Can science-fiction still predict the future? Steve Rogerson went to Seattle to find out.

Have you heard of Miles Breuer? I must admit I hadn’t until I attended a panel at last week’s World Science Fiction Convention in Seattle that looked back at the life of the Czech-American science-fiction writer who was possibly the first to predict the use of autonomous vehicles, back in 1924.

The Czech-language story was published two years later in English under the title “The Superior Race”. He later, in 1930, expanded it to a novel called “Paradise and Iron”. This was a grim story that predicted a future society run by robots and what we now call artificial intelligence, and is an idea that has been taken up by many writers and film makers since.

In the story, a Texan millionaire and inventor built a car that automatically supplied itself with fuel, oil and water, and could avoid obstacles and even carry out entire journeys doing away with “the necessity of a chauffeur”. Later , he built a truck that not only carried freight but also loaded and unloaded the goods. His self-driving cars had no steering wheels or gear levers.

Breuer has become the subject of discussion due to this year’s publication of a biography by Jaroslav Olša Junior called “Dreaming of Autonomous Vehicles” that charts the writer’s life, and of which I now own a copy. I have ordered a copy of “Paradise and Iron”, and I may let you know what I think in a future blog.

Such vision is in many ways what science fiction is for, but it is also a useful tool for reflecting on society today. I feel though that the fast-moving pace of modern technology can leave some authors stranded as real life outpaces them. This was notable in a few panels at the convention, including one on the opening day looking at writing about future cities and how they are portrayed in science fiction.

Panellists were quite critical about how such visions often assume a lack of elderly or people with disabilities, and how these cities are often modern throughout, whereas the reality of people building current smart cities is about adapting existing architectures, some of which dates back centuries, to a modern world while still preserving what makes the city beautiful. As author and historian Ada Palmer pointed out, in thirty years, 95% of the buildings in a city will already exist today.

As an aside, Ada also said modern technologies could create new disabilities. A good example is touchscreens. These just don’t work for some people, but not being able to use a touchscreen was never a disability until recent years when their use became far more widespread.

In a sperate panel on self-driving cars, a quick show-of-hands survey found about a fifth of the audience had been in one, and that included me. However, the common myth that self-driving cars always seem to be ten years away, and have been for more than thirty years, still holds true for most people.

At least some of the safety concerns seem to be fading. Engineer and scientist Jill Engel-Cox said she had a friend who felt safer in a self-driving Waymo than she did in an Uber. “She was happier being in a car without a driver,” said Jill.

I travelled in quite a few Ubers while in Seattle and I can well understand why she wouldn’t feel safe in one.

Seattle-based author and editor Elsa Sjunneson said human drivers were bad drivers but were good at processing things that were new, something self-driving cars were not good at, yet. She said she didn’t believe there would be a world in which transportation would cause zero fatalities, describing that as “an unfair bar” for self-driving cars.

So what about trains? As this was in the USA, which isn’t really big on trains when it comes to public transport, I was expecting a separate panel on this subject to be rather dismissive, but was pleasantly surprised to find the panellists and, judging by a spontaneous moment of applause, the audience to be frustrated, angry – pick a word – at the US attitude to trains. As technologist Ric Bretschneider said: “London and Germany make us look stupid.” These were examples of places he’d visited where when governments said something was going to happen, it happened. This, he said, was partly because in most of Europe the railway infrastructures were owned by the government whereas in the USA the infrastructure was owned by the railway companies.

He said he believed it should be made harder to drive in the USA. “You have to make it so it is not faster to take the car for a twenty-minute drive to work,” he said. And author Alex Kingsley said science-fiction writers had a duty to promote trains to help change public opinion.

I am not sure duty is the right word but I can see what they mean. I can also see the challenge in predicting a future when we are in such unpredictable times. And I am glad the science-fiction writers of today are discussing this because I am sure out there someone is today’s Miles Breuer, penning the novel that future generation will look back on with awe.