This is one of the hardest things for humans. We are by nature designed to think of ourselves, our friends, and other humans first. We are social by design and its hard for us to think outside of that in things like stories- especially when stories have been historically used to further information about our cultures and our people so that is what we always expect them to do. SF, however, asks us not to think about our cultures and our people with stories, but rather, our futures, our survival, our social systems, etc.

This is a good point that highlights how the general public feels about SF compared to SF fans and avid SF readers. The general public may dislike science fiction because it asks readers to think about the greater image, and forget about themselves or their time or their current issues. People who are not typically asked to think about this may find themselves either unable to, or unwilling to, think about the bigger picture, or imagine a new kind of world or society (something that they are unfamiliar with and that is harder to create the image of). SF caters to a specific group of people it seems.

This is what I believe is one of the leading forces of SF. The fact that we as humans can recognize how our environment sways us, and we can change. It is what makes SF so appealing. Reader and watchers can see a character and root for their development and hope their behaviors make a system better (or reverse a bad one, lIke Neo in the matrix). The fact we can choose a course other than that instilled by nature is what helps us use these stories to analyze our societies, and work to better them. Without the ability to challenge the course we are on, we would never be able to heed the warnings about the future we are heading toward as written in SF.

This is why science fiction is labeled as something that is so challenging of the current state of humanity. It critiques us- like in the Matrix, when the human race was described as a "virus" to the Earth. Science fiction presents us with the idea that perhaps we are not such an amazing force of scientific discovery, technological advancement, etc. It forces us to look at our behavior from a different lens- and truly face our past as a species (good and bad). This is why so many leaders, systems, and societal structures may find SF unappealing- in that these things do not want to be challenged in their behavior.

Science fiction is in many ways similar the Darwin's theories. Darwin presented theories of evolution, and his work hinted- although not as clearly as SF- toward the future (in analyzing what has evolved in the past, we cannot help but apply these theories to the future). Meanwhile, SF picks up where Darwin left off— it very literally uses these base ideas of evolution and development and applies them to a very real future that we as humans are heading toward— especially with technology advancing. In order to create science fiction that properly analyzes and presents real questions about where humanity is heading- Darwin's evolutionary theory is necessary.

Here, one cannot help but think about the fact that we as humans do not, and likely will not ever, know what is truly science and what is supernatural. The argument that we must separate the two because "bringing experiences [of both] is to destroy one or the other, is not made because the universe cannot handle both— it is because we are humans are incapable of handling both, and of realizing that there is no line that separates the two. The supernatural, in many ways, may just be the parts of science that we have not figured out yet, and separating them is easier for us as people to handle.

It may seem that hard science and creative science-fiction are very different. However, when authors like Margaret Atwood incorporate current scientific studies in their texts, they bridge the gap between difficult scientific concepts, and the average person. When the general population is included in important conversations about science and the future, society accepts new research easier. How the author portrays new scientific research in their work can sway the average person from fear to acceptance. The role that sci-fi writers hold in this process is of immense importance.

Writers quite literally are the basis for so many movements in thought and ideas in society. I cannot think of any times that written (novel) works have started full blown revolution– other than political documents. However, novels consistently inspire, excite, and create new trends in thought. In order to recover society from an unjust state, artists, authors, and creative-minds will need to reignite this passion for creativity (to craft new, just laws and systems)– something that I feel politicians may struggle to inspire in the general population.

Is this line Ursula K. Le Guin saying: once humanity reaches the point in which we have to turn to sci-fi writers for help in changing our way-of-being, then that will be the "hardest time for us all"? Is she saying that at that at that point we will have no one to turn to other than sci-fi writers and their creativity... not politicians, or teachers, or scientists, etc. because we're so far lost in our unjust society as humans that no one is left to help us?

Sci-fi media and books expose younger generations to new and seemingly impossible technologies and ideas. Is it the sense of wonder that children find viewing sci-fi that leads them to be more creative when it comes to technological inventing in the newer generations? Is it why children seem to be starting to create amazing new things from such a young age in this day and age?

Science fiction is very clearly an open space for people of all backgrounds. So many texts and ideas are presented in a way that is inaccessible for many people. Science fiction feels like a way for every person to casually access important discussions about our future and our society. The full inclusion of all individuals is the only way that a society can create better systems that everyone can benefit from.

Orwell's "1984" is a good example of the "what we might become" concept. The book is often referenced in movies, television, and other popular media as being worryingly close to today's society in some ways. How are these stories so accurate in their portrayal of humanity's future? With so many novels forewarning us of this terrible future it seems impossible that so many people reject positive change to society's systems.

It is almost always subversive ideals that properly challenge the norms of an unjust or outdated system and bring about the most progressive and needed change. Science fiction acts as a means of challenging unethical systems. Have there been science fiction books that have instilled clear social change? Other than charging a revolutionary spirit and predicting a very possible future, have any works of science fiction led to new systems being established to replace outdated ones?