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

[olive]

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.)

"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]

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

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-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Al Jackson]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Parson]

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]

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]

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]

Hopepunk is what you need

 

[W Collier]

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

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.