--- title: Highly Illogical: What Sci-Fi Writers Get Wrong About the Future description: Tyrannical—and technologically savvy—empires star in most science fiction stories. But economic history shows us that future isn't likely. canonical: https://time.com/3731977/science-fiction-future-wrong/ author: David Berri article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2015-03-04T20:57:48.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-22T04:54:41.173Z article:section: Ideas og:title: What Sci-Fi Writers Get Wrong About the Future og:description: Tyrannical, technologically savvy empires star in most science fiction stories. og:url: https://time.com/3731977/science-fiction-future-wrong/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 675 og:image:alt: TIME og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: What Sci-Fi Writers Get Wrong About the Future twitter:description: Tyrannical, technologically savvy empires star in most science fiction stories. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production --- # Highly Illogical: What Sci-Fi Writers Get Wrong About the Future > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=bf089b10-7c9e-41e8-bf7c-a16885663704&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Subscribers | 430,000 | TIME, August 2026 | | Open rate | 50.7% | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=bf089b10-7c9e-41e8-bf7c-a16885663704&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=bf089b10-7c9e-41e8-bf7c-a16885663704&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. It reaches 430,000 subscribers with a 50.7% open rate as of August 2026. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent.  by [David Berri](https://time.com/author/david-berri/)  ## David Berri Mar 4, 2015 8:57 PM UTC  by [David Berri](https://time.com/author/david-berri/)  ## David Berri Mar 4, 2015 8:57 PM UTC Why do some countries grow while others seem to stagnate? In [_Why Nations Fail_](http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=tmm%5Fpap%5Ftitle%5F0?ie=UTF8&qid=1425413830&sr=8-1)_,_ economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue that economic growth is driven by a nation’s institutions. For much of human history, societies were organized around extractive institutions, where one group in a society (typically led by kings, queens, emperors, or empresses) extracted resources from the other groups. In such a society, technological change is not only not encouraged; it is actively discouraged (as carefully detailed by Acemoglu and Robinson) since change threatens the power of the elites. And without technological change, economic growth historically is not observed. In fact, economists believe, until the past few centuries, economic growth for almost all of human history was zero. The alternative to extractive institutions is to organize society around inclusive institutions. Such an approach encourages technological innovation, since technology allows individuals to better their own circumstances. It is these changes that lead to the economic growth we have seen in much of the Western world across the past few centuries. So the basic story is simple: 1. Extractive institutions do not encourage technological change and do not lead to economic growth. 2. Inclusive institutions encourage technological change and therefore lead to the economic growth we have seen only recently in human history. This helps us understand why nations have failed or succeeded in the past. But what about the future? Discussions of the future are often found in science fiction, and many of these stories envision a future dominated by empires. Consider _Star Wars_, perhaps the most popular science fiction movie franchise. The essential conflict in these movies is between a rebel alliance and a vast galactic empire. More serious fans of science fiction are probably drawn to the works of Isaac Asimov or Frank Herbert. In his [Foundation series](https://www.goodreads.com/series/43939-foundation-chronological-order), Asimov describes an empire that has lasted for 12,000 years. Herbert’s classic [_Dune_](http://www.amazon.com/Dune-40th-Anniversary-Edition-Chronicles/dp/0441013597/ref=tmm%5Fpap%5Ftitle%5F0?ie=UTF8&qid=1425488038&sr=8-1) also envisions an empire, and, through the book’s basic conflict, we see what generally happens when extractive institutions dominate a society. In the story, one aristocratic family battles another for the right to rule and extract resources from the planet Dune. The outcome of the battle topples the empire. Readers of _Why Nations Fail_, though, would have to ask: How could the future be dominated by an “empire”? Empires are generally based on extractive institutions; with significant resources generated by members of the society being claimed by the Emperor/Empress and his/her allies (this is explicit in Herbert’s _Dune_). But, such societies would not generally promote the technological change necessary to settle and connect millions of planets. Perhaps the basic economics behind the stories told in many works of science fiction isn’t quite right. Given the story told in _Why Nations Fail_, one would suspect that a society built around inclusive institutions would advance farther than one that failed to employ such institutions. Yet, in another classic science fiction series – _Star Trek –_ it is not clear this outcome is seen. For example, the Federation’s society appears to be inclusive. But their adversaries – the Klingons and Romulans – do not appear to have inclusive societies. Nevertheless, the Klingons and Romulans seem to have a level of technology that is quite comparable to the Federation. In fact, in some ways it appears these societies – apparently based on extractive institutions – have technology that surpasses what is seen in the Federation. All of this contradicts what we see when we look back at human history. [Economist Robert Fogel captured in one graph how technology has only suddenly begun to change at a rapid rate.](https://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/human-history-in-one-picture-the-nib-ideology-part-4/) As Fogel notes, for centuries people made no advances with respect to simple devices like a plow. But since 1900, we have gone from the invention of a basic plane developed by the Wright brothers to landing on the moon. Or – in more recent news – [the iPhone many people enjoy today would have cost $3.6 million with the technology available just 20 years ago.](http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/an-iphone-would-have-cost-36-million-two-decades-ago/) Such rapid technological change comes about when you change people’s incentives. The plow didn’t change for centuries because no one had an incentive to develop a better plow. Likewise, we keep getting updated iPhones because someone has a clear incentive to keep working to make this product better. A world dominated by extractive institutions is not likely to give you a new iPhone. And likewise, it is not likely to develop the technology necessary to colonize millions of planets in space. So next time you read a science fiction story that takes this approach, ask yourself how that space-faring race ever got into space with institutions that fail to reward technological change. In other words, although the story of a “space-faring empire” can be entertaining, it seems unlikely that the future is going to be dominated by any empires at all. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/3731977/science-fiction-future-wrong/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/3731977/science-fiction-future-wrong/"},"headline":"Highly Illogical: What Sci-Fi Writers Get Wrong About the Future","datePublished":"2015-03-04T20:57:48.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-22T04:54:41.173Z","description":"Tyrannical—and technologically savvy—empires star in science fiction. But rest assured, the future is likely more democratic.","url":"https://time.com/3731977/science-fiction-future-wrong/","keywords":["Culture"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"David Berri","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/david-berri/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/culture/","name":"Culture"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/3731977/science-fiction-future-wrong/","name":"Highly Illogical: What Sci-Fi Writers Get Wrong About the Future"}}]}] ```