Dystopian Fiction’s Popularity Is a Warning Sign for the Future

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/geeks-guide-naomi-klein/

by dnetesn • 12 years ago

41 47 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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.

faragon• 12 years ago

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

jqm5• 12 years ago

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.....

ZenoArrow7• 12 years ago

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.

jqm5• 12 years ago

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.

joezydeco• 12 years ago

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)?

LukeB_UK• 12 years ago

Or Metropolis (1927)

olefoo• 12 years ago

The novels of John Brunner

The Sheep Look Up (1972)

The Shockwave Rider ( 1975 )

both seem shockingly contemporary in the worlds they portray.

santacluster• 12 years ago

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.

brudgers• 12 years ago

To go further, n the 50's and 60's upscale real estate often included bomb shelters.

ZenoArrow7• 12 years ago

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.

normand1• 12 years ago

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...

forgotpasswd3x• 12 years ago

Not exactly the most unbiased source...

api• 12 years ago

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.

VLM• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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.

ingenter• 12 years ago

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.

michaelochurch• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

"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.

italophil• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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

GFK_of_xmaspast• 12 years ago

Vampire fiction got big in the 80s, at a time when lots of people were worried about a certain blood-related disease.

jsprogrammer• 12 years ago

I've been tending to view zombie works as metaphors for 'mindlessness'. That is, herd behavior, just following the crowd, etc.

Sometimes it does seem like there is a high risk of that happening. Other times it seems like we are already living in that world. A world where large groups of people can be worked up into a frenzy and convinced to support, defend, and propagate horrible actions provoked by minimal or non-existent facts and evidence.

jgrahamc• 12 years ago

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

yarrel• 12 years ago

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

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

patronagezero4• 12 years ago

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.

worldsayshi2• 12 years ago

Soo... If we are unable to solve our problems we are worth saving but if we are not able we are not worth it? So it is up to us then, as always.

patronagezero4• 12 years ago

On an individual level, yes. However, if we require some central authority to demand at the point of a gun (abstractly) for us to clean up our act, then I think we're better off facing our own obsolescence.

ars4• 12 years ago

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.

patronagezero4• 12 years ago

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.

Trisell• 12 years ago

“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.

zan2434• 12 years ago

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.

worldsayshi2• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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.

Dystopian Fiction’s Popularity Is a Warning Sign for the Future

Related Stories