Quote:
Originally Posted by unclejack  I gotta dissagree with you there. Even though I did like science a little bit as a kid it wasn't really that big of an interest to me. And my interest in science fiction has only really been in the last couple years. |
The original question was whether SF you were exposed to when young encouraged your interest in science and SF when older. So, in your case, the answer would be: No.
A great many scientists and engineers today attribute their interest in their fields in watching programs like the original
Star Trek when they were young.
Trek back then was about the positive possibilities of the future. But recent
Trek, and other series, tend to be about ongoing wars and global catastrophes. Today most scientists, scientific institutions, and governments, are painted in a bad light (in order, foolish, greedy, and corrupt). The occasional maverick scientist that saves the day is the rare exception today, not the rule, and other than getting the significant other at the end, they rarely get anything else.
Put 2 and 2 together:
Positive SF = lots of scientists and engineers.
Negative SF = 5% scientists and engineers coming out of school.
So I daresay that if SF doesn't get more positive about the likelihood that we can make the future better, we can expect to see fewer scientists and engineers in the U.S. in the future. I emphasize that I am talking about the U.S., since other countries have other methods at their disposal to encourage more participation in science and engineering, and are not as dependent on popular media to encourage (or discourage) our youth.