Not at all true. You have all kinds of conflict in ridiculous fantasy stories, and often few really significant boundary conditions in many of them. Conversely, let’s say a story had no conflict. Would it be boring? Most people want to tell (and hear) stories about ‘good’ things. At least, that’s what people want to remember. And we know that it’s a human habit to forget ‘bad’ times in favor of ‘good’.

No, people want conflict because they’re genetically disposed to need to achieve things. (And because they’re saps.) Conversely, attainment is something one simply becomes, embodies, through some revelation. Nothing gained, yet one is ‘more’. Greater. And I think there are very interesting stories in transcendence.

“I think science teachers might disagree with that statement. There is certainly a minority of the American public that keeps current on scientific developments, but the tendency is to understand less and less the technology that underlies the tools the common man uses in his everyday life.”

Most people aren’t SF readers. Neither the article nor you are making this distinction.

I think science teachers might disagree with that statement. There is certainly a minority of the American public that keeps current on scientific developments, but the tendency is to understand less and less the technology that underlies the tools the common man uses in his everyday life.

When engineers design something new, they must work within the restrictions of physical items. When SF writers dream up a conflict for their characters to deal with, we generally expect them to stay within some bounds of “physical laws of reality.” If they stray far, we call it fantasy, or Celtic (and other) – derived myths, but there are still restrictions on characters’ actions. If all the “rules” could be ignored, there would be no conflict, and what’s the story in that?

So keep on digging, dear writers. Sticking to physical laws is great, but I want a good story at least as much.