Morgano:
First off, he's not my Pohl. I hardly know the man. I recall one wonderful short story worthy of Theodore Sturgeon. I also read about science fiction, however, and I know that Pohl is considered one of the important figures of one decade of the genre's history. He's a bit of an authority on what came before and during.

Secondly, I'm puzzled by your angry tone when you refer to the quote. There's nothing authoritarian about it. It sounds like Pohl was asked to define science fiction and he tried to. You might read it again, since you seem to think he left out "science." What about: "relationship between man and technology? Does it enlighten me on some area of science." Given that "science" embraces everything from talking dogs (Was Monster Dogs science fiction? No.) to telepathy (Are the Darkover books science fiction? Yes, but Mists of Avalon is not.)

I don't know where you got the implication that science fiction needs to be futuristic, but I expect you will find a slew of scifi writers and readers who disagree with you. Technically, science fiction set in the past is considered fantasy, I think. Not that I care. These categories are not some sort of gauntlet a book must pass through to immortality. They are helpful in the library. They determine -- at the whim of the reader, not generally some authoritarian ruler -- what books are eligible for prizes. They make a context for discussing authors, a way of looking at them.

The books on the history of science fiction, by the way, will answer your question as to why Swift (and Cyrano de Bergerac) are considered early writers of "science fiction." Personally, it's not a question that interests me. And whether someone is or is not "a science fiction writer" is even a sillier question than whether something is or is not "science fiction." Ursula Le Guin put that silliness to bed years ago, but it keeps climbing out again.

Finally, there is a huge difference between trying to define science fiction as one of many respected and knowledgable practioners and "dictating" what people should do in some restrictive, totalitarian sense. Pohl's tone is tentative and deferential, but more important, he is not in the position of a Picasso. Or a Goebbels. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with a Picasso defining good modern art. Sturgeon's 95% will consist of people turning out trash trying to be Picasso and people turning out trash trying to NOT NEVER EVER be like Picasso because he's a ---- Whatever. The painters with vision and a story to tell will paint, and fate will follow. Likewise with writers. Meanwhile, certain books will reach the mainstream by a combination of luck, hard work, and appeal (Lonesome Dove, The Andromeda Strain) while others equally "good" (whatever that means) simply become classics of the genre (Riders of Judgment, Well of Shiuan). That's life.