A New World, The Same Old Human

Looking at today’s world through the eyes of H. G. Wells’, without a time machine

It has become something of a tradition for me to commemorate Herbert George Wells on the anniversary of his death. I greatly enjoy reading his works and have devoured his short stories. Today marks exactly eighty years since he passed away on 13 August 1946. The most enjoyable aspect has been viewing the same author from a different perspective each year. In the first year, I discussed his place in literature. The following year, I considered literary transformation on a personal level. Last year, I reflected on his approach to imagining the future. This time, however, I was struck by a different question, which I had never asked of any other writer before: if Wells were alive today, what would he write about?

This question is of particular interest to me as a writer. I often reflect on how I choose the stories I’m going to write. I question the things that lead me to pursue or abandon an idea. I gather what I have, look through my old notes, and conduct some random research. But I’d never considered this from the perspective of older writers before. I don’t mean to ask, “How did they do it?” What I’m really curious about is what they would do if they were alive today.

I also find it meaningful to consider this question through the lens of Wells. After all, I don't see him as a writer who imagines the future through inventions. In his works of fiction from over a century ago, he presents a scientific possibility and leaves it for others to explore. He then observes how class, power, fear, curiosity and humanity’s tendency to view itself as superior would respond to that possibility. Therefore, pondering what he would write today means considering which issues he would address rather than speculating about new technologies he might be aware of. This is precisely why asking this question through his lens is so important.

---

The first answer that springs to mind is, of course, future technologies. Examples include artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, the climate crisis and space travel. However, it would be a mistake to think of Wells merely as a writer who sought to predict such technologies. What makes his works truly fascinating is not so much the inventions themselves, but rather what they will do to humanity and society.

This is why I believe artificial intelligence is a topic that would have fascinated Wells if he were alive today. He probably wouldn't have asked, “How far will artificial intelligence develop?” Instead, he would have wondered into whose hands this new power would fall and what effect it would have on social inequalities.

Traces of this can already be seen in “The Time Machine”. In the novel's distant future, humanity has split into two distinct groups: the Eloi and the Morlocks. At first glance, this division appears to be merely evolutionary, but beneath it lies a class divide. The former privileged and working classes have become so estranged from one another that they have diverged biologically. Rather than asking “What might humans look like in the future?”, Wells asks “What might we become if today’s inequalities persist for long enough?”

Looking ahead to 2026, it seems entirely plausible to me that a similar question might be framed in terms of artificial intelligence. Will this technology provide the same opportunities for everyone, or will it widen the gap between those who develop, manage and make the best use of it, and everyone else? Could one group use artificial intelligence to enhance their own capacity for thought and creativity, while another group becomes subject to its decisions? Wells would likely have been interested in just how “intelligent” artificial intelligence is and how it might affect society.

Another key issue would undoubtedly be knowledge.

Wells, who advocated a common world order to govern nations, also expressed these political views in his non-fiction writing. (In my opinion, this is illogical, but that is beside the point.)This idea of collaboration extended beyond politics to encompass knowledge. In the later years of his life, he focused on the idea that all human knowledge could be brought together in a single system, which he referred to as the “World Brain”. Today, we are closer than ever to realising his vision. We can access the knowledge produced by humanity in a matter of seconds. However, we can also access misinformation, manipulation and alternative realities at the same speed.

Consequently, Wells might have asked a simple yet unsettling question: “Has having access to all this knowledge made us any wiser?” This question aligns with another recurring theme in his works. For him, knowledge is rarely innocent. It brings with it power, and the character of the person wielding that power becomes crucial.

In “The Invisible Man”, the scientist’s discovery is a prime example of this. Invisibility is an extraordinary scientific achievement. However, in his novel, Wells does not merely recount how this achievement was attained. The scientist believes that, once invisible, he can also become invisible to society's rules. The scientific achievement quickly turns into a desire for power. Thus, the notion that “knowledge is power” becomes distorted in his hands.

In today's world, owning information or algorithms can give tech barons hidden power over society. Most of the systems that determine what we see, read and encounter — and even the thoughts that come to mind — are not directly visible to us. Even if we were aware of these systems, we would often be unable to intervene directly. In such a world, it would hardly be surprising if Wells were to write about an invisible system rather than an invisible man.

War technologies would probably not have escaped his attention either.

Wells’ interest in war is, of course, not limited to “The War of the Worlds” and “The War in the Air”. In his works, he considered how technology could transform warfare. In The War of the Worlds, for example, we encounter new forms of Martian warfare technology, such as the “heat ray”. However, we become the first guinea pigs for these weapons. Innovation and progress are not always positive. What is truly striking here is that Wells does not merely present technological innovation as an awe-inspiring development; he shows that such progress can also turn against humanity.

If he were alive today, I doubt he would simply wonder “what future wars will be like” in the face of autonomous weapons, unmanned combat vehicles, cyber-attacks and artificial intelligence–supported military systems. He would probably ask what will happen when the speed of decision-making in war surpasses human capabilities. When attacks are assessed and countered by algorithms in seconds, will there be time for humans to think, change their minds or realise they have made a mistake?

Photo by Tan Kaninthanond on Unsplash

In other words, I suspect that Wells would choose topics that are more closely related to the underlying issues of a subject than to the subject itself. Moreover, these topics would be inferences drawn from his views on scientific, social, and political issues rather than random “what-ifs”.

When I consider the novels of this author, who shaped modern science fiction and died eighty years ago, one question strikes me as underlying them all: Does the fact that we are capable of doing something mean that we ought to do it? It would also be incorrect to assume that Wells would approach this subject solely with fear. After all, he was influenced by the scientific and social ideas of his era and sometimes placed considerable faith in the notion that humanity could be consciously developed. Consequently, I believe that, were he alive today, he would be fascinated by genetic technologies — consider “The Island of Doctor Moreau” — and curious about the new human species they might create.

---

For all the reasons I have mentioned, I don't think Wells would opt for a single theme if he were alive today. In fact, he didn't usually do so in his earlier works either.

In The Time Machine, for example, class division and evolution are explored side by side, reflecting his socialist ideology. While The Invisible Man focuses on invisibility, it also brings together scientific discovery, the desire for power, and social responsibility. Similarly, The Island of Doctor Moreau is not just about biological experiments: science, ethics and humanity's desire to dominate nature are all intertwined.

I believe that Wells’ true distinctive quality lies precisely here. Rather than merely contemplating future technology, he pitted it against one of humanity's pre-existing weaknesses: human nature, which has remained largely unchanged for centuries. A new scientific power confronts an age-old human problem.

Were he alive today, he might have written about artificial intelligence, but he would also have considered its potential impact on class divisions. He might have addressed genetic engineering, but he would also have questioned humanity's desire to perfect itself. He might have described the information age, but he would have questioned how people could experience such vastly different realities despite having access to the same information. He might have written about warfare technologies, but he would have focused on whether the political and moral framework governing them was adequate.

The more I thought about it, the more I realised that the most accurate answer to the question of what Wells might write about today is not to name a single theme or subject. The future he envisages is never solely made up of new machines. No matter how fantastical the world he creates becomes, or how much it is shaped by a scientific hypothesis, it always comes full circle and returns to the essence of humanity.