Has dystopian sci-fi been wrong all along?
When I contemplate the current state of the US, I can't help but ponder what's happening, and compare it to the message that tends to be embedded in a lot of futuristic sci-fi dystopian fiction.
Typically the embedded story (at least in the stories I'm familiar with) seems to be that elites leave earth or somehow isolate themselves from the rest of society and maliciously leave the rest of the planet behind. In some way the intention of those elites tends to be painted as evil for the fact that they did this to the rest of human civilization.
When I think about those stories I can't help but wonder if we're actually seeing the opposite of that unravel. Where it's the "rest of society" who are pushing "elites" (probably a better way to put it is higher socioeconomic position) to want to escape the insanity they're creating with their categorical misunderstanding of (or lack of curiosity about) "how the world works".
Hopefully I'll be given the opportunity to be an early investor in the first venture to build a space colony, even if it's only to orbit the planet, or someplace like the moon. :) I don't think I'll hesitate if the opportunity arises. Curious if anyone else wants to contribute their thoughts on this?
> When I think about those stories I can't help but wonder if we're actually seeing the opposite of that unravel.
Interesting. My perception is pretty much the opposite of yours, that such fiction has been mostly on point so far. The "elites" (and particularly the tech "elites") have built their own world that is pretty much completely disconnected from ours in a day-to-day sense. They live in compounds, have what are basically private armies to increase that separation, and view people as resources to be exploited. They could not be more separate from normal people without actually leaving the planet.
Remember that almost everything in sci-fi is allegory. You can effectively leave the Earth without ever physically leaving the Earth.
I can't cite this directly, but according to hearsay from people who know billionaires: if the world saw how these people actually live when they're out of sight of the public, people would revolt. The idea that they live in our world is a facade.
The reality is that physics is pretty fucking hard to crack. So that being said, sci fi is easy. It’s made up.
I think SpaceX is cool af but end of the day rocket tech isn’t going to get us off-world unless it becomes our “cathedral” tier project. And we all know that by the time those were completed the world had largely moved on, both spiritually and engineering-wise. We also moved on from the “elites” of that time who are now props (kings and queens) or they invest into some copy paste SaaS that they sell to their friend.
I’d rather the military keep investing into insane special projects that really push the boundaries of what’s possible. Across intelligence, science R&D, and social/behavioral tendencies.
If we are gonna discuss sci fi and dystopias or utopias… My personal utopia would be the USA winning earth first, getting 99% of the world population to relax or FAFO asap so we can get to the off world stage and conquer aliens.
I’d consider myself an America techno militarist optimist.
I would like to know what dystopian books you have read.
I think about 50 years ago there began a slow shift from warnings of overt totalitarianism (1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451) to threats of social fragmentation, economic inequality, corporate surveillance and other indirect forms of control, the resulting loss of individualism and, of course, ecological collapse. These issues seem to remain relevant for the foreseeable future.
I also believe that no one really understands how the world works, not even the elites. Incidentally, this is the most powerful argument for democracy that I know of.
The one that I had in mind while writing this was a "variation on this theme". Altered Carbon (Netflix, 2018–2020), based on the 2002 novel by Richard K. Morgan.
There are a number of others, though as well where the recurring theme seems to be the "evil elites" leaving the poor to fend for themselves.
Definitely agree, no one "knows" how the world works. I don't think the OP presumes anyone does. The intention in saying this was to point out that there are some (these days it seems many) who are off the mark in an almost tragic way, and have no desire to reflect / improve on this.
I haven't read that. But the search for immortality is ancient. It's in the Gilgamesh epic; Emperor Qin Shi Huang searched for it, as did many others looking for the Philosopher's Stone. Of the current wealthy researching immortality, I know quite a few without googling: Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Peter Thiel, Sam Altman.
The Stephenson book "Fall, or; Dodge in Hell" has an interesting, and more realistic narrative of an Ameristan fragmented into tribes that have inconsistent narrative and knowledge of the world. It deals with the concept of a "post-truth society", and is something I can see us sliding towards.
If the elites don’t care about the other people, sooner or later the other people are going to push back.
The president of the united states appointed a christofascist as the figurehead for the US military. The rich are lining up to kiss his ring, groveling so as to protect their income streams as much as possible from the chaos being created by the governments unhinged fiscal policies. Elon Musk reglularly argues with his chat bot in public as if it was a person.
Elites are stupid as fuck, but it makes sense why they end up that way. Money and power allow for immunity from consquence and the creation of a bubble of delusion which fosters a friends circle of yes men that prevents any opportunities for self reflection or criticism.
I think the "elites" you're talking about won't want to leave. They'll want to stick around so they can "have power" and fleece the people that will continue to let them do it. They won't feel at home unless they have people they can take advantage of.
I think "elite" is the wrong term maybe. I think the use of that term is pulling more from how these stories tend to paint the two groups. One being the "haves" the other the "have nots". It's true "socioeconomic status" in some way can be considered in this category I'm thinking of, but I'm thinking more from an academic perspective. People who show a true curiosity about the world around them. People who will survive in pretty much any situation because they're the ones who have the most to contribute to a society.
Typically the embedded story (at least in the stories I'm familiar with)
Maybe read the three classics dystopian sci-fi:
Or just classic scifi: Or authors of “modern” classics: Even Dune is a pretty grim future for all the non-player characters. Never mind Margret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale, McCarthy’s The Road, and Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz.No.
Pull the wool back a little, peek outside, and see how the grifter techbros are still pushing for that bleak dystopia where they will feel validated by the masses who haven't hoarded billions in wealth.
Not sure if the 'No' was to say you disagree. I'm not sure, from reading the rest of your comment, that it is a disagreement. If you care to clarify I'll try to come back to respond at some point.
[dead]