I hate that all our favorite sci-fi books were used as manuals for what to build next, instead of trying to avoid creating those futures in our real lives.
Sci-fi writers understood both what technology could create in the future (and what would be desirable), and also understood how people abuse power and the tools available to them to stay in power (or gain more).
In other words: they predicted the future, more than they inspired it. IMO, that also makes their writing that much more interesting.
Surprisingly, I never considered that, and agree that it makes the writing more interesting, I'm gonna keep this in mind for future stories. Thanks a lot for sharing that :)
Relatedly, somewhat, I've been reading a lot of 19th century French literature (because I'm French and because my sister is a literature teacher who's been "assigning" me stuff to read).
It has been somewhat shocking to see how relevant the writing is seen through a 21st century lenses. Whether it's how media works, how cliques of people function, etc.
It truly feels timeless in a way that I've found very surprising. It also very much supports notions that people don't change even if means and methods do.
Read more Solarpunk? From a writers standpoint though, I suspect its easier to weave a dramatic plot through a dystopic background than a more optimistic one
"It's about a family with a robot helper, that doesn't go beserk, and eventually recreates their late grandmother's casserole recipe using AI. It's a guaranteed bestseller!"
Yes, it's easier to captivate attention by evoking primal instincts - avoid predator, find food, reproduce, etc. These stories stick around in your head, the memetic survivors. They are easier to feed off.
But "Happy" doesn't mean a perfect utopia. The entire "classic" Star Trek is set in a utopian future, yet with plenty of space for intrigue. Usually a commentary on a contemporary problem, with a "happy ending" that's supposed to show us the road to a better solution, rather than a bland "forever after".
Even "First Contact" (a zombie/survival horror) is spun around the theme of "this is the history/future that we're saving".
No doubt. The question is, is that the explicit goal, and if so, why? And if not, don't they consider the effects of their actions, if they aren't, why?
You actually don’t. Technologists have more leverage than most workers. There’s no shortage of jobs that don’t require building surveillance states or engagement addiction engines.
At this point, the path from what these teams of people are building to dystopian outcomes is well-mapped. Whether it’s an explicit goal is irrelevant because if you can reasonably foresee the harm and proceed anyway, you’re making a conscious choice to enable it.
A lot of aspirational tech was consumed by builders. I dare you to find a nerd who has watched Star Trek and hasn't once thought "wouldn't it be cool if I could interact with the computer with my voice", or "using touchscreens for everything looks so futuristic"?
And yet here we are complaining that our phones are over-listening to us and our cars no longer have knobs.
