Every few years, a technology arrives that surprises everyone except the people who read science fiction. The internet. Smartphones. Surveillance capitalism. Synthetic biology. The pattern is consistent enough that it should have stopped being surprising by now. It hasn't — because most institutions still treat science fiction as entertainment rather than intelligence. That is a strategic error. But the genre's role goes deeper than prediction. Science fiction has become, as futurist Thomas Lombardo argues, the evolutionary mythology of the future — the stories a civilization tells itself about where it is going and what it might become.
Science fiction is not in the business of prediction. The best science fiction writers will tell you this themselves. What they are doing is something more interesting and more useful: they are running rigorous thought experiments about what happens when you change one or more of the assumptions that currently structure the world.
What happens when surveillance becomes total? What happens when genetic modification becomes cheap and accessible? What happens when artificial intelligence surpasses human cognitive capacity in domain after domain? What happens when the climate crosses a threshold that makes current agricultural systems unviable?
These are not idle speculations. They are structured explorations of possibility space — exactly the kind of thinking that strategic foresight is supposed to produce, and rarely does as well. The difference is that science fiction has the advantage of narrative: it can make you feel what it would be like to live inside a scenario, not just understand it abstractly.
Futurist Thomas Lombardo has made one of the most compelling cases for science fiction's deeper cultural function in his series Science Fiction: the Evolutionary Mythology of the Future. His argument is that science fiction has taken the place of traditional stories and myths — that it performs for technological civilization the same function that origin myths and cosmologies performed for earlier ones.
Myths are not false stories. They are stories that organize a culture's understanding of its place in time, its relationship to forces larger than itself, and its sense of what is possible and what is forbidden. Every civilization needs them. The question is which stories are doing that work.
For a civilization defined by technological change and scientific discovery, Lombardo argues, science fiction is the living mythology. It is where we work out our hopes and fears about what we are becoming. It is where we rehearse the futures we want and the ones we dread. Treating it as mere entertainment is like treating the Iliad as a war story — technically accurate, but missing everything that matters.
Some of the most consequential futures work in the science fiction tradition has been done by writers exploring gender, power, and the social construction of what counts as normal. In Women's Futures courses and feminist foresight practice, a core set of texts has proven consistently generative — not as historical curiosities but as living transnormal scenarios.
Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time imagines a future of radical gender fluidity, communal child-rearing, and ecological balance — and sets it against a dystopian alternative to make the stakes of the present legible. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland, written in 1915, constructs an all-female society that functions as a systematic thought experiment about which features of social organization are genuinely necessary and which are merely the residue of patriarchal assumption. Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed holds two worlds in tension — an anarchist moon and a capitalist planet — to ask what freedom actually requires and what it costs.
These are not soft texts. They are rigorous explorations of alternative social architectures, and they have shaped the thinking of generations of futures practitioners, policy designers, and social theorists. Science fiction and related fantasy have played a central role in teaching and envisioning feminist futures and non-binary gender alternatives — making thinkable the social configurations that mainstream foresight still struggles to model.
Nowhere is the relationship between science fiction and actual futures more direct than in the development of outer space. The co-evolutionary relationship runs in both directions: science fiction has shaped the ambitions of engineers, scientists, and policymakers, and the realities of space development have in turn reshaped what science fiction imagines.
This relationship has not been uniformly positive. Science fiction has provided the imaginative infrastructure for both the best and worst impulses in space development — for the colonization and domination of extraterrestrial bodies as extensions of terrestrial power, but also for the science, environmental monitoring, and planetary security functions that represent space development at its most genuinely beneficial.
The stories we tell about space matter because they shape the institutional cultures and policy frameworks that govern what actually happens there. A futures practice that ignores science fiction's role in this domain is missing one of the most direct lines of influence between imaginative work and real-world outcomes.
The Anglophone tradition has long dominated discussions of science fiction as a foresight tool — but non-Western science fiction has had a deep and distinct impact on culture and on speculation about some of the most consequential questions futures practice can ask.
Cixin Liu stands out as the most globally influential example. His trilogy beginning with The Three-Body Problem — and particularly the second volume, The Dark Forest — offers a radically different frame for thinking about contact with extraterrestrial intelligence. Where the dominant Western tradition has tended toward open arms, Liu's Dark Forest theory posits that the silence of the cosmos is not a puzzle to be solved but a warning to be heeded: that any sufficiently advanced civilization will conclude that concealment is the only rational survival strategy.
This is not merely a science fiction premise. It is a serious contribution to the strategic literature on existential risk, game theory, and the logic of civilizational competition. It has been cited by researchers, defense analysts, and technology ethicists as a genuine framework for thinking about AI development, biosecurity, and the long-term trajectory of technological civilization. The fact that it arrived through fiction rather than through a policy paper does not make it less rigorous. It may make it more so.
Science fiction and anthropology famously intersected in the CONTACT conferences, held annually at NASA-Ames in Palo Alto, California. These gatherings brought together social scientists, NASA engineers, science fiction writers, and especially anthropologists to engage in what became known as the Bateson Project — a thought experiment rooted in the work of Gregory Bateson.
Each year, the project brought future human groups into First Contact with alien beings or worlds. The scenarios changed annually. The results were remarkably consistent: in very few of them were humans and aliens able to communicate successfully. The lessons were clear and sobering — about the depth of misunderstanding that emerges when assumptions are not shared, about the limits of even the most sophisticated attempts at cross-cultural translation, and about the dangers of projecting human frameworks onto genuinely alien minds.
For futures practice, the CONTACT conferences represent something important: a serious, sustained, institutionally supported effort to use speculative fiction as a laboratory for exploring the outer limits of human adaptability and the conditions under which communication and cooperation become possible. The methodology is directly applicable to any scenario involving genuine novelty — which is to say, to most of the futures that matter most.
There is a reason that some of the most sophisticated technology companies in the world have hired science fiction writers as consultants, futurists-in-residence, and scenario designers. They have figured out something that most organizations have not: that the imaginative work science fiction does is genuinely difficult to replicate through conventional analytical methods.
Conventional strategic analysis is good at extrapolating from existing trends. It is good at modeling known variables and assessing known risks. What it is structurally poor at is imagining genuinely novel configurations — futures that do not look like the present with some parameters adjusted, but futures that operate according to different logics entirely.
Science fiction is specifically trained on this problem. Its entire tradition is built around the question: what if things were fundamentally different? That is not a question that spreadsheets answer well.
For organizations serious about futures intelligence, the question is not whether to engage with science fiction but how to do it systematically. A few principles are worth establishing.
First, read widely across the genre rather than defaulting to the canonical texts. The most useful signals are often in the less celebrated work — the novels that did not win awards but that are quietly working through problems that mainstream foresight has not yet noticed.
Second, read across cultures and across the gender spectrum. Anglophone science fiction is a small slice of the global tradition. Chinese science fiction, African science fiction, Latin American speculative fiction, feminist and queer speculative fiction — these traditions are imagining futures that the mainstream canon is not, and they are doing so from positions of experience and knowledge that are directly relevant to understanding where the world is going.
Third, treat science fiction as a conversation partner rather than an oracle. The goal is not to find the text that predicts the future correctly. The goal is to use the encounter with imagined futures to sharpen your own thinking about what is possible, what is likely, and what is worth preparing for.
At Cool Futures, we treat science fiction as a primary source — not a supplement to serious foresight work, but a core component of it. This is not a quirky aesthetic preference. It is a methodological commitment grounded in a clear-eyed assessment of what the form does well.
The future is not a technical problem. It is an imaginative one. The constraint on most organizations' ability to navigate uncertainty is not a shortage of data or analytical capacity. It is a shortage of imagination — a limited range of futures that they can actually conceive of, take seriously, and prepare for.
Science fiction expands that range. It populates the possibility space with scenarios that conventional analysis cannot generate. It makes the transnormal thinkable. It carries the mythological weight of a civilization working out its relationship to its own future. And in doing so, it performs exactly the function that futures practice is supposed to perform: not predicting what will happen, but expanding what you can imagine — and therefore what you can do.
The futures that will matter most are the ones that feel, right now, like science fiction. The question is not whether you find that uncomfortable. The question is whether you are paying attention — and whether the stories you are reading are wide enough, strange enough, and honest enough to prepare you for what is actually coming.
Futures literacy is not about predicting what will happen. It is about expanding the range of what you can imagine — and then acting on that expanded imagination. Here is why the distinction matters more than ever.
Read →Every dominant paradigm has a blind spot — a set of futures it cannot see because they fall outside its frame. Transnormal futures are those futures. Learning to see them is the most important skill in foresight.
Read →Cool has always been about being ahead — not in a shallow trend-chasing sense, but in the deeper sense of discernment. Knowing what matters before everyone else does. That is a futures skill.
Read →