Now here's someone who gets it. It's hardly coincidental that science fiction really took off in the 1950's and 1960's, during an era of tremendous material progress and optimism fueled by abundant cheap energy. The science fiction that will probably turn out to be most prescient for the times ahead isn't Heinlein, Clarke or Asimov, but dystopian novels like these:
The Drowned World, by J.G. Ballard: in the late 21st century the ice caps have melted, iguanas and alligators inhabit a drowned London and humanity has retreated toward the poles. Kind of a dull story that reads like a post-apocalypse Heart of Darkness, but very visionary considering it was written in 1962.
Wolf and Iron, by Gordon R. Dickson: A man and a wolf band together to survive in an America devastated by financial collapse.
Earth Abides, by George R. Stewart: civilization is destroyed by a plague, and humans have reverted to tribes that survive by scavenging from the old civilization or Paleolithic-style hunter-gathering.
The Sheep Look Up, by John Brunner: set in a corporate-controlled U.S. with a devastated environment. William Gibson said of this novel: "No one except possibly the late John Brunner, in his brilliant novel 'The Sheep Look Up', has ever described anything in science fiction that is remotely like the reality of 2007 as we know it."
To the commenter below who accused you of being Malthusian: anyone who thinks that on a planet with an exploding population of nearly 7 billion people (compared to say 1.5 billion in 1890), supported by ecosystems and climate that are in disarray, new technology can prevent a large die-off is, shall we say, optimistic.
In general, I agree that SF serves a useful function by imagining the dark side of technological progress, which in our present situation seems much more prophetic than the more sterile, utopian visions of more celebrated authors.