Of course, there can be too much focus on the human element in SF. Too much human element and too little science has actually been the trend for a long time. This is what Jonathan McCalmont called complacency within the genre. People become so focused on writing that sentimental story about a woman who lost her dog during Armageddon that they forget they let the science slide. They forget to consider how it is we got to Armageddon in the first place. This tendency to use a science fictional setting to tell a story that doesn’t really support the SF is a popular technique these days. It’s an easy way for the MFA writer with little grounding in or interest in science to be successful within the genre.

These stories often do point out impending disasters, for example, in the setting. This gives them a certain value, but pointing out that sea levels are rising, for example, without actually grappling with the problem does little to extrapolate the future. Sliding off into magical realism creates an artistic literary effect, but it does nothing to deal with the nitty-gritty of what life would be like and what adaptations would be necessary. This dependence on magical realism to carry the story drops it immediately to 1.0 on the TVTropes Mohs Scale of SF hardness. It might be a good story, but it’s not really science fiction.