No more dystopia!

[Blaster395]

Dystopian fiction has increasingly, since the 60's, become the cool thing to write. This isn't a good trend.

In the broad sense Dystopia can include fantasy settings or even historic settings, but I am going to stick to settings that are implied or strictly stated to be in the future. Dystopian societies have now become omnipresent in these futures, either from zombies or from brutal dictatorships and war covering all of humanity without any logical explanation of WHY that would happen being given. If science-fiction is supposed to make predictions about the future from current trends, it has completely failed.

"But," you say "what about NSA/Ebola/Crimea/Syria/ISIS/Ferguson/Ilerminerty/Insertpoliticalcrisishere, science-fiction is just projecting these trends". These trends, in the grand scale of human human society, are near irrelevant. If you actually look into what the NSA is doing, it's a lot less severe than the media plays it up as (people apparently forgot that the media likes to sensationalize). Ukraine and Syria are relatively minor civil wars compared to the past. Even ISIS and the potential genocides in Iraq would be some very very small genocides if carried out.

I am not saying that these issues are irrelevant or acceptable because they are definitely not. My point is that projecting the future from a single data point is ridiculous.

I have a short test for you. Name the three worst events since WWII in number of lives lost. In fact, go ahead and put those into the top of your reply to this post, listed from 1 to 3, so that they are recorded if you choose to respond.

...

Done? Ok.

Averaging out the high and low estimates, the actual worst events from most lives lost to least lives lost are as follows. 1st is the Great Chinese Famine during the 'Great leap forward', with between 15 and 55 million deaths. 2nd is the Second Congo War, with between 2.7 and 5.4 million deaths. 3rd is the Cambodian Genocide, with between 1.5 and 3 million deaths.

For each one you answered correctly and in the right order, you get 2 point. In the wrong order, it's 1 point. Getting it wrong gives 0 points. You lose 1 point if you put any wars involving the US on the list, and you lose 1 more point if you don't recognize one of the correct answers.

I expect a lot of bad scores. Many people think the worst disasters are perpetuated by the US, but in reality these disasters are the result of actions in 3rd world countries.

This leads to two questions.

1. Why does science fiction so frequently portray the developed nations as ruthless, evil and warlike when the opposite is the reality in most cases?

2. Why does science fiction so frequently portray a negative future, when by all long term global trends of well-being, we are the best we have ever been and are getting better with each passing day (as a whole, humanity is about 50 times wealthier than we were 1000 years ago)?

I think the answer is relatively simple. Since WW2, western culture has become self-loathing. It's the cool thing to hate your country. Anyone that doesn't is seen as a useful idiot. Anyone optimistic is seen as naive. Every structure we have is shit and needs to be destroyed because you had a 30 minute wait at a call centre for tech support. When everything works well nobody notices so our few tiny cracks look like the grand canyon.

Because of this, the money and prestige are in criticizing ourselves. Criticizing ourselves is fine, to a degree, but it has now reached a point where we obscure the real problems in the world. The ancient problems that have existed since humanity has existed; famine, disease and absolute poverty. Dystopian fiction is contributing to this.

Now for a list of the worst forms of Dystopian fiction I have seen, and why it is ridiculous.

1. 1984 and NSA comparisons

1984 isn't about surveillance of public activity. It's about the surveillance of private activity. I could understand the comparisons if the NSA were installing hidden cameras inside everyone's home but they aren't. I cannot even look at the number 1984 without grimacing in preparation for a ridiculous comparison with the NSA.

2. Wars over water

Wars cost more than desalination. Wars will never be fought over water when you can make water cheaper than you can make war. Even trying to find a historic war that was specifically about a resource is difficult. The only one I can think of on the spot is Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in the 1st Gulf War.

3. Corporations rule the world

The largest organizations on Earth are and have always been states. Look at any list of the largest employers; all states. Look at the tax income of even second-rate powers and no company on Earth can match them. The largest private armies number in the thousands, while national armies number in the millions. There was the East India Company, but never does science-fiction base it's evil moustache-twirling megacorps on that.

So my final point is this. Science fiction is what modern socities look to for how we should approach the future. Dystopian science fiction has made us want to avoid the future. Where previously liberal science fiction looked forward to the future and conservative feared it, this is now flipped. It's apparently now progressive to want to regress to a past society when it comes to this genre.

We risk creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Thanks for tolerating my rambling post to this point.

 

[Zontar]

Something that surprises me about how people look at the NSA is that many seem to think it's the CIA of keeping track of things.

All it is is an organization which collects data, that's it. That's literally all they do. Data collecting. If it transmits data and it can be intercepted, it is. Pretty much the only thing they don't collect data for is radio signals, and that's because Canada gives the US all of those by using Alert Station up north.

All they do is collect data and give it to other federal organizations as need be. It's just an automated proses which is neither good nor evil, since it is incapable of being either, yet everyone thinks they're as evil as the CIA.

Also: everyone thinks the CIA is evil for some reason. Now there's a whole other can of worms.

 

[Vault101]

my issue with Dystopia is somtimes (especially in regards to rape and stuff) I don't want to be reminded of morbid relatiy,

thats why Fallout is the only post apocalyptic thing I like....because it allows for escapism without me having to think about the harshness of it all...its a FUN-pocalypse

I can understand the genre in wanting to explore the fact that we are all feeling uncertain about the future

but quite frankly I'm sick of it, I want to wind down, not get depressed

So my final point is this. Science fiction is what modern socities look to for how we should approach the future. Dystopian science fiction has made us want to avoid the future. Where previously liberal science fiction looked forward to the future and conservative feared it, this is now flipped. It's apparently now progressive to want to regress to a past society when it comes to this genre.

We risk creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Thanks for tolerating my rambling post to this point.

IIIII wouldn't go that far....if anything I think it might be nessicary to explore thease issues, PARTICUALLY the automation of 90% of jobs (if that happens) no one seems to want to actually think about it in any useful way...mabye when the transport industry goes because of self driving cars we'll sit up and take notice

EDIT: acutlaly mabye thats also my issue with dystopia...its just a bunch of wank...what does it really have to say? what solutions or hope does it offer?

I'm pretty sure dystopias aren't uniformly intended as predictions of the future.

They're just dramatic, conflict-ridden and dangerous settings, while can make for cool plots. Conflict is the core of drama and all that.
."

this is I admit something I like...or used to like about dystopias...it creates that prossive feeling which is a great "driver" for the story

that said I get the same impression with stuff set in the victorian era XD

 

[shrekfan246]

I feel like you're giving fiction a bit more credit than it's due. Fahrenheit 451 was written just over sixty years ago, I still don't see congregations of people gathering together to burn books en masse. 1984 as well, actually. Saying that these books are being written with the express purpose of predicting the future is just kinda diluting the message of the books themselves, considering that most of the time it was largely just the writer waxing philosophical and/or political about the way they saw the world.

Also, considering how rapidly technology has been advancing across the entire spectrum over the past two decades, I'd like to see some of the evidence you have for dystopian fiction making humanity "afraid" of the future.

But even aside from that, there's nothing wrong with having a good amount of fear for the unknown. History has proven time and again that fear is not nearly enough to stop mankind from doing stupid and incredible things, and I really doubt that scientific or cultural progress is going to be ground to a halt because somebody read Brave New World (which itself is said to have been written simply as a counter to the utopian works of H. G. Wells) or watched Gattaca.

As to the broader topic broached by your rather touchy thread title, I refuse to comply with your request. I believe that a writer should be allowed to write anything they please, and I myself have plans for a story set in a dystopian city-continent (it's admittedly set in a fantasy world). I'm not going to completely axe my ideas simply because some people are tired of the setting. I find the settings fascinating myself more for their portrayal of society rather than their potential political or philosophical messages. It could be argued that the two are fundamentally connected due to how the author perceives society, but at that point it simply becomes an exercise in exposing myself to the opinions of someone who saw the world vastly differently to how I see it.

As tired and pathetic of an argument as it may be, if you don't like dystopian fiction perhaps you should just not follow it? I've certainly been able to find vast amounts of fiction created over the past few decades which are in no way related to dystopia, and it's rare that I stumble across something interesting which happens to be set in a dystopian future. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, or perhaps my impressions are tinged by living in one of the least-populous states in the entire US.

 

[Zhukov]

I'm pretty sure dystopias aren't uniformly intended as predictions of the future.

They're just dramatic, conflict-ridden and dangerous settings, while can make for cool plots. Conflict is the core of drama and all that.

A story set in a perfect world in which nothing much is wrong wouldn't be very interesting.

"And then a hero was born. Then the hero went on to live an uneventful but generally happy and fulfilling life. The end."

 

[TheIceQueen]

The basis of your argument relies on science fiction supposedly being predictions for the future. It's not supposed to say what will happen because we can never know what will happen. Rather, science fiction - good science fiction, that is - is supposed to use the technology of the setting to make a point. 1984 isn't about what will happen, it's about the literary deconstruction of nationalism, censorship, and surveillance. It's making a point, not a prediction.

 

[Vault101]

The basis of your argument relies on science fiction supposedly being predictions for the future. It's not supposed to say what will happen because we can never know what will happen. Rather, science fiction - good science fiction, that is - is supposed to use the technology of the setting to make a point. .

I think this is good writing advice too

because it can be overwhemling trying to aporach a sci fi story....not only in "keeping up" with ever changing technology but also because latley I've been thinking "well if 99% of jobs are done by robots what the hell am I going to do?" <-not that thats not a topic worth exploring (it is) but somtimes thats not what your focus is or needs to be

 

[DefunctTheory]

Science fiction is what modern socities look to for how we should approach the future. Dystopian science fiction has made us want to avoid the future.

No.

That's something you can do with science fiction. It is not the entire genre, and authors are not and should not be held to some insane moral code where all their works are chained to some fanciful, happy future.

The reasons dystopia is common are many - Shit sack worlds contain inherit drama and conflict, they're frequently more interesting (Since there are far more screwed up types of societies then there are types of society that can or would work in real life), they can present a hopeless back drop for a hopeful story, provide a large scale goal for the protagonist, and, most importantly, people like it, as shown by book sales.

You need to expand your view of science fiction beyond the hippy philosophies of past authors and creators like Gene Roddenberry. Sometimes, people are just writing interesting stories, not crafting social commentaries on the perfect future.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Something that surprises me about how people look at the NSA is that many seem to think it's the CIA of keeping track of things.

All it is is an organization which collects data, that's it. That's literally all they do. Data collecting. If it transmits data and it can be intercepted, it is. Pretty much the only thing they don't collect data for is radio signals, and that's because Canada gives the US all of those by using Alert Station up north.

All they do is collect data and give it to other federal organizations as need be. It's just an automated proses which is neither good nor evil, since it is incapable of being either, yet everyone thinks they're as evil as the CIA.

Also: everyone thinks the CIA is evil for some reason. Now there's a whole other can of worms.

We think the CIA is evil because they do shit like overthrow governments to protect banana companies interests of all things.

At least do your evil schemes for proper corporate villains. An overthrow to secure a banana supply is like a Monty python skit

 

[Norithics]

I completely disagree with the entire premise.

The reason why developed nations get painted as ruthless is because we expect more of ourselves than our lesser-developed neighbors. In the US especially, you can go anywhere and find a million reasons clearly stated everywhere why America is exceptional. When you drill that into people that hard, then they find out that maybe we're not that perfect... yeah, they're gonna comment on it. When you talk about how brutal it is in the Congo, finding out it was true isn't going to be a huge shocker. It might be soft racism, but it isn't unexpected. You either hold yourself to a higher standard or you don't.

And as for why it's so much more common? Well, that's pretty simple; it's easy to criticize. It's very easy to point out the flaws in things that exist, but creating new things- worlds that function and breathe- is way harder than just creating a straw-city to expose man's inner beast.

 

[Vault101]

The reasons dystopia is common are many - Shit sack worlds contain inherit drama and conflict, they're frequently more interesting (Since there are far more screwed up types of societies then there are types of society that can or would work in real life), they can present a hopeless back drop for a hopeful story, provide a large scale goal for the protagonist, and, most importantly, people like it, as shown by book sales.

agents and publishers aren't interested in them much right now....as I hear....but thats beside the point

[quote/]You need to expand your view of science fiction beyond the hippy philosophies of past authors and creators like Gene Roddenberry. Sometimes, people are just writing interesting stories, not crafting social commentaries on the perfect future.[/quote]
as I said above do understand the appeal of such a strong driving conclict HOWEVER I reject the notion they are mutually exclusive

somone can life in a perfect world but their little slice of it can be crappy

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Actually all your "ridiculous" dystopian tropes are more or less present today, or in the way of getting started. Imagining a future where these are the predominant norm doesn't require such a stretch of imagination.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

A good cure for dystopian fear is a lot of vodka. It's also a good cure for beheadings. Just stock the shelters with a boatload of Stoli and watch an entire generation breed like rabbits! Humanity will be just fine. That is, if we can start treating each other like HUMANS again.

Or would that be a utopian dystopia...?

 

[DefunctTheory]

You need to expand your view of science fiction beyond the hippy philosophies of past authors and creators like Gene Roddenberry. Sometimes, people are just writing interesting stories, not crafting social commentaries on the perfect future.

As I said above, I do understand the appeal of such a strong driving conflict. HOWEVER, I reject the notion they are mutually exclusive.

Someone can life in a perfect world but their little slice of it can be crappy.

That's beside the point.

The thing I was commenting on was OP's suggestion that all science fiction should be a shining beacon of hope, society wise. If that's the kind of book you want to write, fine. If that's the kind of book that you want to make the unchangeable standard, no. That's not fine. That's not fine at all.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

You need to expand your view of science fiction beyond the hippy philosophies of past authors and creators like Gene Roddenberry. Sometimes, people are just writing interesting stories, not crafting social commentaries on the perfect future.

As I said above, I do understand the appeal of such a strong driving conflict. HOWEVER, I reject the notion they are mutually exclusive.

Someone can life in a perfect world but their little slice of it can be crappy.

That's beside the point.

The thing I was commenting on was OP's suggestion that all science fiction should be a shining beacon of hope, society wise. If that's the kind of book you want to write, fine. If that's the kind of book that you want to make the unchangeable standard, no. That's not fine. That's not fine at all.

And isn't that one of the signs of a dystopia?

plot twist!

 

[beastro]

1. Why does science fiction so frequently portray the developed nations as ruthless, evil and warlike when the opposite is the reality in most cases?

Because it's hard to root for the successful and so much easier to root for the underdog.

Plus that would mean putting white people and Western Civilization in a good light, can't have that.

2. Why does science fiction so frequently portray a negative future, when by all long term global trends of well-being, we are the best we have ever been and are getting better with each passing day (as a whole, humanity is about 50 times wealthier than we were 1000 years ago)?

Because we all do that, it's a part of aging and seeing the world drift from the time in your life you consider the "present" of the age where everything before or after is strange, alien and scary.

I do find it amusing to see "better" tied with being more wealthy, however I agree with the gist you're point.

I feel like you're giving fiction a bit more credit than it's due. Fahrenheit 451 was written just over sixty years ago, I still don't see congregations of people gathering together to burn books en masse. 1984 as well, actually. Saying that these books are being written with the express purpose of predicting the future is just kinda diluting the message of the books themselves, considering that most of the time it was largely just the writer waxing philosophical and/or political about the way they saw the world.

The issue is people taking the term Science Fiction at face value and not realizing that the heart of the genre is placing modern issues in a new setting, often exaggerating them.

Look at the time when the authors of those two books lived - shit like 1984 (though had been exaggerated by Orwell) and book burning were things done in what we considered modern, Western nations.

It's for this reason that I've increasingly grown tired of large swatches of Sci-Fi, because they offer nothing new, original and novel, only people whinging about shit I'm fully aware of and have fleshed out myself in my own musings.

 

[briankoontz]

I'll begin by taking the OPs side as much as possible before moving away from it - dystopia in fiction when done right serves as a warning to us - it says "don't go here or *this* will happen". Other types of fiction and science fiction don't have that value. 1984 and Brave New World were seen at the time of their writing as gruesome and unlikely dystopian visions, but a lot of what was written in those books has either come true or some variation has come true, because we weren't able to effectively heed the warnings. Neuromancer is another dystopian book which has a lot of modern truth to it.

But as far as the main point of the OP - he's very wrong. Both nuclear annihilation and especially global warming can produce something that makes historical references moot. Just as in 1984, Brave New World, and Neuromancer, it WILL produce terrible results unless the warnings are effectively heeded. So poo-pooing the warnings or worse yet, claiming the warnings actually have a negative effect on humanity is dangerously immature.

There's no magical force that will make everything all-right. We're not living in a crib where our parents take care of us and nothing else matters. We are the ones with the responsibility to make sure the world doesn't become a dystopia.

In a dying world everyone becomes vulnerable. It's just a matter of when. So right now the devastated and vulnerable population of Africa is suffering terrible consequences, easily exploited by fairly small amounts of Western weapons. As global warming continues to degrade the environment, more and more of the world will "become Africa", thus leading to further exploitation. A lot of Americans, at the heart of the global empire, either poo-poo this or have the classic thought of "it can't happen to me", just as the people living in the capital district of the Hunger Games really don't care about the well being of the people in the outer districts.

We're in far worse shape even than the world of the Hunger Games, since there's no ecological crisis there that I can determine by watching the first two movies.

In the global game of King of the Hill, the West is on top. But in a dying world, even dominating the rest of the world can't be celebrated. It just means it will take the West longer to die than it does everyone else. That might be good enough for people who care only about maintaining their own power to the bitter end, being King of a Burning Hill, but it's terrible for people who don't want to allow human extinction to happen.

Labeling the 21st century the "Century of Death" is not so much a dystopian vision as a real vision of what will happen unless reality is changed so that it doesn't happen.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Eh, even as overdone as it is, I'm still going to write in the dystopian. It's a very fun place to throw characters.

Also the version I'm most afraid of is the Terminator future.

 

[Axolotl]

I expect a lot of bad scores. Many people think the worst disasters are perpetuated by the US, but in reality these disasters are the result of actions in 3rd world countries.

Well for a start the first and third event on your list were caused by second not third world world nations. Secondly both the vietnam War and the Indonesia anti-Communist prges had casulty rates that are comparable or exceed that of the Khmer Rouge so you're selecting data just to fit you claim there. Thirdly the entire political situation in the Congo has been casued by the US Government, the civil war was in no small part due to the thirty years of US backed dictatorship after they put Mobutu in power, futhermore it is the western purchase of the Congo's mineral resources that funded thefactions in the war contributing to it's scale and scope.

But more importantly the critisism of the US is not for indivdual disasters and the body count they have. It's for creating and enforcing a global system of inequality and exploitation. This system doesn't have a body count because it works by extracting by force mass labour from theose it allows no option to not participate.

This leads to two questions.

1. Why does science fiction so frequently portray the developed nations as ruthless, evil and warlike when the opposite is the reality in most cases?

Because it's trying to predict the future and evidence sugggest that it's going to be run by those who are "ruthless, evil and warlike".

2. Why does science fiction so frequently portray a negative future, when by all long term global trends of well-being, we are the best we have ever been and are getting better with each passing day (as a whole, humanity is about 50 times wealthier than we were 1000 years ago)?

That wealth isn't held by humanity as a whole. It's held by a small few and was extracted by the labor of a subjegated majority and the gap between those two groups is growing. In addition the methods of wealth creation we've relied on and from where you've gotten those global trends are simply not sustainable, even aside from the highly contingent societal demographics they rely on the level of enviromental damage they cause means that they simply can't hold for the future. There are simply to many major issues which aren't receiving any realistic solution for the system to last into the future. And that's even if one allows that your claims that we're getting better now are true (which I wouldn't