You are right, you probably won't find romance novels dealing with those issues, but that is not something to be surprised or annoyed by.

Each genre has some things that it is, through the tropes of the genre, naturally good at exploring. Science fiction and cyberpunk are really good at speculating about the future (and, of course, by extension, the present: everything is a mirror), because of the setting that they take place in. On the other hand, Romance novels they tend to make good mediators for dealing with different issues, such as sexuality, taboos, class, etc. Just look at Jayne Eyre.

Of course, you're right, and I am not in any way annoyed that romance or criminal novels don't cover the same topics as sci-fi. For instance, romance novels are good at things you described, + developing empathy in general.

My only peeve is with people dismissing sci-fi, arguably the most intellectually-stimulating type of fiction (as opposed to e.g. empathy-developing romance novels, etc.), while telling me "read books, they'll make you smarter". I admit I might be biased by the environment I grew up in, but I see this attitude everywhere among non-tech acquaintances, to the point that the expression "it's science fiction" is being used interchangeably with "absurd"/"nonsense". I feel like science fiction is somehow singled out in society as a special kind of crap.

I do think that, to read your comments, you may somewhat underestimate others' esteem for sci-fi as a genre. In particular, I don't think it's true that, for most, "science fiction is somehow singled out in society as a special kind of crap." But, on the other hand, I don't think you're imagining things. (And let's not forget fantasy! I think just about everything we've said here about sci-fi is equally true of fantasy, both in terms of its value and it's under appreciation.)

I'm trying to articulate a very fine point myself here, so I might be failing at expressing it.

I agree that Austen's works, or other genres other than sci-fi are not "intellectual" or don't "make you smarter". They all have their niches and good books of each genre have lots of intellectual gems. Sci-fi is good at this particular mathy kind of intellectualism, the one that gives you game theory, and economics, and cryptography, that helps you to understand the increasingly complex world. The kind that puts your System 2 (as in Kahneman's System 1 and 2 of your mind) on overdrive, because what is discussed is something we rarely have natural intuiton for.

It's of course not The Only Knowledge. But (I believe) it's getting more and more important nowadays, and as for something that feels so vital, it's getting a disproportionate amount of hate and dismissal among general population.

Yeah, I think this is quite a common battle that many mediums/subjects have to fight. For this case, it seems like a combination a lack of interest in the themes explored in serious science fiction (the ones that get me and you excited), meaning that it does not get as much air-time in "serious" discussions; and the baseline exposure to the genre which does not grow into anything for most . For example, this is the case for me and high fantasy: I know nothing about what the genre has to offer.

I mean, I'm guessing that if I never transitioned into things like Gundam, Xenogears, Ghost in the Shell (can you tell I liked Japanese thigns as a teenager?) and onwards I would still think of sci-fi as cars with guns.

Here's one take on why it's dismissed by many: While sci-fi addresses intellectual concepts well, often its other elements are weak. This applies especially to characters, who frequently are no more than walking, talking representatives of those concepts. They often are not realistic, convincing, engaging people and they aren't having realistic interactions. Also, they too often have immature points of view.

If you want concepts, then sci-fi is appealing. If you want a full, convincing story, then those weak characters (and other problems) can be un-engaging, distracting (frustrating, silly, etc.), or even completely undermine the story. It's like eating good food (i.e., the concepts) mixed with something bland or even bad-tasting.

Certainly there are good sci-fi writers; I'm not dismissing the whole genre. But I can see how someone who wants good literature could get a bad impression and buy into the stereotype.

When that happens, its often intentional -- that is, the characters exist as vehicles to explore the interplay of the concepts as such, and are not intended to be anything else. Its an approach with a fairly long history (thousands of years) in writing.

OTOH, there's lots of scifi that isn't like that, either intentionally or accidentally.

IMHO this hasn't been a problem for a few decades now. Elizabeth Bear, Charles Stross, Greg Bear, lots of popular Sci-Fi authors focus heavily on characters.

I think it goes back to Sturgeon's Law. There's still plenty of bad sci-fi. Amongst the bad sci-fi, I think the above remains a common failing, along with myriad other failings. I'm not sure whether it is a more common failing in SF than in other genres - I try not to read enough bad books of any type to have a representative sample. I'd believe that it is, because author attention gets directed to other "more interesting" things. But I'd also believe that is not, and the perception is simply confirmation bias.

I do like SciFi, but I think you are victim of the same bias you are accusing other people to have. There are lots and lots of works hat explore the ethics space. Game theory being newer isn't on the classics, but you'll find it in modern literature too.

> It's the Federation that was the hero in Star Trek.

Each epoch has the propaganda that suits it. Just as it's incredibly hard to make a show where everybody got together nowadays, it was hard to create a show with corrupt leadership back then.

Maybe. But as propaganda is always in a feedback loop with the audience, influencing people and being influenced itself by society, I do miss the propaganda of Star Trek era. I feel that the one we have now is destructive to the fabric of society.

You made me think about a similar type of propaganda and a similar feeling my mother has. She lived through period when our country was a Soviet satellite state. Back in those times when you went to a cinema, instead of advertisements you were presented with video clips that elaborated on how much progress the country is making, how the productivity rises, how the working class successfully labours to make our country a better place, etc.

Everybody knew - my mother tells me - that this was all bunch of lies and exaggerations. But she also says that the overall climate was hopeful; people hearing good news everywhere actually felt like things are improving, changing for the better, that future will be brighter.

Contrast this with today's proliferation of bad news. Everything is bad, everyone is corrupt, and who is not dead tries to kill you or take away your freedom. World sucks and is going to fall apart. We hear this all day, every day.

I guess what I miss about Star Trek and what my mother misses about socialist times is the same thing - hope for a brighter future.

(I'm not sure where that trope started. I'd be interested to know if any historians can point to a period of time where this took off, or was first mentioned in philosophy.)

Going back to OP's comment, that seemed to be the main difference: in Trek, for example, we have a civilization which had a lot of knowledge. Both at an individual level (everyone portrayed (with possible exception of Barclay...) was very intelligent) and at a civilization level. However, they somehow manged this while staying happy. Maybe this is because they solved all the problems, but I think it had more to do with the writers choosing to portray the stories in that light. It seemed the federation was not above its political squabbles, after all, and there were times that ship captains ignored direct orders on moral grounds. So it's not like everything was perfect.

Meanwhile, taking a look at a cyberpunk story, you seem to find a setting in which we learned many things, and the more we learned the less happy we became. The decker that hacks into a corporation and discovers just how horrible of an entity they truly are, is an example at an individual level. One could also point to the general state of the world in those stories, and consider how knowledge "corrupted" us.

Looking at your mother's story, I'm guessing this is a similar situation. The more you know about what's going on around you, you more you notice the gilded veneer over everything. Those who didn't realize the propaganda were all lies and exaggerations were probably happier (and of course worked harder).

You see, the "fact" that everybody is corrupt, and out to get you so you better trust the people near you, to death if needed is no more true than the "fact" that governments, elite, and any other form of leadership is automatically trustwothy, so comply and be happy, questioning is for radicals.

Both are complete fabrications, collectively created but with some obvious small-group direction and an intent. Knowledge is something else, not to be found here.

The short summary on amazon is pretty good:

   Over the past decade, Americans watched in bafflement and rage as one 
   institution after another—from Wall Street to Congress, the Catholic Church 
   to Major League Baseball—imploded under the weight of corruption and 
   incompetence. In the wake of the Fail Decade, the social contract between 
   ordinary citizens and elites lies in tatters.  

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-Meritocr...

"just because he wanted to have sex with his wife" - it had been a while. He didn't shut down the global economy, just forced people to participate in it in person. Snake Plissken shut down the global economy.

two recent movies come to mind that seem essentially hopeful about the future.

Her - if you focus on the background here you'll notice all socioeconomic problems have been solved, all labor seems rewarding and creative.

Transcendence - in which humanity fails to embrace the salvation offered by technology.

both films culminate with a technological singularity. the future is positive and hopeful just as in Star Trek, but unlike Star Trek it won't be recognizably human.

However, if you can do that, it also seems like you could split your consciousness in two, while making the transition seamless for each. In effect, not just a copy of your 'mind' but a copy of your 'self'. I'm not sure what to make of that.

You could, for example, hook your brain up to some machine which would replace parts of it, bit by bit, bringing that functionality into an emulator 'gradually', while creating an interface with the still-physical parts of the brain such that the thing functions the same as the physical brain did before, only with part of it still using the old hardware, and the other part running in the emulator. Continue this process until the entire brain - and perhaps even the entire nervous system or body - has been brought into the emulator. Now you're virtualized.

It's obviously extremely speculative, but all the same I can't find any point in a process like this, where your phenomenal consciousness would be disrupted.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986263/