A blog post at Nautilus argues that we need a whole new class of experts who study the science of stupidity. I don't know, but I suspect that such people already exist.
Connie Willis' award-winning sci-fi novel 'Doomsday Book' is one of the few time travel stories (that I know of, anyways) where a female perspective forms the core of the drama. Is it worth the read?
Traveling to the nearest star would require a generation ship. Can such a thing be done? As sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson explains with alacrity and precision, no, it can't.
Why is 'Frankenstein' considered the mother of the genre? How did we go from seeing so many utopian stories to dystopian ones? Where did the word "robot" come from? Will SF ever be recognized as "true" literature?
In a Slate op-ed published earlier this week, author Lee Konstantinou argues that "something is broken in our science fiction" and that we need to move beyond the cyber punk aesthetic. Perhaps, but there's one particular insight of cyber punk we should never abandon, which is that technology doesn't just serve us, it changes us---and not always for the better.
Best-selling author Yuval Harari recently claimed that free will is a myth, humans are more hackable than ever before, and religion has no place in addressing the scientific and technological challenges of the future. Here's why he's wrong.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari does not believe religion has anything relevant to say about the technological challenges of the future. His argument reminds me of a passage from an award-winning novel that suggests otherwise.