# Do we need more sci fi set in fun and optimistic futures?



## CmdrShepN7 (Jan 9, 2020)

I love The Expanse and Babylon 5 but I imagine all the philosophical and political stuff in Babylon 5 would turn off a lot of mainstream TV viewers. The Expanse is gritty and serious all the time although I really love the action.

Why not have a future where people enjoy being in that future?

Can a sci fi series with space battles, lovable characters, and an epic story with a future you would want to live in that is well written be created?

I have known reality show viewers who have a hard time getting into fantasy. I imagine it is the same for sci fi. Is it because fantasy and sci fi have complicated worlds? Or is it because of the lack of romance and too much technobabble?

Do we need a sci fi series with more romance and a interesting setting that doesn't require the viewer to be to obsessive to understand everything?

Do we need something that is a mix of Guardians of the Galaxy, Mass Effect, and the Culture?

Do we need a fun space opera?


----------



## -K2- (Jan 9, 2020)

We're all doomed...

Past that, assuming you mean in film, though I could do without another Spaceballs, Guardian's of the Galaxy is awesome (I still need to see the second one), Galaxy Quest was fairly good. Romance is fine, though often no matter the genre, ends up as the same story/different era. But, fun is good.

I think some/most films need a bit more balance/diversity, period. You can meet a threat to the universe with a little bit of humor and romance. People don't all become serious and focused to the extreme just because they're doomed. In fact, if that's all there is, tension, just lie down and let it happen.

Oh... and I howled when Matt Damon was blown up in The Martian. That movie had a LOT of balance.

K2


----------



## tegeus-Cromis (Jan 9, 2020)

My favorite vision of a happy future (admittedly, in a novel, not TV series) is Norman Spinrad's _Child of Fortune_.


----------



## logan_run (Jan 9, 2020)

No the world is so optimistic and fun we don't need a utopia science fiction adventure series when real life is already a utopia.
Note:I was hewing sarcasm.


----------



## Les (Jan 9, 2020)

YES! I have always thought that if I were ever to write a future sci-fi story, the foundation of that story would be a happy future in which we've learned from our earlier Earthbound mistakes and forged a path that leads to a future that is peasant to live in. Add to this contact and peaceful relations with many species across an incredible and vast galaxy which is teeming with life. Sure, there'll always be the bad guys, and I'm sure there's plenty of them out there, but I prefer to think of us humans as one of the less than ideal examples of planetary stewards. I have grown tired of the usual dystopian ideas. I know that authors use current social thought in their story ideas, but I want to imagine a brighter future.


----------



## Parson (Jan 9, 2020)

Interesting discussion. For myself, Yes, I love a story that is set in a more positive universe. For popularity, Yes, I think the more hopeful setting is one of the things that made the Original Star Trek so much more popular than any of the subsequent, but likely better written and plotted, series. To appeal to the often nihilistic professional reviewer looking for something new; No. 

Somewhat related: Decades ago, I don't remember who the critic was, or what book s/he was reviewing but one statement remains with me. I remember it going something like this: "When you have a normal and popular ending the main character lives, when you have a pretentious literary novel the main character dies. This novel is pretentious."


----------



## Rodders (Jan 9, 2020)

I’m a firm believer in a Shadow philosophy. We need conflict to learn and grow. There is no such thing as a future without agony. How else are we to learn?


----------



## -K2- (Jan 9, 2020)

Like it or not, Garden of Edens and bright, shiny futures, don't offer a lot regarding some conflict, test, or whatever. That said, the Star Trek series is about as utopian as you can get. Usually, the little problems brought on by diverse cultures interacting.

I have three current ideas I've been jotting down notes on, where each era/culture is portrayed as peaceful and happy ideals. There is nothing urgent or life threatening and really nothing negative happening. In each case it's a single person who is dissatisfied with with the utopian ideal presented, or fears the loss of 'their' ideal as the world changes (in all cases for what we would consider for the better). In each scenario, it becomes quickly evident that they will be novelettes at best, short stories more likely. There just isn't enough meat to work with when everything is good. The longer they're drawn out, the crazier the protagonist seems.

K2


----------



## Abernovo (Jan 9, 2020)

I'm a fan of Becky Chambers, and also of some of the Solarpunk/GreenSciFi that is being published. I've never read the books, but I've also been enjoying _The Expanse _TV series (the last season of which did remind me of Mass Effect).

None of those are without darkness. They are certainly not without conflict. And, the futures they depict are not Utopian, or even always fun and optimistic; there are some hard truths about inequality, and the fragility of life. But, the overall thread running through them is of positivity, with an optimism that people can change the future for the better, if they stand together, and do the right thing. I like the fact that James Holden in The Expanse is basically Gary Cooper or Randolph Scott.


----------



## Elckerlyc (Jan 9, 2020)

Well, I don't know.
Utopian futures seem very unrealistic to me. And, in itself, boring. There needs to be some conflict, some kind of struggle, to make it interesting. Many novels basically challenges the idea of utopia, as there is almost always a downside. There's always a group who have to pay the price for bringing the utopia about.
Sure, you can write or film comedies or tell a romantic tale, but you don't need SF/F as setting for that. So why use that as background if it chases away the masses that are not into SF or Fantasy? Comedies are fine, but I prefer a good SF story or film to that (and, btw, not SF that turns into horror!).
The movie* Passengers* comes to mind. It is a romance, set in a SF world. But is also a grim world in which the protagonists awake from cryosleep 100 years before their spaceship reaches it's destination and have to live their lives in isolation. Though, admittedly, they were mightily lucky that they didn't hate each other!
As I said, I don't know. Is what OP wants either possible or interesting? I suspect not.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jan 9, 2020)

It depends on how you define it. You can have quite a jolly adventure in a very dark setting. The orcs in _The Lord of the Rings _want to commit genocide and wreck the world, but the overall tone of the books is more gentle melancholy and high adventure rather than horror and despair (although it's there). Many war films from the 60s and 70s could be shown at tea-time.

It's also difficult to imagine a utopian future, especially one that everyone would like. George Orwell once wrote about how hard it was to imagine Heaven, and how boring authors always made perfect futures sound. Everyone would want to avoid Orwell's dystopia, but I wonder how many would want to live in his idea of an ideal world? Iain M Banks' Culture is often sited as a pretty idyllic sort of place, although the books are far from jolly and I suspect the culture citizens would be really tedious people. 

That said, I could easily imagine a world better than our current one, which would be far from perfect but a significant improvement. A story in which such a world faced off against an external dictatorship, or had to deal with evil people trying to undermine it, could be very entertaining. I think you'd have to deal with the possibility that a lot of people would rather follow a "charismatic" leader into disaster than live a quiet, pleasant and ultimately much happier life. But that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a better society out there.


----------



## -K2- (Jan 9, 2020)

Well, I just watched for the gazillionth time Forbidden Planet, and perhaps I was wrong regarding utopian/romantic visions of the future. Besides keeping its place as the BEST sci-fi movie EVER made, it's rather utopian to the extreme. Not only has man reached his greatest point of advancement, the adventure of so much more still remains. There is romance in it, and when we get to the crux of it, it is only a single man's inner self which is the conflict.

Considering that upon reflection, many stories/movies hit that same mark. In fact, perhaps most. Societies shown, even mankind's are as utopian as they can be, considering their natural growth. It takes battling the bad to rise above it.

So, perhaps what is at issue is that common theme we see played out.  It's not some crushing entity or alien race which is the problem, yet the battle with our inner, lesser selves. That will never be out of fashion, as it's what causes us as a species to advance.

K2

p.s.: Just for the record, Forbidden Planet should NEVER be remade, in my opinion. Besides the fact that I still find the visuals stunning, I don't see how it could be improved upon.


----------



## Vince W (Jan 9, 2020)

-K2- said:


> p.s.: Just for the record, Forbidden Planet should NEVER be remade, in my opinion. Besides the fact that I still find the visuals stunning, I don't see how it could be improved upon.


What? You don't think it could be improved with top notch CGI and the flavour of the minute actors with a hip and edgy script with characters that never stop to think of the consequences of their own actions while making baffling choices to a conclusion that is not possible and never intended? Madness!


----------



## Vince W (Jan 9, 2020)

I am more than a little bored with the trend of teen-dystopian futures we see in science fiction at the moment. Bart Simpson said it best, "Depressing teens is like shooting fish in a barrel."

I would like to see a world that, while not perfect perhaps, has gone a long way to address the general disparity we see in wealth, social interactions, and general well-being. There can still be dark themes and dangerous things but the relentlessly bland, everyone is in hell and there's nothing we can do about it idea needs to stop.


----------



## ctg (Jan 9, 2020)

Vince W said:


> There can still be dark themes and dangerous things but the relentlessly bland, everyone is in hell and there's nothing we can do about it idea needs to stop.



My trilogy comes out from a very dark place, and it reaches light at the end. If I continue it, I will divide it between zones. But it's like Rodders say, there is no future where everything is fine and happy. If you can create a place where everything is fine and use it as a way to show, how they can get out from the darkness and despair then in theory you're giving the readers/audience hope and good feelings.


----------



## -K2- (Jan 9, 2020)

Vince W said:


> What? You don't think it could be improved with top notch CGI and the flavour of the minute actors with a hip and edgy script with characters that never stop to think of the consequences of their own actions while making baffling choices to a conclusion that is not possible and never intended?



No...

K2


----------



## Steve Harrison (Jan 10, 2020)

Vince W said:


> I am more than a little bored with the trend of teen-dystopian futures we see in science fiction at the moment. Bart Simpson said it best, "Depressing teens is like shooting fish in a barrel."
> 
> I would like to see a world that, while not perfect perhaps, has gone a long way to address the general disparity we see in wealth, social interactions, and general well-being. There can still be dark themes and dangerous things but the relentlessly bland, everyone is in hell and there's nothing we can do about it idea needs to stop.



I had this discussion with my daughter a few years ago, when she bemoaned the lack of fun adventure stories with well-adjusted teen girl protagonists (who still had both parents) and no boy troubles. So I wrote a novel based on my childhood memories of the UFO craze and straight-forward, no-nonsense books similar to The Famous Five & Secret Seven.  The Earth is the same, but the wider human-filled universe has solved all the petty issues (or ignored them).


----------



## Karn's Return (Jan 10, 2020)

I have to state the opinion that not only do we need more fun and happy sci fi, but we definitely need more fun and happy fantasy as well, at least for film, perhaps along the line of Terry Pratchett.


We just need more fun, upbeat, and happiness in everything now in general, to be honest. I'm sick of seeing grimdark all over the place. And yes, I would consider ASoIaF to be grimdark.


----------



## Vince W (Jan 10, 2020)

Karn's Return said:


> And yes, I would consider ASoIaF to be grimdark.


I don't see ASoIaF as grimdark at all. I consider it to be grimzzzz...


----------



## AlexH (Jan 10, 2020)

I don't think there are that many series that require the viewer to be obsessive to understand them. I wouldn't understand anything, if that was the case.

There would still have to be conflict from the protagonist's point of view, but even a utopia would seem like a dystopia to someone. The Giver comes to mind.


----------



## Parson (Jan 10, 2020)

@AlexH  Hmm. "The Giver" as a utopia setting? ..... I would see it as a hopeful response to a dystopian world. Or is that not what you meant? I guess the kind of positive novel I would have in mind would be something along the line of the Honor Harrington novels. There is conflict aplenty, but Manticore and it major allies have solved/are solving the main internal problems.


----------



## Star-child (Jan 10, 2020)

Stories about discovery or achievement rather than armed conflict used to be a bit more common. Fountains of Paradise, Rama, Destination Void, Glide Path, Cryptonomicon, Pattern Recognition, Marooned in Real Time, The Gods Themselves, Cool War, Man Plus, Gateway, etc.

There is no particular reason that SF always has to be thriller/adventure/war. It can be mystery, rescue/survival, achievement and offer all the thrills and setbacks of violent fiction.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Jan 10, 2020)

ctg said:


> My trilogy comes out from a very dark place, and it reaches light at the end. If I continue it, I will divide it between zones. But it's like Rodders say, there is no future where everything is fine and happy. If you can create a place where everything is fine and use it as a way to show, how they can get out from the darkness and despair then in theory you're giving the readers/audience hope and good feelings.


Yeah, this is kind of my take on it. Things that are light and fluffy with no darkness feel like they lack depth. Things that are dark with no hope can get too downbeat (I've been guilty of this, for sure). I like dark books but I do like to be rewarded for it by some kind of levity be it the hope that's given, or the humour in it.


----------



## Dave (Jan 10, 2020)

There were a lot of questions there. I'll stick to the first question. Fiction is a way of taking yourself away from your current problems into another world, however different people do want different things. If you look back through the last few decades, SF tends to mirror the times in which it was written. There was a lot of optimism in the '50's and '60's which was mirrored by futures showing world peace, love and harmony (not completely, there were plenty of apocalyptic stories too.) To many people today, our future seems very bleak right now (without getting into Politics, the news stories are generally always very bleak and downbeat) and so fiction just mirrors that. It may not, however, be what everyone wants from fiction - I actually liked _Stargate Universe_ myself, but it was a big departure from what fans had expected from out of the _Stargate_ franchise (but similar to the re imaged _Battlestar Galactica_ and other SF) and fans hated it. They wanted it instead to continue in that more upbeat, fun and warm view of our future. You can see that played through ever more starkly in _Star Trek_. _Star Trek Discovery_ is extremely dark and very different to anything that Gene Roddenberry envisaged.

I'd have to disagree about the _Expanse_ and _Babylon 5_: The _Expanse_ is certainly a harsh universe with over-population and a lack of personal freedoms, but you will see in the fourth Season how people still want to leave all that behind. People still aspire to want the same things as they always did. _Babylon 5 _had plenty of humour (The _Expanse_ does too) and wasn't that serious. It was a little more gritty than _Star Trek_, but then _Deep Space Nine_ was also gritty.


----------



## Star-child (Jan 10, 2020)

On the matter of grit, books like Herbert's Destination Void are not optimistic or Utopian, much like the recent Reynold's Pushing Ice or The Martian. But that is specific to the character's situation, not the "world". All could be set in optimistic times, despite the serious events that overtake the characters.

Which is pretty much the basis for the Culture - the contrast between a peace loving society and the bad behavior of their less evolved neighbors. The important thing is really whether the characters are experiencing some sort of jeopardy - even if it isn't life or death.


----------



## Karn's Return (Jan 10, 2020)

AlexH said:


> I don't think there are that many series that require the viewer to be obsessive to understand them. I wouldn't understand anything, if that was the case.
> 
> There would still have to be conflict from the protagonist's point of view, but even a utopia would seem like a dystopia to someone. The Giver comes to mind.




Well, the Giver was dystopian in that the government controlled everything. Ultimately, without free will and freedom to choose, nothing can be a utopia. And given human nature, those will never allow for peace, the cycle goes on...

Conflict is one thing, of course. But there can still be cases where even though something major is going on, there can still be a lighthearted, happy upbeat to it. Firefly is an example that comes to mind, even though I-and I would suspect many others on this forum-would say that Fox cut down in its prime. I suppose it might've just come at a bad time for sci-fi back in its day.


----------



## AlexH (Jan 10, 2020)

Karn's Return said:


> Well, the Giver was dystopian in that the government controlled everything. Ultimately, without free will and freedom to choose, nothing can be a utopia. And given human nature, those will never allow for peace, the cycle goes on...
> 
> Conflict is one thing, of course. But there can still be cases where even though something major is going on, there can still be a lighthearted, happy upbeat to it. Firefly is an example that comes to mind, even though I-and I would suspect many others on this forum-would say that Fox cut down in its prime. I suppose it might've just come at a bad time for sci-fi back in its day.


You could say Westworld is a utopia - it's a theme park after all. Red Dwarf is fun but also grim. If sci-fi tries to be fun, there's always something about it that isn't. Doctor Who tackles dark themes but is generally lighthearted at heart, but maybe it's more fantasy than sci-fi. There are many exceptions in fantasy - Pushing Daisies, for example. Maybe fun is just easier to do in fantasy.


----------



## Karn's Return (Jan 10, 2020)

I suppose that's because fantasy can be more whimsical without it feeling out of place. It's a bit tougher when the ideas in a setting are based on science.

And yeah, there's going to be some more serious sides about things, definitely. But, I just don't like it being episodes of Law and Order: SVU all the time.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jan 11, 2020)

I think it is just easier to write a downward turning everything looking bad story, it automatically makes hoops for the characters to jump through. A good comedy like Galaxy Quest is the product of a great many people all working towards the same goal, even if they didn't know they were. 

The premise of using a parody of a parody to make a serious leaning but highly comical work can only be done so many times. To make another Galaxy Quest that is different but still the same comical impact is going to be hard to do. For me, it marches right along side 5th Element but for entirely different reasons. I think both would be hard to remake or make sequels for, as they both were a product of determined people, on both sides of the camera, to do something different and do it well in the allotted time. 

Galaxy Quest started as R rated and was muted down to GP and still succeeded. Far more movies rely on the R rated material to keep audiences interested. Dystopian movies seem to automatically create sequel like extensions that are needed to finish the movie. Which only turn out to be more of the same.

Do we need funny, upbeat science fiction along with the dark side? Yes we do, but can they be made as easily as the standardized doom and gloom stories? No they can't.


----------



## Star-child (Jan 11, 2020)

Does "upbeat" imply that the whole book has to be funny? Stephenson and Banks peppered lol humor throughout books that also contained a little horror, action and science. I'd much rather read or watch SF with some light moments than a constant stream of Bill the Galactic Hero.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 11, 2020)

I don't see how a _truly_ optimistic future would have much room for space battles ... or any room, actually.  Genuine battles (as opposed to metaphorical battles, like our sporting events), in space or planet-side, can hardly be _fun_.

Fortunately, violent conflict isn't the only way to keep readers involved and entertained.   There are a whole range of human behaviors that are interesting to read about.  As writers of speculative fiction, we depend too much, I am afraid, on that particular type because it is an easy and proven way to keep readers engaged.  But as writers of imaginative literature surely we are capable of exploring some of the others.  Writers of other types of literature do, though of course most of them limit themselves just as much to whatever type sells best to _their_ own readers.

But why shouldn't we, at least some of the time, write about optimistic and, yes, fun futures and worlds?  Instead of spending so much time either warning about or reflecting the worst, why not devote our talents to providing something to hope for, something to aspire to?  Such a world need not be dull—in fact, if it were dull, it wouldn't be much to aspire to, would it?—anymore than it needs to be violent or sensational. To attract readers away from the usual fare might take some very fine writing, but maybe we should be more willing to challenge ourselves in that way?


----------



## olive (Jan 11, 2020)

We need worlds set in a balanced, content future I think. A true utopia is too unrealistic. Is there a word to define a world in position in between dystopia and utopia? I don't know if there is. Perhaps that tells a lot about human nature and imagination and therefore what we look in a story, what we most enjoy.


----------



## Elckerlyc (Jan 11, 2020)

I am just thinking aloud by scribbling for a moment.
If utopia isn't realistic - and I agree it isn't - than the present halfway status (let's call it RealLife for now) between dystopia and utopia is _hope_. Hope we won't fall back to the first and hope we have the strength and imagination to keep striving for the latter. It won't come by itself. _Ora et labora._
I can picture a story about this struggle, the hero fighting RL's inertia, told in a positive narration, maybe even with some healthy dose of self-irony and comic relief, but with a hopeful ending. We will get there, someday! Fine.
If such a story would be set in present day, the setting would be recognizable for many... but it wouldn't be SF. (Unless you give the ending a SF twist.)
Would such a story, set in the future, where RL is already better and more promising as it is today - because we don't want stories about or set in dystopias, right? - still make an appealing story? In this imaginary world people would, up to a point, to our eyes already life in a kind of utopia.
What I am trying to say is, any story needs a conflict, there must be some ugly RL situation, which people can identify with, to start from. Which is opposite of the fun future whose viability this thread is exploring.
The question might be, how realistic do you want the setting to be? If the present day's stories reflects present day's outlook, which is, as indicated above, more grim as it was 3-4 decades ago, than you could argue that writers (willingly or not) tell their stories from the same grim - and realistic? - outlook. Which might lead to the conclusion that any picture of fun futures and frolicking protagonists is therefor not and our need for it is escapism. Which, speaking for myself, I will not deny. But any stories told from such a perspective tends inho to drift towards comedies and fairy tales.

I am rambling, something I had resolved not to do anymore (at least not publicly   ). Worse, I might be totally wrong.
All in all, I want realistic stories, not fairy tales. That's why I love The Expanse as TV-series. A vision of the future in 200 years that's believable. That future is for some an utopia, for many a dystopia, distrust and conflicting interests are  all around. I have no problem with such realistic tales, as long as the tone of the narration remains optimistic and there is room for humor and different perspectives.
That somehow sums it up for me. I don't necessarily need stories about fun or ideal futures. I want stories with a hopeful outlook.
Thus ends my thinking. My apologies for it being aloud.


----------



## -K2- (Jan 11, 2020)

In contrast, I'd argue that utopias are real and reachable. The problem is, each person's utopian vision, is another person's dystopian nightmare. Individuality is funny like that. However, take away that individuality which obstructs reaching a universal utopian dream, and all you have is gilded oppression.

K2


----------



## tinkerdan (Jan 11, 2020)

I think this is going to be my stock answer to these type of assertions...


tinkerdan said:


> I think that if you could get a copy and read this book...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...The media of movies and tv are not the whole of Science fiction and the mood swings of their market should in no way reflect on the whole.



			
				The World of Science Fiction--Chapter 1 begining said:
			
		

> Most People seem to think that science fiction is some kind of wild futuristic trash, full of giant insects, invading monsters, mad scientists, robots out of control , and violent action in which semi-nude girls are always being rescued by excessively masculine heroes equipped with strange ray guns. These concepts are probably derived from the movies, television, comic books and the covers of the more sensational magazines.


The author goes on to say that not all science fiction contains the excess of action an violence.
The point is that science fiction is so much more than just what is at the movie or on tv.
You just have to go look for it and don't expect your tv programmers to help you out in your selection.


----------



## Anthoney (Jan 12, 2020)

Yes we do.  I loved the Battle Star Galactica remake.  That shouldn't mean that every show has to be heart crushing and deary.   Stargate Universe was better in so many ways than SG1 or Atlantis but it was to dark.  Even the fans who wanted a little more serious Stargate show (like myself) were turned off by the endless torture of the characters while going episodes with nothing good happening.  They did the same thing in the 5th season of Arrow.  Personally, I think Dark Matter did a good job of landing in the middle.

Of course this is all TV sci-fi.  I don't think books are in quite the same rut.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 12, 2020)

-K2- said:


> In contrast, I'd argue that utopias are real and reachable. The problem is, each person's utopian vision, is another person's dystopian nightmare. Individuality is funny like that. However, take away that individuality which obstructs reaching a universal utopian dream, and all you have is gilded oppression.
> 
> K2


Sorry, reading your statements strikes me as massively contradictory. 

if you have a society with no individuality then you have gilded oppression, not utopia
if you have society with individuality you don't have utopia. 

That about covers all cases, no? 

So how does this 'real and reachable' utopia arise?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 12, 2020)

I think most of us here would consider a society where individuality is appreciated and nourished to be a very good one, provided that individuality is not focussed on doing harm to others.

And yet, yes, there are those who would consider such a society as wicked and decadent; they have such a straight-jacketed idea of what constitutes goodness and morality.

The question might be how do the people _within_ that future society feel about their lives?  

There is a puritanical something inside some of us that feels that if we are _too_ happy something _must_ be wrong.  But is that right?  If everyone was busy and liked what they were doing and could see themselves working together to create something even better—that_ would be_ even better—if they liked their lives just fine, without brainwashing or programming, and had _just enough_ challenge to keep them interested and on their toes, that sounds pretty darn close to perfect to me.  How such a society could be formed, how it would be constructed, I don't know.


----------



## -K2- (Jan 12, 2020)

Venusian Broon said:


> Sorry, reading your statements strikes me as massively contradictory.
> 
> if you have a society with no individuality then you have gilded oppression, not utopia
> if you have society with individuality you don't have utopia.
> ...



By determining your individual utopian conditions and you establish it just for yourself (good),
_*or*_ finding like minded individuals (by their choice) to form your little society (better),
*or* you step back and accept that your utopia is not the other guys, embrace that diversity, then view the conflicts, problems, and bad as the common glue that binds good people to work toward a better way for all (best). That's a utopia in my book.

A perfect world where there are no differences, challenges, nothing to learn, no need to advance... that sounds like Hell to me.

You'd be surprised how a little bit of acceptance of others and viewing problems as an adventure, goes a long way toward building a personal Heaven. Whoops, I meant utopia 

Past that, my statement was meant to be contradictory, a catch-22. Quit looking for and trying to make a utopia outside yourself. Look inward.

K2


----------



## Parson (Jan 12, 2020)

Perhaps we are overthinking this. If everyone followed the Golden Rule (paraphrased) "Treat other people the way you would like to be treated." We would be somewhere close to a utopia. After all Utopia doesn't need everyone to have wonderful things, it just needs people living a life of mutual respect and love.


----------



## olive (Jan 12, 2020)

It seems people have different understandings or definitions of utopia and by extent what is perfect. Utopia is by definition an _imagined_ system of things in _perfect_ state. Now, I don't think the word perfect has a synonym (correct me if it is wrong), but it doesn't matter how you take the meaning of 'perfect', it doesn't mean the best for everyone which is what utopia means. Perfect means the ideal, the absolute, the complete, the flawless and the unmatched. It's not real, it is not flexible; it is closed. It's a very toxic concept for humanity because it's closely tied to puritanism.

What is happiness? It's a momentary feeling. The other kind of happiness is being *content* with what you have or accomplished. If feels to me that recently what people generally define as happiness is something more close to euphoria. Something like being in the center of things, adored, admired, someone others look up to.

Also while treating 'individuality' as the sole key to a utopia is wrong in many ways, that's not even the first problem because for any utopia -a utopia by the standard definition- the first problem is the concept of *power*. You need to remove that for a true utopia to occur.

Or why Robinson Crusoe, The God of the Flies, Of Mice and Men are among the greatest tellings of humanity. (Just what comes to mind randomly in seconds.)



Parson said:


> "Treat other people the way you would like to be treated." We would be somewhere close to a utopia.




Then we are already living in a utopia because almost all of the people on this planet, treat other people in the way they are treated -consciously or unconsciously- or they believe that they do that righteously. What people think and say what something is, should be or could be AND what people do in real life very rarely match. And for a good reason. Evolution. The human brain is 'armed' by every kind of defence mechanisms so strong, they are perfectly offence mechanisms. We are sapient. From an alienated point of view, we are the most violent, selfish, egocentric, vicious animals on this planet. This also makes us the best friends, best mothers and, fathers or best siblings possible. This is not just how we survived, this is also how we created art and science. Me, me, me, me...mine, mine, mine, mine. I want, I need, I ache, I do, I have...I am special, I don't want to die. The species have a 6 year old's ego. And unfortunately, that's what behind its success. The developments in the last 200 years didn't change anything about us, what we are.

If you want people to treat each other the way they wanted to be treated in a real sense, you need to remove *fear*, *desire*, *emotion*...etc. basically everything that makes them human first and then an individual. That saying has no meaning in reality, in human life, it doesn't matter which corner of the planet you live in. It's just wishful thinking.

I'm thinking pretty much the same about dystopia. The epic events and endings triggered by grand monolithic themes are unrealistic to me. But I understand it is necessary for storytelling for many reasons from the writers' point.

But most of all what people(s) feel about the circumstances they live in classic dystopias are generally unrealistic to me. We live in under worse circumstances in terms of media manipulation, surveillance and state control than the fictional world of 1984. We are just the cage-free, pasture chickens (the range depending on the birthplace) version of it but overall as human societies, we seem to rely on it rather than feel genuinely oppressed by it as long as we can have our toys, certain way of life. In fact, we live in a much better, far more intelligently executed dystopia than ever written. Because we are convinced about the world we live in. Of course, we complain about it all the time, we give reactions, we protest... but at this point, we go back to 'what people think/say that should be or could be AND what they do in reality very rarely match' situation. Animal farm is not that far from our reality either. The general circumstances on the farm are better, the farm is much bigger and as I said above as the cage-free chickens again we are convinced this is the best it can get before all it goes down. And the chickens in certain regions of the farm are convinced they live the best life because, in contrast to other parts of the farm, their circumstances are better. Other chickens are not that different than those chickens think, they think pretty similarly for the same reasons in a different way. 

So what is the most realistic, rational understanding of a dystopia, I don't know. Because it is as confusing and unconvincing as 'utopia' as far as the general human vision goes. I find the general AI and alien dystopias even more unrealistic for the obvious reasons, but at least they are more fun.

I think Ursula Leguin's approach(es) has always been my favourite. But then she is Ursula Le Guin. Other than that something that starts, develops and ends in some white or black terms does not satisfy me as a reader.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 12, 2020)

-K2- said:


> By determining your individual utopian conditions and you establish it just for yourself (good),
> _*or*_ finding like minded individuals (by their choice) to form your little society (better),
> *or* you step back and accept that your utopia is not the other guys, embrace that diversity, then view the conflicts, problems, and bad as the common glue that binds good people to work toward a better way for all (best). That's a utopia in my book.
> 
> ...


Ah final statement, thought you'd weasel out of it that way   None of the three options you gave above were utopian, just coping mechanisms 

I wasn't looking for utopia, I know it's impossible. There is no such thing as perfection, inward or outward. Things can always be better (or worse, as we're somewhere in the middle.) I suppose I'm just searching for a place called 'better'.


----------



## -K2- (Jan 12, 2020)

Venusian Broon said:


> Ah final statement, thought you'd weasel out of it that way   None of the three options you gave above were utopian, just coping mechanisms
> 
> I wasn't looking for utopia, I know it's impossible. There is no such thing as perfection, inward or outward. Things can always be better (or worse, as we're somewhere in the middle.)



Ah, indeed. Well, where there is a weasel, there is a way.

K2


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jan 12, 2020)

Brother From Another Planet, unlike I come In Peace, is sci fi comedy with a blunt message, its a movie that can be remade only if you stick to the original movie, the core of the picture is real so it can't be reinvented. 

Utopia, 6 cans for a buck. Better on one side, worse on the other. Poetry Fodder. It's a sum totals game with 6 sets of hands on the the ouija board making things up as we go along with whatever comes or goes our ways letting us believe we are in the neutral zone. The defined path is a meandering drunken walk that goes right up to the banks and sometimes over on either side with every stumble a course correction. I like Do unto others as it seems practical, but it has no preconceptions of what is acceptable, so perhaps people who expect to be stopped for their efforts will strike, for lack of a better word, first, as that is what they are expecting.


----------



## Parson (Jan 13, 2020)

olive said:


> Then we are already living in a utopia because almost all of the people on this planet, treat other people in the way they are treated -consciously or unconsciously- or they believe that they do that righteously.



I was ready to disagree adamantly until you added the "or they believe they do..."  Among humanity's other traits which we like to close ourselves off from is that we are really good at lying to ourselves. None of us comes close to living this way. I like to think that I try very hard, but I am painfully aware that I do think the same things about the woman 100 pounds overweight and buying 18 donuts, as I do the woman who's 30 pounds overweight and jogging behind a stroller. I look at Iowa's college basketball team and think "They're too white to win." and the examples of not treating others the way I would like to be treated in my own life would near infinite. But I truly believe that everyone was a bit more introspective and tried harder to see every other person as worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their life situation, what they had accomplished, or who they were related to (plus so many others!); the world would be as close to utopia as humans are likely to get this side of heaven. 

I suppose I was a little off topic when I was commenting on what would constitute a real utopia vs. an imagined one. In a strictly "reading the novel" sense, I much prefer the conflict to be outside of the "home" rather than inside it. So yes, I'd like my novels set more in better worlds than in worse ones.


----------



## Star-child (Jan 14, 2020)

There is no reason "utopian" can't refer to a place that is 90% of the way there. Making allowances for personal preference, a utopia just needs to address everyone's basic needs while allowing reasonable social freedom - rather than providing a one-size-fits-all philosophy that everyone has to believe in.

Most of the worst human societal level interactions can be traced to some sort of perceived disparity, rather than just natural cruelty. It should be unsurprising that the societies with the most satisfied members also have the most evenly distributed wealth - like Denmark. In that environment it is difficult to stoke and maintain prejudice.

Post scarcity (probably) = utopia in most important senses.


----------



## Parson (Jan 14, 2020)

Parson said:


> I like to think that I try very hard, but I am painfully aware that I do think the same things about the woman 100 pounds overweight and buying 18 donuts, as I do the woman who's 30 pounds overweight and jogging behind a stroller.



Obviously I meant do NOT think the same things about the woman 100 pounds ....

Mutters about reading what you thought you wrote rather than what you really wrote.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 14, 2020)

You're aware when you fail, Parson, and that's worth a great deal, because without that awareness we would never improve.


----------



## Al Jackson (Jan 14, 2020)

CmdrShepN7 said:


> I love The Expanse and Babylon 5 but I imagine all the philosophical and political stuff in Babylon 5 would turn off a lot of mainstream TV viewers. The Expanse is gritty and serious all the time although I really love the action.
> 
> Why not have a future where people enjoy being in that future?
> 
> ...



Frankly I find The Expanse space opera fun. I have more of a moment of transport by the more realistic feel of dirt-under-the-finger-nails extrapolated reality than I do with Star Trek or Star Wars. It is the verisimilitude of The Expanse that entertains me. The realism has a lived in feel to it … I don't get that from Star Trek and especially Star Wars. 
Actually Star Wars , which borrowed the backgrounds and world building from prose SF , has a good 'look' to it, but does not explore the stories as domesticated space opera … are too adolescent , I don't get the feeling that the settings and worlds built will ever exist , mainly because it seems one could never go to the bathroom!


----------



## olive (Jan 15, 2020)

Parson said:


> I was ready to disagree adamantly until you added the "or they believe they do..."  Among humanity's other traits which we like to close ourselves off from is that we are really good at lying to ourselves. ...



This is what I meant by strong, 'offensive' 'defence mechanisms'. If you had been a woman 100 pounds overweight looking at another woman 100 pounds overweight, you would have thought 'Oh that t-shirt would look better on me, my upper body has a better shape.' The 30 pounds overweight woman would look at you both and think, 'Oh I'd look much better than them whatever I wear'. So it really doesn't matter who weighs how much from this aspect.

What a person with 'normal' weight feels looking at someone 100 pounds overweight buying 18 donuts has nothing to do with the observed person's situation, if he/she is not close family, someone they share life with. It's just 'Thank god, it is not me' felt by the observer. (Or 'someone from my family, I share life with'.) And this is not something 'bad' or 'sinister', it is just how the human mind evolved to work. Humans cannot relate to someone or some situation in any other way.



Parson said:


> But I truly believe that everyone was a bit more introspective and tried harder to see every other person as worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their life situation, what they had accomplished, or who they were related to (plus so many others!); the world would be as close to utopia as humans are likely to get this side of heaven.



What you describe up there is _empathy_ which is almost always used in a positive sense generally in every society. However, empathy includes every kind of range of emotions and it doesn't work the way we'd like it to. Empathy doesn't just make you an introspective, mindful, 'good' person, it also makes you a 'bad', selfish, vicious, toxic individual. Because empathy is the emotional pillar of human intelligence and determines every kind of human behaviour and action we define as good or bad.

There is an experiment about empathy made by British primatologists. There is a table and two dolls named Peter and Mary. A little box with a lid, a little basket and, a marble. In the first part, a 3 year old and an adult is playing with their friends Peter and Mary. The marble belongs to Mary and it is in the basket. Toddler can see it. At some point, the doll Mary goes outside to play with her other friends and taken from the table, she is out. When she is out, at some point the marble is taken from the basket and but in a box and the box is closed. Now it cannot be seen. Game continues and after a short time, Mary comes back. And after this point, the 3 year old is carefully asked about the marble; where is it, what happened to it, questions around Mary related to the absence of the marble...etc. But the only reaction she gives is that she knows where it is. She reaches, opens the box and shows 'here it is!'

However, when the same scenario is played with a five year old, he gives a different reaction to the absence of the marble when asked those questions. He says, he knows where the marble is but also talks about the situation related to Mary, that she wouldn't know where her marble is because she wasn't there when it was a put in a box and so she would look for it, ask Peter...etc.

Empathy is this, not the positive or negative reactions/decisions made as a result of events and actions, but the ability to understand all aspects of what is going on in a situation and what that means for the parties involved. There are no other animals, primates on the planet with the level of ability of empathy of a five year old human child. A 5 year old can think about the consequences of a simple action he sees, he can guess what the other part would feel, think and do about it because he first thinks what he, himself feels, think and would do. It's mind-blowing.

But what he would do -decide to do- in real life in the same situation when his friend is looking for something she lost, in a situation he knows what happened is an altogether different story because he will act as according to his own benefit, may it be telling the truth or not saying anything about it, or telling who took the marble; what happened. Humans will always act according to their own benefits.

Yes, I -of course- understand where you are coming from with that simple golden rule. It's nice, positive, welcoming...etc. It is also older than any belief system because humans have highly likely figured out that the human mind is open to every kind of manipulation in imposing certain ideal forms of behaviour and therefore preserve traditional norms that are beneficial to society.  In which society, in which world? The traditional society, in the old world where individuality is defined as something out of the ideal norms.

Today we know that asking people to be introspective, to build positive empathy; think outside of their own is asking an organ, our brain which is evolved; almost programmed constantly to work with the best economy, to work in reverse; take a detour, go the long way and spend the precious energy to think outside its immediate benefits. This doesn't happen. We just like to think or act as if it could.

Stand up, make a thumbs up, draw a circle around yourself. Anything out of that circle requires/demands extra energy, strain, work for the human brain. Thinking/behaving out of that circle demand a longer way around things and the human brain chooses the short cut almost every time. And when we choose to got out of that area, we burden ourselves, we put a strain on our mind, we start to feel too much, think too much, often we feel anxiety, depressed.

So I believe, this understanding, this wishful way of thinking represented in this golden rule - like similar others- is not just obsolete, it is also harmful to modern societies because it works as a negative source of nurture to individuality in the 21st century, considering the circumstances humanity arrived. Because today, under the never-ending countless stimulation, information, and increasing 'sterilisation' of everything in daily life, people have no chance but become alienated and desensitized from an early age and whenever they are imposed upon minding others for being good, acting well, minding each other for the benefit of the society then they often start to mistake individuality, creativity, even intelligence with the opposite behaviour.

Look around. Being emotional and vulnerable almost has become equal to being 'stupid' and 'weak'. If you have scruples, you have baggage. If you are acting like an a******* you must be intelligent. These are rough examples, it is, of course, more complicated than this. We can make generalisations about all this. Why do people like certain villains? Or certain characters? From Gregory House to Joker, the contrast between what people say and impose in a collective manner and what they do is so obviously black and white, these characters become agents of truth beyond entertainment among young people.

We keep telling children that they should behave/act in a certain way and if they do everything will be OK/good when nothing works that way in real life. If we teach them about the nature of their species, that it is nowhere near sugar and spice, and all that's nice, but that we are egocentric self-serving beings; why people say that something is good or bad, but when it comes down to it they often behave/act in a completely the opposite way from a reasonable age, we can make them mindful about their behaviours, actions; choices and what is really going on real life. So the concepts of 'good' and 'bad' would become more solid, less mysterious, more real. Because that's how they grow up. They constantly hear all these good, ideal wishes, nice, good blanket suggestions and watch almost every adult doing the opposite. They are aware of everything, probably much better than us in this sense.

I don't think you were off-topic. We learn a lot from books, movies, tv shows...etc. about these main concepts, norms. It's important how they reflect on how society works, how realistic they are in this sense.


----------



## Parson (Jan 15, 2020)

I'm sorry, but I think you've over-psychologized. People are able to rise above their "programing." I've seen it over and over again. When you expect better of yourself and of others, there will be failures, but there will also be successes that would not have been seen without the effort.


----------



## olive (Jan 15, 2020)

Parson said:


> I'm sorry, but I think you've over-psychologized. People are able to rise above their "programing." I've seen it over and over again. When you expect better of yourself and of others, there will be failures, but there will also be successes that would not have been seen without the effort.



Of course, they are able. I am saying that it is not the first or the common way to go as you would wish to be with the golden rule because it is very difficult to happen. And the reason is the evolution of our brains; how it works. If we make people aware of that fact from a reasonable age they would be more mindful about their interactions with each other, and choices they make in a realistic understanding of the world they live in than making a wish that 'if people acted in a certain way, the world would be a good place', in a nutshell.


----------



## Parson (Jan 15, 2020)

olive said:


> Of course, they are able. I am saying that it is not the first or the common way to go as you would wish to be with the golden rule because it is very difficult to happen.



 On this we agree 100%. --- I have no doubt that our lower natures often dominate, but I want to give as little room for mine personally as I can. And I hope to encourage others in this as well.


----------



## AlexH (Jan 15, 2020)

I noticed a "Positive Future Short Story" category on the Critters polls: Critters Writers Workshop Readers Poll


----------



## Parson (Jan 16, 2020)

I was listening to a Podcast this morning The Argument - Could Bernie Sanders Win It All? and part of the podcast had to do with technology and how we are not seeing technology nearly as positively as we did even twenty years which might be adding to the general malaze of Western Society today. I thought that there were a lot of good insights. --- This portion is about the last third of the podcast.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 20, 2020)

We need a film that paints a a more optimistic future . Why?  Because of the outright unpleasantness  of the here and now that we live in.  We need something to give us a bit  of hope that there might be something  better on the horizon.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Sep 2, 2021)

I think all sci-fi needs some comedy as well as drama. Lampshading is always fun. I feel that even the darkest sci-fi could benefit from some levity and vice versa. Also, writing light material shouldn't be taken lightly, especially in a darker work.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Sep 3, 2021)

Hopepunk is what you need


----------



## W Collier (Sep 3, 2021)

I find it amusing and ironic that this thread died in January of 2020.


BAYLOR said:


> We need a film that paints a a more optimistic future . Why?  Because of the outright unpleasantness  of the here and now that we live in.  We need something to give us a bit  of hope that *there might be something  better on the horizon*.



In any case, what is your priority?  To feel good, or to do good?  A good life, or a good death?  In case you can't have both, best choose now.


----------

