[ironprism]

I just watched "Dr Strangelove" and that brought me to the idea that science fiction is what makes Americans so paranoid about science and technology. Most people think of science in terms of nuclear or biological warfare, not the harmless quest for knowledge that it was originally. I think science fiction plays a large part in this.

Another interesting observation is that most European people I know don't have the same moralizing, fearful attitude towards technology. Again, any thoughts on how much science fiction plays a role in this?

[Banana]

I suspect American's 'paranoia' stems more from the abomination of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the constant fear we lived with during the 50s and 60s that the same would happen to us. I think Dr. Strangelove did a great job of showcasing our fears, rather than causing them. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

The invention of nuclear weapons and energy has meant great good in terms of energy production, but also great evil in terms of mega death, and mega mega death potential.

I think this was such an unavoidable paradigm to people who were crouching weekly under their desks in Nuclear drills that many aren't much able to look at any new technology w/o similar fears of it's potential for bad in the hands of dumbasses.
And the sad truth is that on the main, we're dumbasses. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

That's not to say that scifi can't point out
some scary things that someone hasn't picked up on yet. But frankly I don't think enough people read it - at least here in the US - for that to have an impact. Didn't HG Wells bitch about that all the time; that all his fears and predictions were completely ignored?

[Aylis]

Actually, I got the impression that the movie was just making fun of the people in power, because the bomb's not just going to run off by itself and randomly blow something up, someone has to trigger it. In the movie, I think General Ripper did the triggering part...that guy was insane!

[SusF]

I think it's more likely to say that paranoia caused Science Fiction, not the other way around.

A lot of the SF I read as a teenager was toward the end of the Cold War and it was quite dark, pretty much reflecting everyone's feelings. I grew up "knowing" we and they had bombs that cold destroy the earth. Utterly destroy it.

My husband had those "duck and cover" drills as a kid (yeah right, like a schooldesk is gonna protect you from a nuke). He grew up 150 miles away from the desert test sites in Barstow.

Science fiction was just beginning in those days and had a reletively small readership. I think it just wasn't influential enough to cause paranoia.

[Penumbra]

Dr. Strangelove was a parody which brought out the humorous and sad aspects of technology and possibly the inevitability of self destruction if we pursue it without taking precautions. Your question about SF is a broader one, however and I must disagree with your premise that the quest for knowledge is harmless. There is ample evidence that knowledge is a double edged blade.

SF plays a huge role in the development of ideas. Before scientists become stimulated to see if something is possible, their imaginations are often prodded by futuristic thinkers and writers who propose fantastic solutions for modern problems. Many of the once postulated thoughts of Verne and Wells are now a reality and I'm certain you can think of more examples. Zworykin is another, the man who used the human eye to develop the tube and consequently television.

You might look at my article: "On the Eerie Uncertainty of AI" to get another perspective because it discusses whether we ought to proceed with the imaginitive insight of SF authors. You can find it at:
scifantastic.tripod.com

Finally, the ultimate answer as to whether SF is important is, of course, yes
because we are defined by our imaginations. Whether or not technology has made us any happier or better off, a question raised by Carl Sagan in Contact, is perhaps more relevant and needs more analysis.