Science Fiction Vs. Fantasy

A fascinating debate on the imminent demise of Western Civilization via the rise of fantasy over science fiction is underway here between Greg Benford and Darrell Schweitzer. The most interesting aspect of this debate to me is the question of whether a society-wide preference for fantasy (which they more or less define as backward looking) over science fiction (defined as forward looking) signals a willful retreat from the moral consequences of the world we are creating through technology. Or put simply: does the success of Harry Potter mean we want our fancy gadgets but we want wizards and fairies to save us from their consequences?Being an opinionated gal, you'd think I'd weigh in on the topic, but I'm somewhat ashamed to say I have not read enough fantasy to have a meaningful opinion. I mean, I tried to read the first Harry Potter book but I just couldn't bring myself to care. I also just finished The Lovely Bones, which I consider fantasy, and found myself really pissed off that it turned out to be nothing more than a tearful defense of the old "they're not really dead, they're floating around in the back yard" trope. Many consider Kelly Link's writing fantasy. If so, count me a fan.I do think the rise of scientific illiteracy must have something to do with SF's demise. Most people think they don't like SF because they think they don't like science.John Scalzi has picked up the ball and run with it on his Whatever blog, asking readers to nominate gateway SF novels for people who think they don't like SF.My nominees are:Anything by Dan Simmons, but especially the Hyperion SeriesAnything by William Gibson, but especially Pattern Recognitionand for the slightly more intellectually adventurous: Natural History by Justina Robson