Dystopian Fiction’s Popularity Is a Warning Sign for the Future
wired.com
wired.com
Second, I grew up in the early late 70's / early 80's, when the nuclear holocaust was the theme of the "inevitable" dystopian future fiction. I don't think it signifies anything other than the angst du jour.
The two elements I find most interesting about the most successful dystopias are that...
1. They are almost inevitably set in the near future, meaning that the world can be a slightly more extreme version of the world we currently inhabit.
2. They feel cathartic to experience, partly because unlike our current world where we struggle to understand what holds us back, in the near future world being portrayed the extreme elements of the world are the clear danger and allow us to be confident in knowing what will help improve things. This clarity of purpose can be cathartic.
Whether we want to admit it or not, one of the values of future-based fiction is to line up our expectations of what we expect in this time period. We're unwittingly programming ourselves to prepare for the worst. I wish we took the time to explore more diverse ideas of how our future might look like.
Fukushima photographer is shaken up, must be loss of belief in techno utopia. Nah, westerners forget it was a massive earthquake tsunami, so probably seeing ten thousand floating dead bodies and the smell and the land looking like the surface of the moon was a bit more disturbing, at least if he's human.
"actually convincing people that we’re capable of something other than this brutal response to disaster." I sincerely hope they are not, because the only way we're going back to 1700s era fossil fuel consumption in our lifetime is by killing all the population over 1700s era, which is quite a mass murder. So I'm glad of that. Also a nameless homeless family living under an overpass due to economic disruption is a small price to pay to feel ecologically superior. There's someone starving to death in TX but at least I got a cool new Prius... just human lives, ones that don't count anyway. You know, like a dystopia...
Careful avoidance of discussing how many people are already living the Dystopia, right now. Cops shoot black men first ask questions later, at least the few we let walk the streets instead of imprisoning. Indoctrinated since birth to live the American dream while getting a lifetime of debt, LOL just kidding about that "you'll have a great paying job" thing, but its all your fault for not wanting it more than the "successful" guy, who we're going to downsize next month anyway. No medical care, no financial future, no education. If it bleeds it leads, on the agitprop news, our whole city is a Roman Colosseum of martyrs. Dude born on 3rd base thinks he hit a home run says, hey, let them eat cake, why won't they pull themselves up by their bootstraps, its the land of opportunity for rich urban white men... the rest of you don't exist, aren't even people, mere consumers at best.
Dystopian fiction is a politically correct way to talk about the PRESENT, not the future.
Then, of those who travel abroad and have lived in a few states, let's say, 5 - which is only 10% of the overall number of states we have...do you see where I'm going with?
The, "Average," experience is now personalized. Algorithms on Google, Netflix and Facebook or Amazon are about as, "Personal," as some technical people I know get.
Then there's a big, huge disconnect between reality and what we do for a living, because of where we are...I had to lecture somebody in our industry where the VC money comes from recently.
Either it's their age (youngster, lol) or unwillingness to wake up and smell the hummus, I don't know. Two cops were murdered by a guy claiming, "Revenge," for all the black men who we've SEEN get slaughtered on youtube.
It's revolting and I'm hopeful that, one day, the concept of, "Freedom," and, "Justice," will give us all a shot at a better society. Besides, I read too many comic books growing up with the X-men in them to let, "Hydra," win.
Truth is that complex industrial societies use a lot of energy and resources and ecological footprint is a function of that more than their flavor of socioeconomic system. Ultimately ecology only cares about physics, not politics.
How about Soylent Green (overpopulation, 1973), or Silent Running (climate collapse, 1972)?
Maybe something more upbeat like Logan's Run (overpopulation AND climate collapse, 1976)?
The Sheep Look Up (1972)
The Shockwave Rider ( 1975 )
both seem shockingly contemporary in the worlds they portray.
As opposed to if they were female? Would the author be more confident then? Funny how the sex stereotypes seem to pass unchallenged when they are against males.
The rest of the article isn't much better if it saves anyone 10 minutes.....
The real question being asked by that statement is whether people from a similar background end up thinking in similar ways. Experience is ultimately tied to the individual, but do you feel more kinship to those from a similar background? Even if you don't, can you see why there are social tendencies in this direction?
The author is arguing that the group of people taking leadership on geoengineering decisions may not have the diversity of opinion needed to have a proper debate on how best to proceed. She's making more than just the 'overwhelmingly male' point, the 'very overconfident' point is equally telling. Surely with complex topics you'll have people who have strong doubts about what is being done, the lack of these voices may indicate it's hubris talking rather than a questioning-style reflection.
A counter argument is that the confidence exists because it's not a complex topic. Perhaps you can think of others.
Also, the premise of the article was foolish to begin with. There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality. Also, what people are offered is what they can chose to view. So who is doing this type of writing? What are their motives? Are there solid metrics that this type of writing is becoming more preferred? *See posts above for more repudiations.
One last thing... what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality? I found it a very poor article overall and it certainly makes me think less of Wired for publishing it.
"There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality." Have you never heard of 'life imitating art'? VR is probably a good example, there are a number of high profile people in the VR field who cite specific works of cyberpunk fiction as a strong early influence. I can name them if you'd like? It'd also be possible to illuminate the influence that Star Trek has had on our technology. What I find is that most people consume fiction about the future as entertainment, but later when certain aspects of it become possible they're welcomed as 'the future' because that's what we've been led to expect from the future. For example, try to imagine a future where we give up on high tech and figure out another path to take... see that idea in much of our media? No, it's clear we expect much more tech in our future (as long as society doesn't collapse). That singlemindedness came out of somewhere.
"what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality?" Science does not exist in a vacuum, it is interwoven into the world in which we live. Putting aside the main corrupting influences placed upon science itself (money and ego), so that we can assume scientific research is a pure field, there are frequently new ethical questions surrounding the direction that scientific research follows. It is important that scientific research is sensitive to the culture in which it inhabits. Having a diversity of opinion guiding science helps strengthen the outcome. If you believe science should not be restrained by societal concerns then I can share some ideas that may give cause to reconsider.
I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science. Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels. Which, btw, also require some knowledge and qualification besides being a third rate hack writer who makes sexist statements....
Uninformed opinions are cheap. Knowledge and good thinking skills are rare.
In subjective matters, the interpretation of written statements in this case, there is room for shades of grey. So yes, even if you are convinced something is how you see it, does not mean everyone will agree. Let me put it like this, if a female makes a negative statement about a group, and points out that this group is overwhelmingly male, does the gender automatically become the focus, or is it merely an observation about a group, and it is the group which is being placed under scrutiny? If I say I work with a group of geeky men that are clever, is the gender really the most important part of that statement to you?
"I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science." Did I say anything different to that?
"Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels."
Application level is after the horse has bolted. To use an obvious example, you can't prove that we know how to build an atomic bomb and then not expect negative consequences, regardless of how interesting the science was the scientists involved still needed to take responsibility for their part in it (which at least some of them did). Funding level is part of the corrupting influence I mentioned before.
Science exists to serve us, it's how we explore the systems of the world we live in, but not all science serves us, and until we recognise that and ethically guide our research we're setting ourselves up for huge catastrophes.
How often liberal arts college propaganda seems to talk itself right back around into something resembling medieval theology. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on perspective I guess) it seems to never be quite competent enough to achieve it's objectives....
For the record, I believe in environmental concerns. I believe in social and economic justice. I look at history and see these best being addressed by science. Not "me too even though I haven't really taken the time to study the issue" opinions.
Yes, I think some areas just shouldn't be studied.
Yes, I know this goes against the commonly held beliefs that science should be a free-for-all, consequences be damned.
A useful comparison may be with the medical profession, which since its early days has placed ethics at the core of what it does, such as with the Hippocratic Oath (along with its modernising revisions). Doctors have a responsibility to the patient first, and expanding their expertise second.
With science as it stands today, the opposite is true. The priority is expanding expertise, even if its clear that damage will be done. I'd like research to be as free as possible, just within certain ethical bounds.
Aside from weaponry, most of what we're doing today in science is child's play compared to what's coming soon. So that we can expand this discussion, tell me what you know about synthetic biology.
Lack of ethics or disregard for the safety of research subjects (Nazi experiments come to mind...) is not what I'm in favor of (and I doubt hardly anybody else is either). A researcher shouldn't be able to dump a tanker of oil in the ocean to "find out what happens".....
But saying "this topic is off limits and can not be inquired into by any means" is #1)realistically not going to happen at this point. #2)not provably desirable for humanity. #3)full of potential for political and economic abuse.
Yes, things are going to change a lot and soon (re. synthetic biology... I majored in a biological science. Genetics, bio-chem, advanced biology etc. 20 years ago. I entered a different field. I don't claim to know much, but to your point, I think I do know what's coming).
Yes, there will be tragedies (but also amazing benefits). Yes, people need to be as careful as they can, and they need monitoring. Yes, application of technology needs regulation. But attempting to force ignorance simply isn't a good idea, nor is it going to work. The likely outcome of that approach is application of more uninformed versions of technologies entailing more risk to everyone. The genie is not going back in the bottle. So we need to do our best to understand mechanism and outcomes, and thus tip the risk/reward ratio in a positive direction.
My grandfather was an engineer in Los Alamos working on nuclear destruction devices. He died in his late 40's from cancer. I never met him. So I understand your point. But where I think we differ... I don't think they should have stopped nuclear research. I think they should have done more in fact and I still do. What I don't think they should have done was use that technology, half understood, with no long term plan for waste disposal, largely to build destructive devices.
It's not research and understanding that kills us, but the reverse.
edit: Also, instead of endlessly nitpicking factual errors - could we please focus on what value there actually is in the article?
For one, in many of these stories people are forced 'back into nature and self-reliance', which we like because many of us, especially in urban environments, try to get out of the artificiality we feel is all around us (this might also explain the 'hipster' phenomenon of carefully-crafted illusions of dive bars, and the love for self-made products and art).
Second, we have a fear of increasingly global, powerful and murky institutions. We 'confront' these fears through dystopian fiction.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, I have noticed a rather shockingly high level of loneliness among my urban-setting peers (mid-twenties to late thirties). Even with a decent amount of individual friends, it seems that people miss 'community', a desire that I suppose used to be satisfied through churches, smaller towns, and more traditional 'extended family' structures. Our friendships and lives in general are much more fragmented then they used to be.
What fascinates me about most popular dystopian fiction is that there is a very strong emphasis on small groups of people banding together, forming strong bonds in the light of adversity, learning to trust each other, and basically spending all their time together, in a tribal fashion. I think more than the dystopia, it is this effect of a dystopian setting that we love.
Perhaps in the past the 'need' for satisfying that desire of being part of a small, tight group just wasn't as strong. Or perhaps they were more easily expressed in more conventional ways (consider a progression from The Cosby Show, to Friends, to New Girl; a move away from families to friends-from-back-home to somewhat random people in a loft because they can't afford their own place).
I'm well aware of the fact that these are just some thoughts, and I haven't done much research yet on the subject. I could be quite wrong. But it's my two cents and something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
Sometimes it does seem like there is a high risk of that happening. Other times it seems like we are already living in that world. A world where large groups of people can be worked up into a frenzy and convinced to support, defend, and propagate horrible actions provoked by minimal or non-existent facts and evidence.
I stopped reading right about here. Not repressive government, nuclear war, or economic collapse? It's the environment that causes the hunger games. Yeah that seems to be the biggest likelyhood. But otherwise it's a great scare piece.
[Sent from my slide rule via martian rocket post.]
Even if there were more dystopian art than positive art, it is not a sign that we're leading into a disaster. If you want to claim something about the world, use observations on the world, not observations on fiction.
Or maybe something that we now see as dystopian will be regarded as something good, namely: no privacy, absolute corporocracy, greater separation between classes.
If we're talking about dystopia in general, that's quite old. In Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, it's the part set in hell that's been most memorable. The appeal of zombie fiction in the U.S. is a result of deindustrialization, which began in the 1980s. So, I don't think that, on the grand scale, this is something brand new. For as long as people have been able to think of the future, there've been some willing to entertain the idea that everything might go to hell.
It we're talking about technological dystopia (e.g. Black Mirror) then that's because there's a strong (and correct) sense that while technology is an inexorable force, the current leadership (i.e. Silicon Valley) can't be trusted. Is that troubling? Yes. Should we take it as a warning regarding our socio-technological climate? Yes. Does it foretell catastrophe? I don't think so.
Strictly, it was written in '47 and '48, sent to the publisher in '48, and published in '49. This is only really interesting because of the choice of the title year, and certainly doesn't undermine your point.
It will cause all sorts of changes I'm sure, but globally both humans and animals will be just fine. There will be different animals in different places, some will die, but as a whole all will be just fine.
> I'm more concerned with the question of if humanity is even worth saving.
A universe without a conciseness to appreciate it is quite pointless, and might as well not exist.
I value life in all forms too much to agree with that statement. I value humans the most, but only if they can find a way to value themselves and their surroundings in a harmonious way.
YOU value all life. But that life doesn't value itself. It requires conciseness to do so.
Do you see consciousness as separate from life?
Would you agree that value requires more than just consciousness?
Yes, I do, thanks. A little embarrassed I got it wrong twice.
> Do you see consciousness as separate from life?
Yes. And not only that (theoretically) you can have consciousness without life. They are separate things. One is about growing and reproducing, that other is about thinking.
> Would you agree that value requires more than just consciousness?
I don't understand what you mean, so I can not disagree or agree. Do you mean the capacity to value something, or that the thing has value? Or something else?
No problem, I understood what you meant.
> Yes. And not only that (theoretically) you can have consciousness without life. They are separate things. One is about growing and reproducing, that other is about thinking.
Okay. Where does consciousness live?
> I don't understand what you mean, so I can not disagree or agree. Do you mean the capacity to value something, or that the thing has value? Or something else?
What I am saying is that consciousness by itself does not lead to judgement, and that it is possible to be conscious of something without assigning a value to it. Would you agree?
I have spent plenty of thought on that subject. If you wish to say something about it, then do, but do not assume other people will grasp your thought without saying it.