Oksana Ostanina is a Russian science fiction author, known for her novel «The Source of Power» as well as numerous publications in magazines and anthologies of modern science fiction. In 2026, she became a laureate of the «Peresvet» Award for best patriotic science fiction (in the «Manuscripts» category), which confirms her sustained interest in socially significant and bright scenarios of the future. A participant in conventions such as «RosCon» and other fan events, she uses the genre to talk about choices, values, and the role of humans in the age of technology. We spoke with her about how, today, right now, we can construct the future in a positive way.
— Oksana, you talk about constructing the future almost like a wish marathon. How do you see this practice in everyday life?
Constructing the future for me, on one hand, is a practical tool, somewhat similar, perhaps, to wish marathons. When you verbalize the goals you would like to achieve and seek ways to solve the set tasks, gradually moving toward fulfilling your desire. And on the other hand, you see these paths by changing your perspective and tell others: this is how it could be, based on the achievements available at the moment.
Science fiction works here as a catalyst: it lifts you above the situation and allows you to see problems from a height—as if you take that very «shovel» into space to dig a hole at the entrance. From space, you can see our city, our home, and our everyday life. This allows us to talk about complex things in accessible language, without scientific terms, and help the reader look differently at what seems mundane.
— In 10 years, artificial intelligence and robots will greatly change our lives. What technologies, in your opinion, will become leaders, and are there threats in this?
In 10 years, I think artificial intelligence will still occupy the niche of a practical tool. People will have played around with it and realized both its pros and cons. AI will become a means of production, just like machines or computers once were. Humanity has already experienced technical revolutions and survived. Professions will change—that is inevitable, but it is not an end, but a transformation.
Robots will most likely replace part of the routine, and humans will engage in what requires taste, conscience, and creativity. Or we will develop, maintain, and improve them, gaining a new professional niche. The main danger of progress is not in the machines themselves, but in how we treat resources: endless consumption, endless shopping, littering the planet with waste, things that have not yet exhausted their resource but are already thrown away because «we need to keep up with fashion.»
Then we risk either living a «dirtier» future or completely «burning out» at a new level of things. But there is also a positive way out: great respect and gratitude to people who keep the planet clean, try to use things to the end, choose eco-friendly solutions, and do not throw away life at the first thing they get tired of. I believe that such decisions are the path to a brighter tomorrow.
— You talk about the self-destruction of humanity and the loss of spirituality. What risks do you see in the age of AI, and can a person preserve their uniqueness?
I think the main danger of progress is the self-destruction of humanity or the loss of spirituality, which is essentially equivalent to self-destruction. This is not about the «well-known» biblical metaphor literally, but about the loss of landmarks, values, the abandonment of goal-setting in favor of endless consumption and pleasures. This could play a cruel joke and lead us to simply «burn out» as a civilization.
Artificial intelligence, in my opinion, will not destroy humans but will move into the category of practical tools, occupying its clear niche. Humanity will continue along the path of its development, and one of the paths is a new flourishing, if we maintain direction, responsibility, and the ability to set goals for ourselves. It depends on us which way we will swing.
Any tool, whether a knife, AI, or genetic engineering, can be used for good or harm. There are already news stories about being able to «cut» genes in humans and choose something—but it seems to me that this is a path to nowhere, because the diversity of nature is the guarantee of sustainability. Interference at such a fundamental level, when we do not yet fully understand the laws of nature, threatens precisely self-destruction.
— How do you see the future of humanity in the coming decades and centuries? What paths of preparation are different categories of people aware of now?
Today, in my opinion, we have to prepare for the same thing we have been preparing for 50 years. Those who will have the opportunity will most likely build bunkers. Others, who are able, will be engaged in preserving the diversity of planet Earth—through seed preservation, perhaps DNA of various animals, through maintaining biological and cultural diversity. This is also a kind of «bunker»—not only for people but for all living things.
And we, ordinary people, can and should honor the values left to us by our parents. These are, of course, family, care for one’s neighbor, ecology, and humanism above all. These things, yes, they seem banal, «hackneyed,» repeatedly voiced and chewed over, but they are still as relevant as yesterday. Strangely enough, it is precisely in difficult times that these simple principles become the main support.
If we do not follow the artificial obscurantism being imposed on our consciousness, humanity will be able to survive in 100 years and in 200. Otherwise, everything could indeed lead to the destruction not only of humanity as a species but also of the planet as a whole. I don’t think that even 100 years ago there existed weapons like those today. And the destructive wars that have already happened could have killed millions of people from hunger, cold, and drought. But if a nuclear war starts now, we won’t get off with just Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the consequences will be global. And most likely, we won’t have time to simply fly to another planet to escape what we ourselves have created.
Therefore, I believe: the future worth preparing for is not just a technological bunker, but an internal, human one: family, love, ethics, respect. These «simple» things are our main resource, which we can pass on to our children and grandchildren.
— Do you think the development of AI and genetic engineering should be controlled, and who should be responsible for it?
If clear legislative norms are written, and people adhere to moral norms, then there will be no problems with AI as an engineering tool. The technology itself is neutral—it’s all about how we apply it.
For a bright future, each of us today can approach our decisions thoughtfully. Not rely entirely on artificial intelligence, but still have our own knowledge base, our own inner support. Our generation probably will not face the most acute crises in this area, but it is we who must monitor how our children and grandchildren grow up, and how the legislation that will regulate this area develops.
Each of us today can produce less waste, think about: what did I buy, is it necessary, and how will it affect the environment? As banal as it sounds, I have already said this: each of us today can think about how our behavior today will affect tomorrow. It is from such small actions that our further future is built.
If we treat technologies as tools, not masters, if we remember the balance between consumption and responsibility, between pleasure and meaning-making, the future can be bright and humane. I hope that humans will preserve their uniqueness in the age of AI, because it is humans who set goals, values, and meaning—while the machine only helps realize them.
— What mission do you see for a science fiction writer in such an era?
For me, writing is primarily an opportunity to talk about what worries not only me but also my surroundings, about what there is a social demand for. About those problems that perhaps cannot be spoken about openly directly now, but can be spoken about allegorically. This applies to politics, social conflicts, and even everyday issues. Writing allows one to rise above the situation and talk about it in accessible language, without using scientific terms. We can talk about complex things on a daily level. It’s interesting to show what seems banal and help the reader look at the situation from a different side, from a different angle, and see solutions that seem to lie on the surface.
And in this lies the mission of a writer. I will not talk now about those who write solely for entertainment. That is also important—but if entertainment is combined with an aftertaste, when we read a work, mouth open, fully experiencing what is happening together with the characters, and then, after closing the book or now already a page online, we reflect and put ourselves in the character’s place—for me, that is already a real book.
«Even if labels pop up in your head: right, wrong. The main thing is that after reading there remains an aftertaste of reflection, questions to yourself and to the world.»
To young science fiction writers, I would say that perhaps the main thing is to treat science fiction precisely as a tool for forecasting the future, for experimental models, not just as a fairy tale. Fairy tales are beautiful for their inner potential: they preserve the past, convey experience, and influence the level of archetypes. But science fiction, relying on the same experience, forces us to look three steps ahead. Therefore, a science fiction writer must know history, technology, and the humanities. Only then can they truly achieve something new, point the way for our scientists, lift the veil of the future, at least a little, from the corner of an eye, look at it and tell about it, give ideas and support to those who live here and now.
And another task, perhaps one of the main tasks of science fiction writers, is to see the light even in the darkest times. Not to fixate on horror and destruction, but to show the path to this light, to how humanity can emerge from a crisis, preserving itself and the planet. I believe that it is precisely this kind of science fiction—future-oriented, responsible, and optimistic—that is the main tool for constructing a future in which humans remain the center of everything, not a decoration for technology.
Photo provided by O. Ostanina
Comments (0)