Your views
Secret Admirer
Science fiction writing has traditionally tended towards wild escapism rather than offering genuinely realistic visions of the future, but a more recent sub-genre has focused on using believable technology and science in its fiction, something that chimes with environmentalists search for real solutions to global environmental challenges.
Anthony Kleanthous, a researcher, writer and speaker on sustainable business, and Senior Policy Adviser at WWF-UK, explains why the 'Mundane' science fiction movement is so relevant to our real-world future....
How do you define 'mundane' science fiction?
It’s an attempt led, in part, by 'sciffy' writer Geoff Ryman, author of books such as AIR (cover below), to persuade his peers to writes stories, as he says, “set on or near the Earth, with a believable use of technology and science as it exists at the time the story is written.”
Why do you think this movement is important?
Dreaming of impossible solutions to drastic problems, such as terraforming Mars in time to decamp when our oceans begin to boil, or relying on teleportation to reach planets that can offer us a new earth, is misleading and counterproductive.
Most well-informed environmentalists now agree that technology alone - even the scientifically feasible kind - will not be enough to save our species from the terrible consequences of climate change, toxic emissions, water shortages and social breakdown. We need people to change their behaviour and for that we need to create new, more realistic, visions of life in a sustainable (or unsustainable) future world.
What are the best aspects of the movement?
Its ability to influence human culture for the good of future generations. Once we get rid of these childish fantasies of faster than light travel, human immortality, brain downloading, teleportation and time travel, we can introduce a dose of reality. And the reality isn’t all bad, even from the technological point of view; our tiny dot of a planet is already packed with people, ideas and technologies that throw up endless exciting opportunities for a better future.
Why is it necessary?
Anyone who has seen The Day After Tomorrow, with Manhattan drowned and frozen solid within five minutes of a cataclysmic and absurdly accelerated disruption to the Atlantic Conveyor should understand why this is needed – the problem is real, the threat is real, but we can’t expect people to take it seriously, or believe they can make any kind of difference, in the face of this kind of nonsense. Of course, most sci-fi classics combine reality with nonsense, so it’s all about the balance.
Who benefits from Mundane SF?
Everyone, except perhaps the Hollywood moguls, writers and assorted luvvies who perpetuate bad science in pursuit of quick bucks.
How easy would it be for others to participate?
I think most other sectors of society are already doing something similar, without necessarily making a movement out of it. The big media organisations have beefed up their editorial coverage of environmental issues and incorporated them into fiction, such as the plans for a new biomass facility in the Archers; writers of 'mainstream' fiction often make more sense of science than their peers in SF; and businesses such as Shell and BT now look far into the future to envision alternative worlds.
How could it be improved?
The name isn’t great; SF is supposed to tap into our sense of wonder at the beauty, grandeur and possibilities outside our daily experience, and 'mundane' doesn’t really get the heart pumping.
What do you think the long-term future is for the movement?
I get the sense that it may lose its identity over time, unless it can produce or influence a truly great writer, although many great writers, including Margaret Atwood, Doris Lessing, Kingsley Amis, J.G. Ballard, Philip K Dick and William Gibson, could all claim to represent “mundanista” values to some degree.