Sci-fi as the occasional herald of science?

[The Beatles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Set_Free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Thousand_Leagues_Under_the_Sea

Can sci-fi spur actual scientists and inspire them with concrete visions, the details of which they can realize with a combination of science and engineering? Does it ever inspire political change?

[Freenhult]

If I recall correctly, A number of Scientist investigated the actual theory and applications of warp speed.

Personally, I don't see why not. All they need is an idea and the innitative to follow it.

[Kraken]

of course Sci-Fi inflouences pop culture and science developments. why wouldnt it? people sit around making crap up is what pushes the evolving spirit of mankind. someone sat around and designed a huge ship and slapped the name Titanic on it and said it was light years above and beyond modern times. it sank anyways.
the best example would be Orwells 1984, he invisioned two way televisions, helecopters and missiles. of course, i am somewhat sure that missiles were around when he wrote it, but helecoptors and two way televisions were most definatly not.

when the first major space ship sets out into space with a crew and the means to survive for years out in the cold darkness, i bet it will be called Enterprise.

[Gen. Volkov]

Umm.. I'm not sure about two-way televisions, but when Orwell wrote it in 1948, helicopters had been around for awhile. They were invented in WW2. Missiles as we know them where still in there infancy, but they were around. They where studying infrared detection at the time in order to make the first Sidewinder missile. Oh and they called it the Enterprise because that name has a history of being the first something. It was the one of the first all up carriers of the US Navy back before WW2, it was the first nuclear powered carrier after the first Enterprise was scrapped. It also happened to be the most decorated carrier that fought in WW2.

And Sci-Fi has a long history of doing exactly that Beatles. Jules Verne is responsible for a large chunk of scientists becoming scientists, and his description of a submarine proved remarkably prescient. Arthur C. Clarke's predictions for the future also had a remarkable way of coming true. And they are still investigating whether a warp drive is possible. NASA is actually funding some of the research. Carl Sagan inspired an entire generation of astronomers. The invention of the atomic bomb changed world politics forever. No other single invention has ever changed world politics like the nuclear bomb. Nothing else in the history of mankind allows any country to go from nothing to world power in an instant like the possession of a nuclear weapon.

[Kraken]

if you remember the televisions in Orwells book, they could see and talk to those who watched it. i was unsure about helecopters though.

[Gen. Volkov]

Yeah, I remember them, that sort of thing wasn't possible until the 1970's or 80's, but there where plenty of people who saw it happening. It wasn't just Orwell. Once video camera's and TV's came about, that sort of thing was inevitable. But it took the Internet to really make it popular, because otherwise you have to have a transmitter and reciever for TV signals like the TV studios do. But his choppers where just more advanced versions of what already existed.

But no one forsaw some of the stuff that has come about. Stealth technology for one. I mean yes, they have "cloaking devices" but that's not stealth, that's some sort of force field. But I don't think anyone predicted stealth tech as it eventually developed and how much it would revolutionize warfare. And certainly no one predicted the first Gulf War, the most lopsided victory in military history, primarily due to the F-117's ability to fly unharmed right over Baghdad, dropping precision munitions, and then just flying right back out again. (Only one stealth plane has ever been shot down, and that was a freak hit during the Bosnian conflict.) And of course the complete domination of the air due to the overwhelming superiority of the US planes and pilots. The F-15 is without doubt the best fighter ever built. It has a war record unequaled by any other plane ever. It has NEVER been shot down in air to air battle, and has 139 kills. A few have been shot down from ground fire, but I don't think there is any nonstealth plane that has no losses from surface to air missiles or anti-aircraft artillery.

[The Beatles]

If you notice the two items I linked to, they described exactly the atomic bomb and the submarine... (Wells and Verne)

[Kraken]

yes they do! and its facinating. art imitates life and vice versa eh?

[Gen. Volkov]

Yes, I read the links, and I was commenting on them in my post, but I would like to point out that neither Wells or Verne got it exactly right. Verne was more accurate with his sub than Wells with his nuke, but the final form, and some of the consequences eluded them. Not taking anything away from them though.

[Nohc]

Orwell? Without Star Trek, we'd all still be cavemen. And that's a fact.

[The Beatles]

What's Orwell got to do with Star Trek?

And also, don't forget that it was Wells who first described the concept of tanks, not naming them, but eerily precisely, down to treads. Coming from an age which was accustomed to cavalry and infantry, that's a pretty significant leap. This partly led to the British developing the tank first in WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_Ironclads

(By the way, it was exactly Winston Churchill who commissioned them to be built!)

Also read:
http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/199_hgwells1.shtml

Which notes that not only did Wells foreshadow tanks, but a kind of remote warfare through the cameras.

[Freenhult]

He doesn't agree with the fact that you think Orwell was that important.

[The Beatles]

Oh, I see. Orwell innovated in other ways, though. He's rather made the job of police states more difficult, by pointing out where they lead to, and some of their precursors.

[Devari]

I haven't actually read 1984, but Animal Farm was an excellent book - when taken in the context of who Orwell was and what he stood for. Apparently, a CIA-backed film butchered the whole premise of the book into a right-wing propaganda piece - when, in fact, Orwell was writing from a Socialist point of view*. He was not attacking Communism, persay, but instead showing how the revolution was twisted by people more focused on power than principles. As well, I'd say he may have been pointing out how a government born out of violent means comes to imitate the previous totalitarian government. Besides which, the original Communist state guided by Snowball (the parallel of Trotsky and the Left Communists) was virtually a utopia of cooperation and egalitarianism. He wasn't attacking the Left, or even Communism - instead attacking what it had been warped into. If anything, he showed an ideal society** just after the revolution.

Besides all that, it acts as a very interesting parallel history to the Russian Revolution. On a personal note, it sparked my interest in Soviet history - and thereby the general history of Communism and the Cold War.

* Undeniable fact, so don't even try to argue that. Just look at Homage to Catalonia.
** Ok, maybe just in my opinion.

Sorry I rambled a bit here - my math final wasn't bad, but I am tired... And when I am tired, my writing skills tend to deteriorate.

[Gen. Volkov]

Nohc, you're silly.

The idea of a land battleship was already around when Wells put it on paper. He just fleshed the idea out a bit. It's theorized that the Americans might have developed the first tanks if the Civil War had lasted longer. In many ways, the Civil War was the first modern war. By the end it was very close to what WW1 was. But again, I'm not denying Well's and other sci-fi authors vision. They have proven to be remarkably prescient in many areas over the years.

And Orwell, in Animal Farm, wasn't for one side or the other in my opinion. I think everyone's interpretation of Animal Farm is different. He was definitely pro-socialist, I'm not denying that, but the actual book seems to be roundly panning ANY sort of government. And it was a direct omage to what happened in the Russian revolution, from what many experts believe. He wrote it at a time when it was still acceptable to have sympathy's with what the Communists tried to do in Russia. He was a master of the dystopian novel, either describing failed Utopia's or fake Utopia's. I do agree that Communism, done right, and in small groups, probably is the perfect form of government. But not for people, you just can't do it on a large scale, and it's extremely easy to corrupt once you start making the sacrifices necessary to attempt it on large scale. Plus, it is fact that some people are natural leaders and others are natural followers. And if you get a natural leader with enough lust for power in a system like communism, the benevolent intent quickly falls apart. This is what Orwell so expertly described in Animal Farm.