When humanity advances to exponential levels, the focus would shift entirely on spirituality. That's why, a science fiction story inadvertently has philosophy in profusion. Needy prosperous, lacking rich, and defeated successful characters spawn inadvertently. Their contrasting qualities give rise to moral dilemmas. That's precisely why I write cerebral sci-fi romance using the love triangle trope.
My stories probe how we want order without compromising our freedom to do whatever we want. Demand safety without being vulnerable when having fun. Most of us feel entitled to these contrasting conditions on the sole fact that we're civilized.
And yet, romance readers crave primitive sexual innuendos.
Don't go knocking at the moral police's door yet.
Love triangle in my stories is not about adultery but about our internal struggle with right and wrong. The number one existential dilemma I explore is - The Moral Conflict vs. Personal Autonomy. To draw a parallel with today's world let's take our job or relationship. The choice between moral duty to provide security against craving personal autonomy to pursue your passion is real. And that gives an angsty angle to my story.
In a futuristic setting, neural implants, genetic compatibility algorithms, or isolation factors could dictate our choices. Even in today's world, not many get to be with who they want to be with. For others who find their soulmate, it is a trial and error and or a matter of luck. There are still families rooting for arranged marriage focusing on collective benefit of the family, both financially and genetically, rather than entertaining the idea of love that fades with time anyway.
Picture this:
Partner A (who is a hero and a follower) represents stability, survival, social harmony, calculated logic. They play an engineered entity, or a high-ranking officer in an authoritarian regime, or an unyielding AI (SI!). Loving them means safety and structure, but sacrificing free will and accepting organized governance. Then there is Partner B (who is an outlaw. A rebel) represents barbaric individualism, unpredictable passion, and unfiltered truth. They are a rogue android, an outcast living outside the alien society. Loving them means authenticity and liberty, but at the risk of devastation, instability, and moral ambiguity.
In both of these scenarios the protagonist risks their position in society while struggling with right or wrong choices. However, during meager civil issues, our caveman persona leaps out in no time. So... Is it "right" to prioritize collective peace to advance as a species, or is it a moral failure to live in a laundered and controlled reality?
This moral conundrum marvels at the moral dilemma. Anyone loves themselves first. And so, these scenarios make simple choices a love triangle in itself.
Come on now, this trope doesn't always have to have a romantic angle. Don't worry, my books do.
Second difficult choice in my stories is - Rational Duty vs. Raw Empathy. Nothing exploits the classic predicament between the "greater good" versus "individual life" better than Utilitarianism and Deontology approaches.
Utilitarianism focuses on maximum benefits for maximum individuals. Whereas Deontology is purely rule based and doesn't consider what kind of a person you innately might be.
Readers and movie enthusiasts fall in love with characters. They also look for the protagonist's end goal that's usually for the greater good. Because of this, a sci-fi romance narrative stands a great chance of success by pairing rational duty with raw empathy and creating an angsty ambiance.
Picture this:
One partner represents cold utilitarian necessity, making ruthless, pragmatic decisions for species survival, as in resource allocation, or colony preservation. The other partner represents radical empathy, insisting that if we sacrifice compassion or let even one individual suffer, our survival loses its moral justification. This begs the question - Does righteousness require difficult, unemotional compromises, or does compromising empathy mean we have already lost our moral compass? Movies like Ad Astra, The Matrix, The Blade Runner delve into such virtuous dilemmas - what's the best possible course of action?
I depict this with a romantic love triangle that operates on the same underlying principles - what or who to choose.
Next big predicament in a sci-fi narrative is Synthetic Perfection vs. Flawed Mortality.
These two model the tension between pursuing an idealized, harm-free existence and accepting suffering as an intrinsic part of human growth. It is evident that technology is never going to solve human problems and yet we strive to progress. Is that not vain?
Picture this:
The Engineered / Synthetic Option: Offers harmony, emotional safety, and an escape from pain or grief with digital immortality. The Human / Imperfect Option: Brings vulnerability, unpredictable conflict, and the constant risk of heartbreak with guaranteed death. The existential dilemma in this scenario queries if choosing "emotional satisfaction" a moral decline. and if enduring emotional vulnerability the only way to remain genuinely alive.
I have explored Synthetic Perfection vs. Flawed Mortality in my book 'Yama Echo Maya' that is set millions of years in future.
As a cerebral sci-fi romance author, I structure my narrative to reveal the following:
- The protagonist’s real struggle is the realization that neither extreme is purely "good" or "evil". And that every moral path demands a sacrifice. One can never keep both sides happy - untethered and tamed.
- There is no Free Will but an idea of the, much like freedom.
- Make speculative conditions challenge whether our moral and romantic choices are ever truly our own.
Most readers don't like to mix sci-fi with romance, deeming it as distraction. From both the sci-fi and romance angles! Trust me, I get that. Still, give this mix of genre a try and find for yourself if it suits your fancy.