Let's talk about dystopias

[Christine Wheelwright]

Professor Moeller, tackles a similar topic in his critique on "Don't Look Up" from a systems theory perspective. He says systems theorist conceive of society as a series of overlapping systems (the media, the knowledge production industry, the military-industrial complex, government and so on).

"Don't Look Up" tackles the way these systems interact to prevent meaningful action on Climate Change (The dystopia) because each system has its own sets of interests and objectives. In this way, no one person deliberately causes a negative effect, but the structural interests and designs of the various sub-systems prevent meaningful action to be taken.

I just watched this video. It aligns perfectly with my views, and even my tone (cheerful pessimism). But catastrophe and dystopia will come with a whimper not a bang. And arguably our systems (call it late stage capitalism if you like) and constructs of government are structurally incapable of averting it (even if the problems are recognised and there is a will to address them).

 

[Stephen Palmer]

My The Autist would certainly count.

 

[Toby Frost]

Obviously The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopia because of religious tyranny, but it's also set against a background of population decrease and sterility that seems to be due to pollution, but is never explained in detail. The world just seems to have gone downhill (at least in the USA).

I did once try to write a book set on a planet where people literally worshipped money, and regarded any sort of misfortune or poverty as a punishment from their god, and so had no provision for the unfortunate. It was a sort of dystopia-by-mutual-agreement, where everyone was entirely out for himself. The plan was that it would collapse, but I never got that far.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Obviously The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopia because of religious tyranny, but it's also set against a background of population decrease and sterility that seems to be due to pollution, but is never explained in detail. The world just seems to have gone downhill (at least in the USA).

I did once try to write a book set on a planet where people literally worshipped money, and regarded any sort of misfortune or poverty as a punishment from their god, and so had no provision for the unfortunate. It was a sort of dystopia-by-mutual-agreement, where everyone was entirely out for himself. The plan was that it would collapse, but I never got that far.

That's really interesting. In my work it is not really money that is revered, but the 'economy' is seen as almost god-like. This is a hard concept to explain in a few words. But rather than a system which mankind creates and engineers to perform a useful function (fixing or replacing it if it does not work), the 'economy' is seen as something beyond reproach, something that can only be tweaked. Something that transcends human involvement - perhaps somehow like the natural environment. An inevitability. Rather than the 'economy' being something mankind creates and manages for its benefit, we are instead expected to find our place within the organic evolving system (and heaven forbid that we should mess with it, even when it proves itself not fit for purpose).

The problem with my work, of course, is that it is merely a near-future extrapolation of current trends that are obvious to anyone who looks properly. It is a bit depressing, it is shooting fish in a barrel, and there's no escapism in it. Back to the drawing board I think.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Just finished reading "The Last of the Deliverers" by Poul Anderson. It's a short in the Harry Harrison edited "Backdrop of Stars" which is a commentary on societal change that satirises socialist utopianism and conservativism.

We're introduced to a society that live in a state following the collapse of the United States into individual townships, and the fall of the USSR. People work the land and use a barter system having abandoned money. Shops and businesses no longer exist and residents make everything they need themselves.

Told from the perspective of a young boy who is only interested in playing marbles, it recounts his recollections of a crazy old man who lives in a bubble surrounded by the material possessions of his youth, most of all his political pin badge which shows his allegiance to the republican party. For him, this town is a dystopia because businesses no longer exist, people no longer care for consumer culture and there are no more television broadcasts.

One day, a traveller arrives - an old man and ex-communist. His arrival sparks the beginning of a feud. For the communist, the town is also a dystopia - the land is not communally owned, there is no technological utopia, people freely barter their goods and services for profit.

A heated argument begins between the two old men who weigh up their historic grievances and their problems with the modern world until this escalates to violence. They are separated and taken to different homes to cool off, but in the night, escape, meet up and kill each other. The residents of the town are utterly perplexed by their behaviour.

As a coda to the story, Anderson relates how a conglomerate of warlords eventually sweep across the town and take it over.
The story features a note from the author where Anderson states:

"Collectively as well as individually, man is never going to find perfection. Some societies he builds may work better, for the majority, anyhow, than others. But all of them will have their built-in drawbacks. Their affairs will always be conducted with a high irreducible minimum of inefficiency. read: sentimentalism, magical thinking, short sightedness, vanity, greed, envy, hate, fear - not because we are evil but because we are mortal.

The failure to recognise this has made too much science fiction politically so naive as to be unbelievable." - Poul Anderson

 

[Swank]

Drowning Towers is a classic.

Some of Ken MacLeod's work might count.

 

[Toby Frost]

Interesting. I think the best dystopias work because they say "Don't live like this" instead of "Live like this". The down-side is that you get people deliberately misinterpreting such books - I've seen 1984 "claimed" by people who would happily have had George Orwell shot - but you don't get the kind of political naivety that Poul Anderson seems to be condemning in that quote. In some older SF, there's definitely a sense that "If only we did X, everything would be perfect" but history has shown that any creed can be used for evil ends.

That's really interesting. In my work it is not really money that is revered, but the 'economy' is seen as almost god-like.

I can't go into much detail but this feels like a feasible belief, especially when held in an irrational, cult-like fashion. My story was just that the god of this planet (Mammon!) was considered to reward people with literal financial success, and so the Mammonites directly equated wealth and morality. Because everything was for sale, most Mammonites couldn't afford much at all, and lived in illiterate squalor, continually fighting each other for scraps, which they regarded as the favour of their god. The planet was ruled by a few feudal tycoons, and the plot concerned a spy who was sent to assassinate one of these people to destabilise the society. Maybe I should go back to it sometime but, as you say, such stories can be rather depressing to write.

 

[Swank]

Interesting. I think the best dystopias work because they say "Don't live like this" instead of "Live like this".

Some dystopias exist to warn, but many are just there to provide a less civilized setting for the adventure to be set in. A technogical future leaves fewer opportunities for gun fights and car chases.


@Christine Wheelwright Nearly all of William Gibson's and many of Neal Stephenson's future stories are exactly the type of slow slide dystopia you describe. Maybe most cyberpunk qualifies.

 

[Toby Frost]

Fair point: I was thinking of dystopias as societies with too much control or the wrong control, rather than ones with too little.

 

[J-Sun]

That's really interesting. In my work it is not really money that is revered, but the 'economy' is seen as almost god-like. This is a hard concept to explain in a few words.

You may well be familiar with it but, if not, it sounds like you're talking about the "invisible hand." (Though the specifics of the concept are not so simple, the general concept is.)

I've seen 1984 "claimed" by people who would happily have had George Orwell shot

In a way, it's a shame he imagined and wrote it so well because he's suffering a fate worse than Cassandra. Rather than his prophecy not being heeded, it's being heeded in reverse and being used a blueprint.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

That's really interesting. In my work it is not really money that is revered, but the 'economy' is seen as almost god-like. This is a hard concept to explain in a few words. But rather than a system which mankind creates and engineers to perform a useful function (fixing or replacing it if it does not work), the 'economy' is seen as something beyond reproach, something that can only be tweaked. Something that transcends human involvement - perhaps somehow like the natural environment. An inevitability. Rather than the 'economy' being something mankind creates and manages for its benefit, we are instead expected to find our place within the organic evolving system (and heaven forbid that we should mess with it, even when it proves itself not fit for purpose).

The problem with my work, of course, is that it is merely a near-future extrapolation of current trends that are obvious to anyone who looks properly. It is a bit depressing, it is shooting fish in a barrel, and there's no escapism in it. Back to the drawing board I think.

What work do you do? Financial projections?

Someone explained "economics" to me as the study of human interactions. Is that how you understand it? The economy then is the total of human interaction and that trade was how we exchange things.

They said money was simply the current tool which solves the problems of creating quantifiable value for transactions and a medium of storing value thus making transactions fairer between participants. Money was a social lubricant that greased the wheels of commerce - was the phrase if i recall correctly.

From watching Yanis Varoufakis talks, he says the problem with economics as a field is that there are inputs that can't be quantified, and the whole field is terrible at taking externalities like the environment or pollution into account.

The soviets experimented with doing away with money, with disastrous results. Leonid Kantovorich one of the USSR's mathematicians designated with solving the problem of resource allocation stumbled upon Linear Programming - a mathematical way to optimize distribution, transportation and so on. In the process he unwittingly "proved" the efficiency of markets and pricing (much to the chagrin of Stalin and his cohorts) and was quietly shelved until the utility of LP was recognised and consequently he was awarded the Stalin and Nobel Prizes.

Marx was convinced that the productive capabilities of capitalism would eventually give rise to massive abundance and automation to the extent that money (and property) would become obsolete. People like Jeremy Rifkind are now pushing the Zero Marginal cost society which seems to bear that out.

Varoufakis himself believes we have already left Capitalism behind and are now in the era of technofeudalism where state subsidies have made profit obsolete, spurred on by the overarching control of tech platforms. His talk with Zizek is ultra-fascinating.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

@Mon0Zer0 Thanks for the link. I'm going to have to look into Technofeudalism. By "my work" I was referring to my writing, by the way.

"Marx was convinced that the productive capabilities of capitalism would eventually give rise to massive abundance to the extent that money (and property) would become obsolete." Clearly that was quite a naïve conclusion. It reminds me that, just a few years ago, there was a widely-accepted theory that increasing productivity, and in particular automation, would result in us all leading lives of leisure. Three day working weeks etc. That might be true if the purpose of the economy were simply to provide for us. But the real purpose is the pursuit of profit and growth. It will always expand to consume the resources available (whether environmental or human). There will be no end to that unless we actively redesign the system.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

@Mon0Zer0 Thanks for the link. I'm going to have to look into Technofeudalism. By "my work" I was referring to my writing, by the way.

"Marx was convinced that the productive capabilities of capitalism would eventually give rise to massive abundance to the extent that money (and property) would become obsolete." Clearly that was quite a naïve conclusion. It reminds me that, just a few years ago, there was a widely-accepted theory that increasing productivity, and in particular automation, would result in us all leading lives of leisure. Three day working weeks etc. That might be true if the purpose of the economy were simply to provide for us. But the real purpose is the pursuit of profit and growth. It will always expand to consume the resources available (whether environmental or human). There will be no end to that unless we actively redesign the system.

Interestingly, Iceland has implemented a 4 day working week with 86% of employees now working 35-36 hours (down from 40) over 4 days. Initial reports are that this has been a big success for productivity and the economy.

At some point though, when we have refined artificial communication, we will need to tackle un/under-employment, so I wouldn't discount Marx just yet. We're already seeing near-zero margin costs in entertainment, amazon, art, literature - innovations like torrents have made entertainment and news free. The scarcity of spotify / netflix / times / guardian behind paywalls is entirely artificial and easily overcome. Whether he was entirely right remains to be seen when we have the technology where labour is obsolete.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Interestingly, Iceland has implemented a 4 day working week with 86% of employees now working 35-36 hours (down from 40) over 4 days. Initial reports are that this has been a big success for productivity and the economy.

At some point though, when we have refined artificial communication, we will need to tackle un/under-employment, so I wouldn't discount Marx just yet. We're already seeing near-zero margin costs in entertainment, amazon, art, literature - innovations like torrents have made entertainment and news free. The scarcity of spotify / netflix / times / guardian behind paywalls is entirely artificial and easily overcome. Whether he was entirely right remains to be seen when we have the technology where labour is obsolete.

Iceland is interesting. Of course, in many places this 4-day week initiative would be seen as an unwarranted intrusion into peoples personal freedom. An example of big government taking away freedom (working arrangements should be left between the worker and the employer, right?). This is behind the freedom movement (sometimes referred to as the freedumb movement here in Canada). The narrative is that we are being oppressed by big government; regulations and laws that interfere with our right to make our own way. But the reality is that collective/unified action is very much needed to address the big problems the World faces (pandemics, climate change, wars etc) and that means legislation, regulation, mandates and incentive. We either accept this or we destroy the World in an uncontrolled free for all. So bravo Iceland, but in most places growing the economy is still reckoned to be the key to reelection.

When it comes to employment, technology and automation will always be playing a catch up game. There is always some use to which humans can be put while we are waiting for technology to catch up. If, say, robots take over driving cabs, a new industry will simply pop up to utilize the excess human resource. And the new jobs won't necessarily be good ones (quite the opposite, probably). I like that Iceland seems to realize that the purpose of existence is not to blindly seek growth, but rather to improve quality of life.

 

[hitmouse]

Someone explained "economics" to me as the study of human interactions.

The trouble with that definition is that it is so reductionist as to have little practical meaning. A bit like saying that biology is the study of reproduction. An element of truth, but there is much more to it than that.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

When it comes to employment, technology and automation will always be playing a catch up game. There is always some use to which humans can be put while we are waiting for technology to catch up. If, say, robots take over driving cabs, a new industry will simply pop up to utilize the excess human resource. And the new jobs won't necessarily be good ones (quite the opposite, probably). I like that Iceland seems to realize that the purpose of existence is not to blindly seek growth, but rather to improve quality of life.

I think it's good to be skeptical about singularity. After a few months of playing around with "AI" based diffusion artwork, the conclusion I'm coming to is that it still requires human effort to create something truly novel or compositionally good. AI artwork tends to look very samey and it doesn't really produce what you want. Whether this will always be the case, I dunno. But for now, a lot of flash, not too much substance.

There was a book out a few years ago which talked about the luddites and how the "end of work" never transpired during the industrial revolution - instead, as you say new jobs took their place. The book argued that unlike then. the computing power we'll have in the near future makes all work obsolete - research, creative industries, knowledge generation, along with manual labour. Even down to human interaction itself.

Imagine seeing a virtual psychotherapist and they already know everything about you from your search history, your purchases,, your conversations with friends, where you've been, your darkest secrets, the most intimate parts of your self. They could be the most powerful psychotherapist ever, drawing on the entire world as part of their knowledge base. To me, this is terrifying but it could also be so effective as to eradicate mental illness. Imagine them with you twenty four seven, encouraging you or challenging negative thought patterns as they arise.

From memory, one of the solutions they offered was that the only labour available was emotional labour - the care industry, talking to people, spending time with the elderly. A caring, future. But what if it was nightmareish, too? - all human interpersonal relations boiling down to commerce. How could anyone be genuine in that kind of future? Would it matter?

Anyway - intrigued to see your dystopia when it's written!

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

"The Cage of Souls" by Adrian Tchaikovsky might fit the bill. Humanity is on the edge of extinction in a polluted and dying world, but it's as a result of thousands of years of decline, not one specific catastrophe.

 

[bradleyibanez66]

@Extollager we are on the same page! Our irrational faith in technology - the belief that it can solve whatever problems we, as humans, create - is a major theme of my work. I agree a Mars mission is technologically a huge challenge; one we are unlikely to achieve. Never ignore the economic, organisational and political aspects (as important as the technological ones).



Very true. In my dystopia there is no safety net, although charity is encouraged and revered. There is much to say about the use of charity as a salve for societal wounds that might never have been inflicted.

I would argue to not convince yourself of these truths. Especially, being a writer of SciFi/Fantasy. Do you avidly pursue Quantum theory and relativity? Not a slight, just a catalyst for conversation's sake. Technological advances in particle theory and, well, just information about the Universe has never stagnated. You are approaching your ideals of "our limits" through the current human perspective which is evoked through our current technological and social paradigms, selling yourself short on the potentials of growth through the lens of a species that has yet to breach the inhibiting boundaries of faiths and social injustices. Don't forget about the political and corporate influence we must tiptoe around every day of our lives. Not that we can't progress within the foundation of these systemics, but, I think we can all agree by observing the current state of the world, we are far from understanding or finding some kind of balance of these systems. By all means, and many physicists concur, we are in the infancy of our development and, until we crest the plateau of a breaking point all species must endure in the Universe: do we self-destruct or propagate, we can never truthfully say we cannot achieve something as great as populating Mars. I personally think populating Mars is a small feat for such an enormous Universe. If a sentient species can maintain itself for millions of years, there should be no limit to it populating multiple solar systems. Are we so shortsighted to not believe a species could live for billions of years and populate an entire galaxy? Cognizant humans have only been around for millenia in a Universe that has existed for over 13 billion. The true test would be reaching another galaxy. Even at the speed of light, it would take billions of years, and, even then, the Universe is expanding at a greater rate than the speed of light.

Anywho, not to turn this into a physics forum or to start an argument, I want you to approach your work with largest, most informed blank canvas ever! The thought of an author of fiction limiting the reaches of their imagination just sounds self-defeating to me! Thank you for taking the time to read, and good luck with your material.

 

[Swank]

Even at the speed of light, it would take billions of years, and, even then, the Universe is expanding at a greater rate than the speed of light.

At the speed of light, all the galaxies that are within several million light years would take only several million years. Or the blink of an eye, ship time.

But I agree with your overall post - the future is enormous.

 

[bradleyibanez66]

In a story I'm working on, humans unknowingly bring forth an apocalyptic scenario when they land on a planet and disrupt the balance between that planet's inhabitants. An ethereal race cleanses the dark side of the planet of a bacteria that produces methane gas, preventing temperatures from rising by greenhouse effect. If the temperatures rise sufficiently, the bacteria spreads. In return, the organic inhabitants offer their souls as sustenance to the ethereal just before natural death so life can flourish. Before this process, the ethereal were savage and stole organic life force from other species, almost wiping the planet of all life. The inhabitants of the planet lived harmonically in balance until the humans arrived. Humans eventually populate the world and, of course, start to take everything for their own. Unbeknownst to them, the ethereal don't mention the bacteria and, after thousands of years, the humans are forced to deal with the bacteria. But, its too late so they have to flee and the planet's natural inhabitants get their planet back.