Most Minimalist Science Fiction

[General Mung Beans]

Although pretty much most science fiction seems to be minimalist in some ways, what is the most minimalist?

I would have to say Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is the most minimalist one I've come across. Trantor, a planet-spanning city is said to have only forty billion people and it is mentioned that less than ten ships of the line were needed by Cleon II's father to conquer much of the Galaxy from his predecessor.

[Iosef Cross]

At the time that the foundation series were written the world had only 2.4 billion people and there were sci fi settings were the world had incredible 5 billion people (with most trying not to starve).

A population of 40 billion was the 500 trillion of nowadays.

[Iosef Cross]

The Planet of the Apes movie series were a bit minimalistic, considering that the clash of a few dozen monkeys with some mutants in the ruins of a cathedral in new york caused the end of the world in the second movie.

[Tsyroc]

The Planet of the Apes movie series were a bit minimalistic, considering that the clash of a few dozen monkeys with some mutants in the ruins of a cathedral in new york caused the end of the world in the second movie.

I thought that was because the Cobalt Bomb was so powerful it blew up the Earth?

[Samuel]

This is an inherently vague topic. Does a planet with only a single person left alive count as "most minimalistic"

[Junghalli]

I would have to say Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is the most minimalist one I've come across. Trantor, a planet-spanning city is said to have only forty billion people and it is mentioned that less than ten ships of the line were needed by Cleon II's father to conquer much of the Galaxy from his predecessor.

On the other hand the Galactic Empire encompasses 25 million worlds, which is pretty impressive.

[Zor]

Battletech.

Hundreds of planets with populations ranging from the millions to the billions are conquered by a force of several of the clans, which have in total less total fighting men than what the US has deployed in Iraq and replaces them very slowly.

Zor

[NDR-113]

I would have to say Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is the most minimalist one I've come across. Trantor, a planet-spanning city is said to have only forty billion people and it is mentioned that less than ten ships of the line were needed by Cleon II's father to conquer much of the Galaxy from his predecessor.

I'm not sure what you mean by "minimalist," but if you're talking minimalist technology, then the Foundation series is a good one. Generally in those books technological warfare is trumped by the use of trade, superstition, mutant mental power (in the Mule's case), political machinations (in Bel Riose's case), or even differences in confidence and weakness of attack (in Stettin's case). It doesn't matter how many ships the enemy has, it is inevitable that the Foundation wins.
I'm also rather fond (as my username suggests) of Asimov's robot novels and short stories. All of Asimov's work is fairly "minimalist" in that he focuses more on psychology than on technology. He presents possible technological advances, like robots, and does it plausibly (I think), but what he is really dealing with is the reactions of humans to technology. You see it over and over again in his short stories.

[General Mung Beans]

This is an inherently vague topic. Does a planet with only a single person left alive count as "most minimalistic"

It depends on the scale of the setting. So a post-apocalyptic world with one person alive wouldn't count.

[avianmosquito]

Battletech.

Hundreds of planets with populations ranging from the millions to the billions are conquered by a force of several of the clans, which have in total less total fighting men than what the US has deployed in Iraq and replaces them very slowly.

Zor

I second that, just their low total population is enough to convince me of that.

[Sinewmire]

The topic name alone has blown my mind. Most minimalistic?

Highlander, I suppose. Does that count? We never learn anything about how the Immortals come to be, or why they work like that. They just are.

Because the sequels never happened.

-edit-

Wow, I used a lot of Italics.

[jamsy42]

I wouldn't say 40 billion people is minimalist. I mean a colony in another star system starts with say 2000 people to start with I think it would take a very long time to even reach the billion mark.

[Isolder74]

What about Back to the Future?

[Shroom Man 777]

I'll second the Foundation stories. Not for the "minimalism" of technology, because the details were very sparse and I'm sure there are way more minimalist sci-fi stories out there when it comes to numbers. But precisely because of the Foundation stories' sparse details, I'd say it's one of the most minimalistic in terms of prose. Isaac Asimov's descriptions were very minimal, yet he was able to convey a very effective series of stories.

[Temujin]

Edit: I apologize as in retrospect I realized that this idea got a bit away from me and the OP, but I'm posting it nonetheless.

At the time that the foundation series were written the world had only 2.4 billion people and there were sci fi settings were the world had incredible 5 billion people (with most trying not to starve).

A population of 40 billion was the 500 trillion of nowadays.

The problem with that approach (and sadly that is what most authors and script writers do); is that it assumes humans, human culture, and human populations are going to continue to behave as and resemble what they do now; i.e., people continuing to live about the same length of time, have x number of babies at the same period of their life, etc. Just expanding it to its logical Malthusian end.

We are currently on the verge of many potential major medical and technological advances that combined could in theory radically extend human life. Now if we see a radical extension of human life coupled with some sort of reverse aging / regenerative treatment (not to mention more transhumanistic elements), combined with radical decreases in the need for cheap human labor do to advances and expansions in the development and use of robots and other forms of automation (from dumb to AI), then human life and culture as we know it is going to radically change.

One only need look at the differences in developed nations compared to undeveloped ones (or requisite historical examples). The average life expectancy is different, the birth and death rates are different, etc. All from a relatively modest development and application of science and technology. Now factor in some truly radical developments and much as life as we know it will be radically altered if not disappear entirely.

Of course people will argue that the average reader/watcher won't be able to relate and thus get into it, but I believe that a proper writer could pull it off. Certain things would have to be altered, some things could be altered in a minor way and kept up as a kind of nostalgic following, while other elements of the human condition would remain steady. Its just a question of consistency.

So I guess what I'm getting at is you don't necessarily need to have worlds stuffed full of people; just make sure the background of the story reasonably supports what you do write.

[Patrick Degan]

If you want minimalism showcased, the SF episodes of The Twilight Zone certainly all qualify in spades: particularly episodes like "Death Ship", "Elegy", and "The Lonely".

[Gramzamber]

What about Back to the Future?

I'd say that's more simplistic than minimalist. Sure just one scientist invents time travel but he does so with wanktech that runs on plutonium or lightning strikes.
Nothing is really explained other than "the flux capacitor makes time travel possible", but then nothing needs to be explained.
If you count the sequel then it's as far from minimalist as possible. Flying cars? Personal fusion reactors that run on garbage? In 2015? Heh.
Actually if we don't have hoverboards in 5 years I will be very disappointed.