Most science fiction stories use both extrapolation and speculation. Consider "Blowups Happen," elsewhere in this volume. It was written in 1939, updated very slightly for book publication just after World War II by inserting some words such as "Manhattan Project" and "Hiroshima," but not rewritten, and is one of a group of stories published under the pretentious collective title of The History of the Future (!) (an editor's title, not mine!) - which certainly sounds like prophecy.
I disclaim any intention of prophesying; I wrote that story for the sole purpose of making money to pay off a mortgage and with the single intention of entertaining the reader. As prophecy the story falls flat on its silly face - any tenderfoot Scout can pick it to pieces - but I think it is still entertaining as a story, else it would not be here; I have a business reputation to protect and wish to continue making money. Nor am I ashamed of this motivation. Very little of the great literature of our heritage arose solely from a wish to "create art"; most writing, both great and not - so great, has as its proximate cause a need for money combined with an aversion to, or an inability to perform, hard "honest labor." Fiction writing offers a legal and reasonably honest way out of this dilemma.
A science fiction author may have, and often does have, other motivations in addition to pursuit of profit. He may wish to create "art for art's sake," he may want to warn the world against a course he feels to be disastrous (Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World - but please note that each is intensely entertaining, and that each made stacks of money), he may wish to urge the human race toward a course which he considers desirable (Bellamy's Looking Backwards, Wells' Men Like Gods), he may wish to instruct, or uplift, or even to dazzle. But the science fiction writer - any fiction writer - must keep entertainment consciously in mind as his prime purpose ... or he may find himself back dragging that old cotton sack.
If he succeeds in this purpose, his story is likely to remain gripping entertainment long years after it has turned out to be false "prophecy." H. G. Wells is perhaps the greatest science fiction author of all time - and his greatest science fiction stories were written around sixty years ago (i.e., about 1895)... under the whip. Bedfast with consumption, unable to hold a job, flat broke, paying alimony - he had to make money somehow, and writing was the heaviest work he could manage. He was clearly aware (see his autobiography) that to stay alive he must be entertaining. The result was a flood of some of the most brilliant speculative stories about the future ever written. As prophecy they are all hopelessly dated ... which matters not at all; they are as spellbinding now as they were in the Gay 'Nineties and the Mauve Decade.
Try to lay hands on his The Sleeper Awakes. The gadgetry in it is ingenious - and all wrong. The projected future in it is brilliant - and did not happen. All of which does not sully the story; it is a great story of love and sacrifice and blood - chilling adventure set in a matrix of mind - stretching speculation about the nature of Man and his Destiny. I read it first in 1923, and at least a dozen times since ... and still reread it whenever I get to feeling uncertain about just how one does go about the unlikely process of writing fiction for entertainment of strangers - and again finding myself caught up in the sheer excitement of Wells' story.
"Solution Unsatisfactory" herein is a consciously Weilsian story. No, no, I'm not claiming that it is of H. G. Wells' quality - its quality is for you to judge, not me. But it was written by the method which Wells spelled out for the speculative story: Take one, just one, basic new assumption, then examine all its consequences - but express those consequences in terms of human beings. The assumption I chose was the "Absolute Weapon"; the speculation concerns what changes this forces on mankind. But the "history" the story describes simply did not happen.
However the problems discussed in this story are as fresh today, the issues just as poignant, for the grim reason that we have not reached even an "unsatisfactory" solution to the problem of the Absolute Weapon; we have reached no so1ution.
In the years that have passed since I wrote that story (in 1940) the world situation has grown much worse. Instead of one Absolute Weapon there arc now at least free distinct types - - - an ''Absolute Weapon being defined as one against which there is no effective defense and which kills indiscriminately over a very wide area. The earliest of the five types, the A - bomb, is now known to be possessed by at least five nations; at least twenty - five other nations have the potential to build them in the next few years.
But there is a possible sixth type. Earlier this year (l965 - R.A.H.) I attended a seminar at one of the nation's new think - factories. One of the questions discussed was whether or not a "Doomsday Bomb" could be built - a single weapon which would destroy all life of all sorts on this planet; one weapon, not an all - out nuclear holocaust involving hundreds of thousands of ICBMs. No, this was to be a world - wrecker of the sort Dr. E. E. Smith used to use in his interstellar sagas back in the days when SF magazines had bug - eyed monsters on the cover and were considered lowbrow, childish, fantastic.
The conclusions reached were: Could the Doomsday Machine be built? - yes, no question about it. What would it cost? - quite cheap.
A seventh type hardly seems necessary.
And that makes the grimness of "Solution Unsatisfactory" seem more like an Oz book in which the most harrowing adventures always turn out happily.
"Searchlight" is almost pure extrapolation, almost no speculation. The gadgets in it are either hardware on the shelf, or hardware which will soon be on the shelf because nothing is involved but straightforward engineering development. "Life - Line" (my first story) is its opposite, a story which is sheer speculation and either impossible or very highly improbable, as the What - If postulate will never be solved - I think. I hope. But the two stories are much alike in that neither depends on when it was written nor when it is read. Both are independent of any particular shape to history; they are timeless.
Free Men' is another timeless story. As told, it looks like another "after the blowup" story - but it is not. Although the place is nominally the United States and the time (as shown by the gadgetry) is set in the not - distant future, simply by changing names of persons and places and by inserting other weapons and other gadgets this story could be any country and any time in the past or future - or could even be on another planet and concern a non - human race. But the story does also apply here - and - now, so I told it that way.
"Pandora's Box" was the original title of an article researched and written in 1949 for publication in 1950, the end of the half - century. Inscrutable are the ways of editors: it appeared with the title "Where To?" and purported to be a nonfiction prophecy concerning the year 2000 A.D. as seen from 1950. (I agree that a science fiction writer should avoid marijuana, prophecy, and time payments - but I was tempted by a soft rustle.)
Our present editor (1965) decided to use this article, but suggested that it should be updated. Authors who wish to stay in the business listen most carefully to editors' suggestions, even when they think an editor has been out in the sun without a hat; I agreed.
And reread "Where To?" and discovered that our editor was undeniably correct; it needed updating. At least.
But at last I decided not to try to conceal my bloopers. Below is reproduced, unchanged, my predictions of fifteen years back. But here and there through the article I have inserted signs for footnotes - like this: (z) - and these will be found at the end of the 1950 article ... calling attention to bloopers and then forthrightly excusing myself by rationalizing how anyone, even Nostradamus, would have made the same mistake... hedging my bets in other cases, or chucking in brand - new predictions and carefully laying them farther in the future than I am likely to live