
Dystopian Fiction’s Popularity Is a Warning Sign for the Future - dnetesn
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/geeks-guide-naomi-klein/
======
santacluster
First, is there any evidence dystopian fiction is actually significantly more
popular? Most of my favorite dystopian fiction in literature and cinema is
many decades old. It's not exactly a new thing.

Second, I grew up in the early late 70's / early 80's, when the nuclear
holocaust was the theme of the "inevitable" dystopian future fiction. I don't
think it signifies anything other than the angst du jour.

~~~
ZenoArrow
I agree that dystopian fiction is far from a new thing, and our current
collective angst does not seem any greater than it did in the past.

The two elements I find most interesting about the most successful dystopias
are that...

1\. They are almost inevitably set in the near future, meaning that the world
can be a slightly more extreme version of the world we currently inhabit.

2\. They feel cathartic to experience, partly because unlike our current world
where we struggle to understand what holds us back, in the near future world
being portrayed the extreme elements of the world are the clear danger and
allow us to be confident in knowing what will help improve things. This
clarity of purpose can be cathartic.

Whether we want to admit it or not, one of the values of future-based fiction
is to line up our expectations of what we expect in this time period. We're
unwittingly programming ourselves to prepare for the worst. I wish we took the
time to explore more diverse ideas of how our future might look like.

------
VLM
The implied audience is hemmed in by their own memes.

Fukushima photographer is shaken up, must be loss of belief in techno utopia.
Nah, westerners forget it was a massive earthquake tsunami, so probably seeing
ten thousand floating dead bodies and the smell and the land looking like the
surface of the moon was a bit more disturbing, at least if he's human.

"actually convincing people that we’re capable of something other than this
brutal response to disaster." I sincerely hope they are not, because the only
way we're going back to 1700s era fossil fuel consumption in our lifetime is
by killing all the population over 1700s era, which is quite a mass murder. So
I'm glad of that. Also a nameless homeless family living under an overpass due
to economic disruption is a small price to pay to feel ecologically superior.
There's someone starving to death in TX but at least I got a cool new Prius...
just human lives, ones that don't count anyway. You know, like a dystopia...

Careful avoidance of discussing how many people are already living the
Dystopia, right now. Cops shoot black men first ask questions later, at least
the few we let walk the streets instead of imprisoning. Indoctrinated since
birth to live the American dream while getting a lifetime of debt, LOL just
kidding about that "you'll have a great paying job" thing, but its all your
fault for not wanting it more than the "successful" guy, who we're going to
downsize next month anyway. No medical care, no financial future, no
education. If it bleeds it leads, on the agitprop news, our whole city is a
Roman Colosseum of martyrs. Dude born on 3rd base thinks he hit a home run
says, hey, let them eat cake, why won't they pull themselves up by their
bootstraps, its the land of opportunity for rich urban white men... the rest
of you don't exist, aren't even people, mere consumers at best.

Dystopian fiction is a politically correct way to talk about the PRESENT, not
the future.

~~~
jdawg77
Reality is 70% of Americans do not hold a passport. Then, of those who do,
most have traveled abroad, not lived there.

Then, of those who travel abroad and have lived in a few states, let's say, 5
- which is only 10% of the overall number of states we have...do you see where
I'm going with?

The, "Average," experience is now personalized. Algorithms on Google, Netflix
and Facebook or Amazon are about as, "Personal," as some technical people I
know get.

Then there's a big, huge disconnect between reality and what we do for a
living, because of where we are...I had to lecture somebody in our industry
where the VC money comes from recently.

Either it's their age (youngster, lol) or unwillingness to wake up and smell
the hummus, I don't know. Two cops were murdered by a guy claiming, "Revenge,"
for all the black men who we've SEEN get slaughtered on youtube.

It's revolting and I'm hopeful that, one day, the concept of, "Freedom," and,
"Justice," will give us all a shot at a better society. Besides, I read too
many comic books growing up with the X-men in them to let, "Hydra," win.

------
normand1
Naomi Klein's link between capitalism and ecological disaster is spurious at
best. Socialist societies have an even worse record
[http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/13/if-you-think-
communism-i...](http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/13/if-you-think-communism-is-
bad-for-people-check-out-what-it-did-to-the-environment/)

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
Not exactly the most unbiased source...

~~~
api
There aren't any unbiased sources on this issue except maybe raw satellite
feeds.

Truth is that complex industrial societies use a lot of energy and resources
and ecological footprint is a function of that more than their flavor of
socioeconomic system. Ultimately ecology only cares about physics, not
politics.

------
joezydeco
Maybe Naomi Klein can clear her mind with some old classic films:

How about _Soylent Green_ (overpopulation, 1973), or _Silent Running_ (climate
collapse, 1972)?

Maybe something more upbeat like _Logan 's Run_ (overpopulation AND climate
collapse, 1976)?

~~~
olefoo
The novels of John Brunner

The Sheep Look Up (1972)

The Shockwave Rider ( 1975 )

both seem shockingly contemporary in the worlds they portray.

------
jqm
FTA..."In general the geoengineering world is populated by very overconfident,
overwhelmingly male figures who don’t make me feel at all reassured that they
have learned the lessons of large-scale technological failure."

As opposed to if they were female? Would the author be more confident then?
Funny how the sex stereotypes seem to pass unchallenged when they are against
males.

The rest of the article isn't much better if it saves anyone 10 minutes.....

~~~
ZenoArrow
You can reduce it to a simplistic men vs. women argument if you want, but I
don't think that's what the author is trying to communicate. The issue being
addressed is one of balance...

The real question being asked by that statement is whether people from a
similar background end up thinking in similar ways. Experience is ultimately
tied to the individual, but do you feel more kinship to those from a similar
background? Even if you don't, can you see why there are social tendencies in
this direction?

The author is arguing that the group of people taking leadership on
geoengineering decisions may not have the diversity of opinion needed to have
a proper debate on how best to proceed. She's making more than just the
'overwhelmingly male' point, the 'very overconfident' point is equally
telling. Surely with complex topics you'll have people who have strong doubts
about what is being done, the lack of these voices may indicate it's hubris
talking rather than a questioning-style reflection.

A counter argument is that the confidence exists because it's not a complex
topic. Perhaps you can think of others.

~~~
jqm
It was a sexist statement. If the author intended something besides naked
sexism, she failed at conveying it. I personally find sexism to be a rather
stupid point of view (as well as being offensive).

Also, the premise of the article was foolish to begin with. There is no
evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality. Also, what people are
offered is what they can chose to view. So who is doing this type of writing?
What are their motives? Are there solid metrics that this type of writing is
becoming more preferred? *See posts above for more repudiations.

One last thing... what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific
reality? I found it a very poor article overall and it certainly makes me
think less of Wired for publishing it.

~~~
ZenoArrow
"It was a sexist statement." in your opinion. In my opinion it was not.
Effective verbal communication requires more than just a speaker that
thoughtfully chooses their words, it also requires listeners that can
interpret in a flexible way. One way to do this is to be able to consider
different levels of meaning. Take the word 'male' out of the statement we're
discussing... now, what point do you think the author is trying to make?

"There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality." Have you
never heard of 'life imitating art'? VR is probably a good example, there are
a number of high profile people in the VR field who cite specific works of
cyberpunk fiction as a strong early influence. I can name them if you'd like?
It'd also be possible to illuminate the influence that Star Trek has had on
our technology. What I find is that most people consume fiction about the
future as entertainment, but later when certain aspects of it become possible
they're welcomed as 'the future' because that's what we've been led to expect
from the future. For example, try to imagine a future where we give up on high
tech and figure out another path to take... see that idea in much of our
media? No, it's clear we expect much more tech in our future (as long as
society doesn't collapse). That singlemindedness came out of somewhere.

"what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality?" Science does
not exist in a vacuum, it is interwoven into the world in which we live.
Putting aside the main corrupting influences placed upon science itself (money
and ego), so that we can assume scientific research is a pure field, there are
frequently new ethical questions surrounding the direction that scientific
research follows. It is important that scientific research is sensitive to the
culture in which it inhabits. Having a diversity of opinion guiding science
helps strengthen the outcome. If you believe science should not be restrained
by societal concerns then I can share some ideas that may give cause to
reconsider.

~~~
jqm
If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really
aren't any at all by some measure or the other....

I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn)
should do science. Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room
for guidance at the funding and application levels. Which, btw, also require
some knowledge and qualification besides being a third rate hack writer who
makes sexist statements....

Uninformed opinions are cheap. Knowledge and good thinking skills are rare.

~~~
ZenoArrow
"If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably
really aren't any at all by some measure or the other...."

In subjective matters, the interpretation of written statements in this case,
there is room for shades of grey. So yes, even if you are convinced something
is how you see it, does not mean everyone will agree. Let me put it like this,
if a female makes a negative statement about a group, and points out that this
group is overwhelmingly male, does the gender automatically become the focus,
or is it merely an observation about a group, and it is the group which is
being placed under scrutiny? If I say I work with a group of geeky men that
are clever, is the gender really the most important part of that statement to
you?

"I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn)
should do science." Did I say anything different to that?

"Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at
the funding and application levels."

Application level is after the horse has bolted. To use an obvious example,
you can't prove that we know how to build an atomic bomb and then not expect
negative consequences, regardless of how interesting the science was the
scientists involved still needed to take responsibility for their part in it
(which at least some of them did). Funding level is part of the corrupting
influence I mentioned before.

Science exists to serve us, it's how we explore the systems of the world we
live in, but not all science serves us, and until we recognise that and
ethically guide our research we're setting ourselves up for huge catastrophes.

~~~
jqm
So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied? And that there should be
a diverse (aka non-experts) panel to decide what scientists can research...
for the good of humanity?

How often liberal arts college propaganda seems to talk itself right back
around into something resembling medieval theology. Fortunately (or
unfortunately depending on perspective I guess) it seems to never be quite
competent enough to achieve it's objectives....

For the record, I believe in environmental concerns. I believe in social and
economic justice. I look at history and see these best being addressed by
science. Not "me too even though I haven't really taken the time to study the
issue" opinions.

~~~
ZenoArrow
"So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied?"

Yes, I think some areas just shouldn't be studied.

Yes, I know this goes against the commonly held beliefs that science should be
a free-for-all, consequences be damned.

A useful comparison may be with the medical profession, which since its early
days has placed ethics at the core of what it does, such as with the
Hippocratic Oath (along with its modernising revisions). Doctors have a
responsibility to the patient first, and expanding their expertise second.

With science as it stands today, the opposite is true. The priority is
expanding expertise, even if its clear that damage will be done. I'd like
research to be as free as possible, just within certain ethical bounds.

Aside from weaponry, most of what we're doing today in science is child's play
compared to what's coming soon. So that we can expand this discussion, tell me
what you know about synthetic biology.

~~~
jqm
How something is researched is a different topic than _what_ is being
researched.

Lack of ethics or disregard for the safety of research subjects (Nazi
experiments come to mind...) is not what I'm in favor of (and I doubt hardly
anybody else is either). A researcher shouldn't be able to dump a tanker of
oil in the ocean to "find out what happens".....

But saying "this topic is off limits and can not be inquired into by any
means" is #1)realistically not going to happen at this point. #2)not provably
desirable for humanity. #3)full of potential for political and economic abuse.

Yes, things are going to change a lot and soon (re. synthetic biology... I
majored in a biological science. Genetics, bio-chem, advanced biology etc. 20
years ago. I entered a different field. I don't claim to know much, but to
your point, I think I do know what's coming).

Yes, there will be tragedies (but also amazing benefits). Yes, people need to
be as careful as they can, and they need monitoring. Yes, application of
technology needs regulation. But attempting to force ignorance simply isn't a
good idea, nor is it going to work. The likely outcome of that approach is
application of more uninformed versions of technologies entailing more risk to
everyone. The genie is not going back in the bottle. So we need to do our best
to understand mechanism and outcomes, and thus tip the risk/reward ratio in a
positive direction.

My grandfather was an engineer in Los Alamos working on nuclear destruction
devices. He died in his late 40's from cancer. I never met him. So I
understand your point. But where I think we differ... I don't think they
should have stopped nuclear research. I think they should have done more in
fact and I still do. What I don't think they should have done was use that
technology, half understood, with no long term plan for waste disposal,
largely to build destructive devices.

It's not research and understanding that kills us, but the reverse.

------
DickingAround
There is no evidence provided to back the claim that the fiction is
predictive. Just that there is no 'we handed it by cooperating and it was
fine' fiction? Books generally need more conflict than that.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
It's also noteworthy that an apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic setting is vastly
easier to write well than a modern technological society. Just the benefits of
being able to limit the number of characters interacting to ~ 10 in a
plausible way are huge.

------
zan2434
Despite the article, I think the title's premise is very interesting. The
resurgence in popularity of dystopian sci-fi really seems to me reminiscent of
Peter Thiel's "indeterminate pessimism" \- the attitude that the future is
inevitably bad. This is a terribly unproductive attitude to have, while the
opposite attitude of "determinate optimism" characterizes us during times of
great progress.

------
worldsayshi
One thing comes to mind: Does putting solar panels on every roof (or some
other environmental action) really cause less negative impact at a scale than
the business as usual? I'm not saying it doesn't but I don't have any facts to
back it up. It's so complex. How can we take grassrots political action on
things that are so inherently complex? Getting the political ball running on
climate change was hard enough. How can we efficiently make ourselves (as a
species, not the experts) understand what actions are actually needed?

edit: Also, instead of endlessly nitpicking factual errors - could we please
focus on what value there actually _is_ in the article?

------
mercer
I suspect that the popularity of dystopian fiction is not primarily because of
ecological fears or the like, but rather because they provide a setting that
contains many elements that we miss in our society. So it's more about
unfulfilled _current_ needs and wish fulfillment. Even in horrible zombie
apocalypse stories.

For one, in many of these stories people are forced 'back into nature and
self-reliance', which we like because many of us, especially in urban
environments, try to get out of the artificiality we feel is all around us
(this might also explain the 'hipster' phenomenon of carefully-crafted
illusions of dive bars, and the love for self-made products and art).

Second, we have a fear of increasingly global, powerful and murky
institutions. We 'confront' these fears through dystopian fiction.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, I have noticed a rather shockingly high
level of loneliness among my urban-setting peers (mid-twenties to late
thirties). Even with a decent amount of individual friends, it seems that
people miss 'community', a desire that I suppose used to be satisfied through
churches, smaller towns, and more traditional 'extended family' structures.
Our friendships and lives in general are much more fragmented then they used
to be.

What fascinates me about most popular dystopian fiction is that there is a
very strong emphasis on small groups of people banding together, forming
strong bonds in the light of adversity, learning to trust each other, and
basically spending all their time together, in a tribal fashion. I think more
than the dystopia, it is this _effect_ of a dystopian setting that we love.

Perhaps in the past the 'need' for satisfying that desire of being part of a
small, tight group just wasn't as strong. Or perhaps they were more easily
expressed in more conventional ways (consider a progression from The Cosby
Show, to Friends, to New Girl; a move away from families to friends-from-back-
home to somewhat random people in a loft because they can't afford their own
place).

I'm well aware of the fact that these are just some thoughts, and I haven't
done much research yet on the subject. I could be quite wrong. But it's my two
cents and something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

------
italophil
This seems rather made up. In the last years there was also a rise in vampire
and zombie literature, but that doesn't mean that a zombie apocalypse is
becoming more likely.

~~~
zikzak
I always thought the popularity of Twilight was a good second order
approximation of the growing zombie population...

------
Trisell
“I think what these films tell us is that we’re taking a future of
environmental catastrophe for granted.”

I stopped reading right about here. Not repressive government, nuclear war, or
economic collapse? It's the environment that causes the hunger games. Yeah
that seems to be the biggest likelyhood. But otherwise it's a great scare
piece.

------
yarrel
Speculative fiction is a cast-iron sign of where society is heading.

[Sent from my slide rule via martian rocket post.]

------
ingenter
For me, it's not.

Even if there were more dystopian art than positive art, it is not a sign that
we're leading into a disaster. If you want to claim something about the world,
use observations on the world, not observations on fiction.

Or maybe something that we now see as dystopian will be regarded as something
good, namely: no privacy, absolute corporocracy, greater separation between
classes.

------
faragon
Naomi Klein is specialist in what? In my opinion she is just specialist in
agitprop.

------
jgrahamc
Ugh. Naomi Klein. No need to read any further.

------
michaelochurch
First, it's not new. _Brave New World_ was written in 1931 and _Nineteen
Eighty-Four_ was written in 1949. Second, we enjoy it because it's thought-
provoking.

If we're talking about dystopia in general, that's quite old. In Dante
Alighieri's _Divine Comedy_ , it's the part set in hell that's been most
memorable. The appeal of zombie fiction in the U.S. is a result of
deindustrialization, which began in the 1980s. So, I don't think that, on the
grand scale, this is something brand new. For as long as people have been able
to think of the future, there've been some willing to entertain the idea that
everything might go to hell.

It we're talking about technological dystopia (e.g. _Black Mirror_ ) then
that's because there's a strong (and correct) sense that while technology is
an inexorable force, the current leadership (i.e. Silicon Valley) can't be
trusted. Is that troubling? Yes. Should we take it as a warning regarding our
socio-technological climate? Yes. Does it foretell catastrophe? I don't think
so.

~~~
dllthomas
_" Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in 1949"_

Strictly, it was _written_ in '47 and '48, sent to the publisher in '48, and
_published_ in '49\. This is only really interesting because of the choice of
the title year, and certainly doesn't undermine your point.

------
patronagezero
It's a hard sell to get me to concern myself with the environment when
humanity is headed in the direction it's going. The earth will be just fine,
even in the event that we can no longer survive on it, I'm more concerned with
the question of if humanity is even worth saving.

~~~
ars
Even the worst climate change will not hurt humans all that much.

It will cause all sorts of changes I'm sure, but globally both humans and
animals will be just fine. There will be different animals in different
places, some will die, but as a whole all will be just fine.

> I'm more concerned with the question of if humanity is even worth saving.

A universe without a conciseness to appreciate it is quite pointless, and
might as well not exist.

~~~
patronagezero
> A universe without a conciseness to appreciate it is quite pointless, and
> might as well not exist.

I value life in all forms too much to agree with that statement. I value
humans the most, but only if they can find a way to value themselves and their
surroundings in a harmonious way.

~~~
ars
Exactly my point.

YOU value all life. But that life doesn't value _itself_. It requires
conciseness to do so.

~~~
patronagezero
... I'm not going to touch that, but perhaps you should spend a bit more time
reflecting on that thought before you open yourself up to conversation on the
issue.

~~~
ars
You are being too cryptic. And I do not mind conversation.

I have spent plenty of thought on that subject. If you wish to say something
about it, then do, but do not assume other people will grasp your thought
without saying it.

