May reaches its conclusion, as does this observation of science fiction.

If characters are the steering wheel for a story, determining where it goes, then conflict is the engine, pushing everything forward. The engine cares not where it goes, continuing on regardless of direction (unless flying off a cliff or into a building), and it is up to the characters to decide what that direction is.

Science fiction presents unique opportunities for conflict, in both action scenes and grand scale. No other genre can have dogfights between spaceships blasting lasers at each other, or an army of robots out to annihilate humanity.

Lightsaber battles are always a joy, and the clash of people against machinery can be legendary, yet there is a common concept underlying many sci-fights:

The future of humanity.

At least, in reference to the grand scale conflicts usually at play in the genre.

It is fitting that the goal of science itself is the primary concern of science fiction. Discovery for the sake of knowledge and the betterment of people – and, in the case of the literature, the implications and application.

Sometimes, the future of humanity faces threats from the outside. Alien, Ender’s Game, Independence Day, and many other stories deal with extraterrestrials invading Earth to enslave or destroy its inhabitants. These works involve themes of imperialism, and the frightening possibilities that advanced technology bring to that.

Even with humans being the protagonists in those scenarios, it still brings up complex moral questions. If the roles were reversed, where earthlings had that technology and found other planets, humans would likely do the exact same thing. Since the inability to learn from history is a fairly common trait, the future could very much resemble the past, amplified by advancement.

And this leads into stories where the conflict is the doing of humans themselves. Clashes against AI like Terminator and The Matrix reveal that we could lead to our own undoing by creating the wrong technology at the wrong time, or without certain failsafes. Others like Star Wars (as the name implies) demonstrates people constantly cycling themselves in warfare, and weapons such as the Death Star echo the horror of the atomic bomb.

In other words, striving for a future by emulating the worst parts of the past puts the present in jeopardy. Progress is not inherently wrong, and should be encouraged on morality as much as knowledge. The latter without the former is arguably not progress at all.

And that is the heart of conflict in science fiction: simulating what could be, to guide us on what can go wrong. A sort of trial run, where we do not have to learn the negative possibilities the hard way.

The genre reaches this type of philosophy in ways that others cannot, because it creates these timelines and worlds where the ideas can be addressed. Historical fiction can show what worked from the past to bring us here, and is valuable as a result, a sort of journal on where we have been; yet sci-fi is like conflict itself, about the forward movement, and we the characters of reality steer where the future goes.

Life seldom grants second chances, so looking ahead through literature could be the next best thing.

What are some of your favorite conflicts in sci-fi? What philosophical questions from the genre have stuck with you over the years?

Note: all works and characters are the property of their respective owners. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, commentary, and or parody. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.