Hopepunk. Can We Demand A Better World Into Existence?

[Stuart Suffel]

To me, the desire for movement to new planets is an understandable 'Clean Slate' need. But it's hard to know if there will ever be a 'clean' slate. Even now, with all our knowledge and wisdom,democracies and technology, colonization / plunder of one group of peoples by another, of one country by another, is still happening. The In Group / Out Group phenomena is a real problem, that could be seen as something that can be re-thought, or accepted (subconsciously, and by some, consciously) as the built-in, unavoidable, evolutionary drive of Humankind, since time began.

Does the universe shape us, or do we shape the universe? There ye go - the subject of a new writing challenge!

Yup, tis tricky, the whole who really rocks the cradle thingy.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Of course it all depends on what we're hoping for. Humans naturally have a far greater capacity for happiness than the world is able to satisfy and that is never going to change. Psychologically-speaking, pretty much the best we can hope for in life is to get by, i.e. with good moments, bad moments, boring moments and plenty of moments we can't really say anything about. Looking back, one's overall impression is probably "Yeah, got through that. Could have been better but could have been worse."

Getting by doesn't actually require very much: food, clothing, a roof, bed and a few other necessities. Then some reasonably interesting work (actually pretty much any job becomes sort of interesting - at least sometimes - once one is experienced at it). A few diversions to lighten things and recharge the batteries and voila! you're made.

Which of course isn't good enough. So we instinctively spend our lives hoping for something better. If we think there is actually something to look forward to, we're optimistic; if we think there isn't, we're pessimistic. My own take is that the industrial revolution and everything that came after it was a vast, co-ordinated effort to convince ourselves that there is something to hope for, a bright future built on universal suffrage, technological breakthroughs and a growing GDP. The point of the exercise is that it is the future that must be better, regardless of how well or badly the present is doing. Compared to the rest of human history, our present is an unimaginable paradise: comfortable palatial homes, marvelous healthcare technology that cures all sorts of diseases that were fatal in the past, an extraordinary abundance and variety of foods, wonderful devices enabling us to do things inconceivable in the past. A real heaven on earth, no? It's funny how fast Progress become tedious....

 

[Dan Jones]

Getting by doesn't actually require very much: food, clothing, a roof, bed and a few other necessities. Then some reasonably interesting work (actually pretty much any job becomes sort of interesting - at least sometimes - once one is experienced at it). A few diversions to lighten things and recharge the batteries and voila! you're made.

Great post. I've said it before; those American Founding Fathers were a clever bunch, including the pursuit of happiness in the Bill of Rights, not happiness itself. Because, as Dostoevsky said, "Shower on him every blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, give him economic prosperity such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of the species, and even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick." Better to ensure people are always motivated and able to improve their lot rather than foist upon them some manufactured utopia.

Back to the OP: I really don't like the phrasing of the article: "demanding" a better world. It smacks of entitlement and passing the buck. If you assume the responsibility for improving things is on you (though not to assume that it's not also on others) and you set about orienting your actions in alignment with that thought, then you're already on the road to improvement: of the self, and also of others. I prefer the old Ghandi quote: "be the change you want to see."

 

[farntfar]

But there you have it.
You both seem to be focusing your hope on tomorrow afternoon, or maybe sometime in the next few years.
The focus of the OP was surely on the far future as seen by SF fiction and also general human aspirations.

No. I don't really expect world peace or a Star Trek type economy in my lifetime, but I do hope that by my actions and by the hopefulness that I have engendered in my children, that the human race is moving towards it.
And I look for fiction that is encouraging other people that it may be possible.

 

[Parson]

I remember reading a S.F. book decades ago, wish I remembered the title or the author, but I do remember this. A group of interstellar settlers discover that their presence on a planet is actually harming the inhabitants. But they love their new planet and don't want to leave, so they start searching parallel universes to find a universe where the inhabitants have never evolved. One of the key plot devices was the inhabitants of the planet have a religion and part of the religion is a "tie" stone. Anyone may carry a "tie" but for some special people it will glow and sometimes allow them a glimpse of the unseen. One of the settlers was given a "tie" and he carries it, but for him it is simply a stone. In their search they find a parallel universe where the settlers, instead of leaving or trying to assimumlate with the inhabitants have instead essentially enslaved them. The universe traveling settlers help these inhabitants throw off the control of the enslavers. In the/a final scene the parallel universe settlers are about to leave and the "tie" bearer gives it to one of the formally enslaved inhabitants and he says something very like this: "In that moment I might have had a moment of true insight because I realized that it was likely in the seeking and not in the finding of the planet without inhabitants that we (the traveling settlers) would find our joy."

I've always thought that the above was a terrific insight, and the same is likely often true of the human race. We are never going to find happiness on our own, but seeking for it will make everything so much better. --- In fact with happiness I would dare go a step further, that once happiness is grasped it will soon slip away, because happiness is found in comparison rather than by definition.

 

[Montero]

"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" - I think that was Robert Louis Stevenson. I've always had a lack of attraction to that concept as to me journeys are discomfort, arrival is relaxation. The discomfort may come with some interesting experiences and views, but.....

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

from the BBC article

"Hopepunk says that kindness and softness doesn't equal weakness, and that in this world of brutal cynicism and nihilism, being kind is a political act. An act of rebellion," Rowland wrote in a follow-up to her original viral post. "It's about DEMANDING a better, kinder world." If hope sings a "tune without words" – as Dickinson described – then Rowland hears that song as a battle cry. This is the "punk" side of the moniker.

The essence of the hopepunk philosophy can be found in an exchange between Frodo and Samwise Gamgee in The Two Towers from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films, as they struggle against the forces of evil around them.

"It's like in the great stories, Mr Frodo," Sam says. "Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the Sun shines it will shine out the clearer."

It's not unreasonable to believe our thoughts inform our actions, and our actions create our environment. So...

In Rowland's follow up to her original viral post she also says,

Be spiteful. Be petty. Be rude. Spray-paint someone’s house. Grab your local senator and tar and feather them, I don’t know. Do whatever you have to do, as long as you’re doing something, as long as you’re taking hold of the world around you in a real way and yanking it in the direction of Slightly Less Terrible.

I wonder what she would think if people who disagree with her take on things decide to spray paint her house then tar and feather her on the assumption that they in fact are responding to a different, yet perfectly valid battle cry?

In their minds, they may be doing whatever they have to do to take hold of the world around them in a real way to yank it in the direction of Slightly Less Terrible.

I think she makes some good points in the article but I cannot see indulgence in petty rudeness, tantrum-throwing, vandalism and assault as manifestations of genuine optimism or as viable methods for effecting positive cultural change or enlightened political transformation.

 

[Stuart Suffel]

"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" - I think that was Robert Louis Stevenson. I've always had a lack of attraction to that concept as to me journeys are discomfort, arrival is relaxation. The discomfort may come with some interesting experiences and views, but.....

The old "Life is what happens to us while we are making other plans" (attributed to Allen Saunders) is very true. The is never an end destination, until there is...
Still, if mice can plan world domination, then...

 

[farntfar]

Yes, of course we're all going to be pulling in different directions, because most of us are at least partly wrong most of time.

That's where the hope comes in; that the sum total of all our mistaken efforts is still towards the right future.

I tend to believe that most of the people I disagree with, still think what they think for good reasons.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" - I think that was Robert Louis Stevenson. I've always had a lack of attraction to that concept as to me journeys are discomfort, arrival is relaxation. The discomfort may come with some interesting experiences and views, but.....

Obviously, Robert Louis Stevenson never had to drive an hour and a half to do a 10 hour night shift in a psychiatric ward and then drive home again in order to have a shower and a good sleep.

 

[Stuart Suffel]

Obviously, Robert Louis Stevenson never had to drive an hour and a half to do a 10 hour night shift in a psychiatric ward and then drive home again in order to have a shower and a good sleep.

He did have to bunk with a lot of smelly sailors though!

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

He did have to bunk with a lot of smelly sailors though!

Serves him right!

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

That's where the hope comes in; that the sum total of all our mistaken efforts is still towards the right future.

This is the part I'm struggling with. One of the arguments for democracy is that if we all vote according to our own interests, the resulting government will best represent the interests of most of us. I think that may have made some sense once - well back into the twentieth century. But I do worry that it isn't helping us solve the major problems of our era - like climate change for example. Changing the way I live in order to tackle climate change has a huge effect on me, but it has little effect on the climate unless seven (or is it eight now?) billion other people do the same thing. So it remains a big ask unless there is some kind of collective, organised, possibly mandated movement. What I am probably describing is a form of BIG government, which is under constant attack from what I would call the 'freedom' crowd. This goes back to the original post, because I think simply trying to be nice and do the right thing on an individual level is not going to be good enough to save the world.

 

[Parson]

This goes back to the original post, because I think simply trying to be nice and do the right thing on an individual level is not going to be good enough to save the world.

Absolutely true if you are acting alone. But you are not. In every human mass movement there are going to be some who will go the other direction. Getting "everyone" to move in the same direction is like herding cats. It can't be done. But as long as a substantial majority move in the right direction better is possible. Soon enough to save us from terrible climate consequences? Likely not, but speaking for myself I can hardly believe we've moved as far as we have already. Asking people to make a considerable sacrifice now for a time when they will not likely be here anymore is a hard pill for the human psyche, which focuses so much on self, to handle. That so many have done and are planning to do so much is amazing to me, and gives me some hope that some semblance of human society will continue.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Meself I don't think the future of humanity will be anything terrible if all we have to worry about is carbon emissions. In the past the planet was actually much warmer than it now is - it was the advent of the "Little Ice Age" in mediaeval times that ended the barnlike peasant grubenhauser of the post-Antiquity era, replacing it with the multi-room cottage that was easier to keep warm.

Oil, coal, natural gas and uranium are slated to substantially run out some time in the second half of this century. Having read everything I can find on the subject, I seriously doubt green energy can replace them enough to keep present industrial levels going. Industry will subside which means human society will revert to a partial pre-industrial state, with limited tech but a much greater dependence on animal and human muscle. Visualise only the rich having the means to travel around in horseless carriages.

The human population will peak in a couple of decades and then - if present trends continue - start to fall. Hopefully, by the time fossil fuels run out, the population will have dropped sufficiently to be fed by traditional agricultural methods. The great industrial experiment will be largely over, and we will revert to a way of life that worked fine for millennia.

Looking at the past, only two things were capable of causing a massive catastrophe: plague and war. From Justinian onwards devastating plague meant various forms of the Black Death, but its occurrences were infrequent and quite brief. Warfare in the past usually wasn't catastrophic: two armies would meet on a field and duke it out whilst the rest of the population got on with their lives. Genocide was a thing only in the case of someone like Genghis Khan or Timur. Our contemporary wars, with widespread carnage and millions of civilian deaths, is a modern invention. Nearly all the time, life in the past pottered along peacefully enough for the average individual.

If we can get out from under technology and industry which gives us silly humans far too much power then we should be OK.

 

[Pyan]

This is getting entirely too close to social politics, and straying too far from any kind of writing discussion. I'm temporarily suspending the thread while I confer with the rest of the Moderation Team.