers since the first commercial airlines began flying after World War I.

     Science Fiction's origin has been debated down to two possibilities. Those being the detailed futuristic drawings of flying machines by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century or, more definitively, the writings of Jules Verne in the 19th.

     Unquestionably, however, one Hugo Gurnsback was the visionary who in 1926 defined the genre as a distinct art, and a custom fit vehicle for the imagination and “Futurism”. And he was also the inventor of the term “Science Fiction”.

     It was during this time that, Gurnsback (1884-1967), founder of the Electric Importing Company and a magazine editor, mailed out thousands of circulars to subscribers to his magazines, “Modern Electronics” and “Science and Invention”, enthusiastically announcing the launching of his newest entitled, “Amazing Stories”.

     Gurnsback heralded his new magazine as one that would deal with the ‘world of tomorrow’, and would feature new fictional tales of interplanetary travel, and scientific invention: very much in the tradition of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells.

     To describe the nature of these stories he considered literarily unique, Gurnsback created the term ‘Scientifiction’: a contraction of the terms - Science and Fiction. In time the new genre caught on with a small but dedicated following, and became known as Science Fiction.

     “Star Trek”, “Star Wars”, “Buck Rogers” and “Superman” owe their success to this special futuristic fiction. As does just about every modern convenience or invention of home, office, manufacture and space exploration. The majority of these modern conveniences and devices made their debut as Science Fiction concepts, long before becoming reality; for until Science Fiction came along, scientists had no simple means of communicating their ideas to the layman public.

     Yet despite early success, the genre met with stiff resistance (and still does) from the Liberal Academia controlling the institutions of learning. They don’t consider SF to be legitimate literature, or ‘Futurism’ a real science, despite the notable contributions to the genre by respected authors and scientists such as Dr. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke.

     So instilled was this prejudice that, during the early days of U.S. space exploration, participants knew the mere mention of a fascination with the “Buck Rogers Syndrome” was an almost guaranteed passport out of the program.

     As with SF, the recent war against science itself is a war against the most valuable and gifted asset of the human species, its ability to ‘Think’. And following closely in the wake of this attack, is a subtler campaign against the employment of our equally important other capability, that being our ability to ‘Imagine’.

     In 1997, author Julian Jaynes published a book on theoretical anthropology, with the mind-boggling title of, “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”. In it he theorized that when consciousness came to early humans (which he proposes may have happened as late as 3000 years ago), they derived from the experience the capability of thought and imagination. He also theorizes that the first reaction of most was to, most likely, withdraw from willing participation in such an unsettling indulgence. And it is very likely that at this point in human history, the mental afflictions of paranoia and schizophrenia made their sinister debut.

     In general people tend to resist change, and since religion supports a fixed philosophy, the more religious they are, the more they reject change.

     On average, people prefer to envision the future as a continuation of the present. But the leadership of advanced and complex societies of accelerating complexity, such as ours, requires the application of thinking and imagination conjoined. The cultivation of ability to project theoretically in anticipation of catastrophe and impending chaos is a critical component of such leadership.

     The intellectual attributes of Thought and Imagination however, more often than not, require us to challenge given dogmas (both religious and political). And it is for this very reason both the discipline of Science and the genre of Science Fiction are under ferocious attack by the Ultra Political Right.

     A perfect example of this organized paranoia is the steadily growing battle over the concept of Intelligent Design (masquerading as legitimate science) as a credible alternate to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

     How does this involve the quoted 9-11 statement of our present Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice?

     Well, Ms. Rice is representative of the Intellectual Academicians who regard any consideration of ‘futuristic, theoretical thinking’ as smacking of Science Fiction. They regard Science Fiction as an explicative term not welcome in their world of serious intellectuality. They feel that they are above it and studiously avoid any public reference to the subject, or practice any application of its principles.

     This belligerent and socially suicidal attitude among those in power, such as Dr. Rice, robs our society of a very effective tool of proven worthiness: Futurism.

     On September 11, 2001, that jaundiced philosophical outlook toward vigilant, imaginative leadership, crumbled along with the World Trade Towers in New York City. And the tragic event spelled the beginning of the end of politics as usual in the twenty first century.

     That Dr. Rice chose to be staunchly ignorant of the science of ‘Future Projection’ does not bode well for our defense against such bold attacks as that of 9-11. New ideas that are the product of terrorism be they random, chance or planned, share the power of ‘inevitability’ when viewed from such a short sighted, prejudicial philosophical outlook.

     Thomas Kean, the former governor of the State of New Jersey and chairman of the 9-11 Commission, said it best when at the conclusion of the commission’s study he stated the following:

     “This was not something that had to happen...As we detail in our report, this was a failure of policy, management, capability and, above all, a failure of [imagination]”.

     Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and other critically placed government officials, should take heed of those words and immediately start looking to the future. Somewhere out there, someone is dreaming up a new idea and that individual (or individuals) may well be a headed toward our shores.

     To those in charge of our security as a nation, the advice from the past is that the only effective defense is to look to the future, employ your imagination and, project, project, project.