Truly pessimistic science fiction would have
- people worshipping an AI God which is demonstrably dumber than a dog
- friendly humanoid robots which don't really understand how to walk down a flight of stairs
- gravitational warp drives which are purely cosmetic and cannot travel anywhere, though it leads to terrible cancer
- a Potemkin Dyson Sphere where only 5% of the panels work and the government blames out-of-system immigrants for the blackouts
[1] https://xcancel.com/colin_fraser/status/1911129344979964207#...
Maybe it was jumping to a parallel universe to travel and then jumping back. But the same issue: the limit was lower.
An alien named Firefoal of Swaylone observes that human physicists mistakenly believe in a constant light speed because humanity was unknowingly situated in a region of space where the speed of light had been artificially reduced. Humans discover they can modify the speed of light but find they can only make it slower.
Presumably a 5% functional Dyson sphere would be a corrupt boondoggle in the same way as a power plant which is down for maintenance 95% of the year, but the financial calculation would use much larger numerators and denominators than we are used to.
- allow you to exceed the speed of light, or better yet portal somewhere
- learn we are not alone in the universe
- store basically infinite energy in your hip-mounted blaster
- get the girl/guy in the end
This is neither a message that is optimistic nor pessimistic. Isn't it much more likely that this species (despite having something that can be called "intelligence" in an appropriate sense) simply be so different that the difference is insanely much larger than between an human and an octopus?
Example:
Stanisław Lem; Solaris
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(novel)
where the alien species is an intelligent ocean.
Its not that I can't enjoy that kind of science fiction, its just I can't take it seriously as having anything to do with actually reckoning with our position in the universe as human beings. Universe Big.
The file with the life saving code, text, formula etc. can’t be read because the license server needed to get access doesn’t exist anymore
I look forward to a world where potentials are promptly discovered and put to be nurtured, instead of being wasted or randomly thrown to the society. Every one willing to share what they have learned or made are welcomed.
I look forward to a world that prevention of physical and mental illness is more recognized than treating them, or worse, extracting value from them.
I look forward to a world that citizens do not hesitate to speak out when they identify anything worrying. That is, they feel that they own the world, not be owned as some sort of human resources.
I look forward to a world that technological advance frees people, not keeping them enslaved.
I look forward to a world where monetary profit is not the dominating indicator for success and failure of an organization.
I think capitalism is the best way to structure an economy, but it’s a terrible way to structure a society. Nowadays, we use capitalist values as the benchmark for what matters in almost every context, and then we wonder why our society is a dystopia.
I sincerely hope that we discover some serious alien stuffs (like TMA-1) so that humans can finally have a very good excuse to move ourselves to a new paradigm.
Star Trek the original series is usually taken as an example of optimistic sci-fi. It’s set in a faster-than-light space ship, so it’s science fiction. But the optimism came primarily from the back story: having solved our problems on Earth, and created a peaceful society of plenty, humanity turned its thoughtful minds to exploring the stars.
Does that seem like the track we are on?
Science fiction, to be optimistic today, needs to show how our society gets from here to there. Social progress was taken for granted in the latter 20th century. It’s not anymore. Something is stopping us, something beyond science and engineering. In fact whatever it is, is driving us to actively attack and destroy the science and engineering we have already developed.
A better future is going to take something else: culture, or society, or kindness, or empathy. It will take choice, and effort, not antimatter and phasers.
Consider what are the major issues right now that aren’t being addressed? Global poverty is at an all time low, climate change has been met with vast investments in solar/wind/batteries/EV’s etc, there’s suddenly effective drugs for obesity, poverty’s down, medicine keeps advancing and antibiotic resistance is being slowed down by better methodologies, etc
The mainstream in the US is far more accepting than ever, remember when gay marriage was illegal? Yea interracial marriage was illegal in some areas as recently as 1967.
Not everything is improving in lockstep, but the general trends aren’t nearly as bad as you imply.
Yet there's an expansionist land war in Europe, and US allies are engaged in ethnic cleansing in the Middle East. The current American government is overtly fascistic, and now that they've admitted they're seeking to extra-judicially imprison citizens in El Salvador, I don't think that's even up for debate anymore.
I think people are increasingly coming to believe that we'll never figure it out. Technology will advance, but humans are liable to stay the same forever. In light of this, utopian science fiction begins to feel naive. The most optimistic story we can stand is about humanity temporarily prevailing against its own worst impulses, rather than featuring the kind of… solved society that something like Star Trek envisioned.
> The mainstream in the US is far more accepting than ever, remember when gay marriage was illegal? Yea interracial marriage was illegal in some areas as recently as 1967.
> Not everything is improving in lockstep, but the general trends aren’t nearly as bad as you imply.
Whether a lot of these changes are good/optimistic or bad/pessimistic depends a lot on your political stance.
Yes, society is very divided.
Do we? We can do a lot for individuals, but even with cooperation, maybe can’t immediately give food and shelter to everyone, let alone fix climate change (war is fixable with cooperation, but unless I’m mistaken a very small minority of the world’s population is in a hot war). Even if we have enough resources, we also need logistics (hence why people in some areas lack clean water).
Also, Star Trek’s backstory is that humanity only started cooperating like in the show after nuclear wars. Most people would rather mutually benefit than mutually suffer (otherwise we’d have MAD), and the solutions that benefit humanity the most are mutual. Society may have backslided since the 2000s, but it’s far better now than it was before and temporary backslides happened before; humans have evolved to be altruistic because, barring death or extreme circumstances, altruistic groups win in the long term.
The problem isn't lack of solutions. It's lack of cooperation on every level from individuals to organizations to social groups to nations to transnational organizations.
It oddly isn't all that desirable. You don't want to depend entirely on the generosity of others. What you want is a fighting chance to take care of yourself. Helping there, even a little bit is both very effective and very easy.
This is a profoundly, even comically, contradictory set.
You cannot actually "solve" any half of these without causing the other half.
War and climate change are not caused by full bellies and healthy spleens, as you claim.
Overpopulation is the last problem to solve, and reproduction trends downwards in affluent, well-educated countries. So, possibly even that is solved by these three benefits.
"The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist; a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain."
Of course, that particular story later turns out to be a classic, boring dystopia, but only because we, the readers, refuse to accept the narrator's original premise of a prosperous and just society free of tradeoffs or caveats.
This is why I like her books so much, though. I don't know if the worlds she created are truly optimistic or possible at all, but at least she makes us imagine alternative ways for society to be organized.
> You can't operate a deconstruction machine indefinitely; ultimately, the machine is all you have left to take apart. We need to make aspirational shit again so we have something to deconstruct later. It's not a mysterious process, it's just the opposite of what we were doing before.
On the other hand, pining for "aspirational" works is the real collapse into abstractions and magical, associative thinking: get rid of the bad and bring in the good, sad is bad. A lot of people have the aspiration of wiping out entire cultures; idealizing aspirations is nothing but idealizing desires, and in a commercial environment that just means pandering to middle-class power fantasies.
In short, I accuse this sentiment of being a covert desire to deconstruct the present in order to quiet middle class fears. "Actually what we've been doing will work! If we ever need to change course, I'm sure we will. We'll defeat the evil."
The 20th century was not a cakewalk either. I'm not saying it was or was not better than today, I am saying, "gee there's an awful lot of reasons to be depressed" isn't new.
You will notice how in current political conversations that no matter what the problem being discussed is, the solution is almost always the destruction of something or someone. There's this stubborn perspective that X would be resolved if we could just somehow eliminate Y.
To be crude, the pattern I described isn't aspirational, it's bitchy. You'll also notice how very little gets accomplished in the current cynical environment for the same reason that nagging people doesn't motivate them as much as inspiring them does.
- Energy is less of a problem, between cheap solar cells and batteries.
- Materials may start to be a problem, but not yet.
- Population is leveling off and dropping in some countries, but continues to grow in Africa and among the religious groups which keep women at home.
- Equatorial areas are becoming uninhabitable.
- AI is rapidly getting better. Not clear how good it gets, but if everything you do for money goes in and out over a wire, you're in trouble.
- Robots for unstructured tasks are just beginning to work. Maybe. The mechanical problems of building robots have been pretty much solved. Motors, sensors, controllers, etc. work well and are not too expensive. There are well over a dozen humanoid robots that can walk now. (Unlike the days of Asimo, which barely worked over two decades of improvement.)
- Automatic driving is being deployed now.
So how do we build a society to deal with that?
This is a problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk
- AI is rapidly getting better. Not clear how good it gets, but if everything you do for money goes in and out over a wire, you're in trouble.
Or, everything gets so abundant that we can actually have high UBI
This reminds me if why I disliked to movie Elysium. They had a robots that effectively gave free perfect medical care. I didn't buy the premise of the movie that only that rich would be able to use them. Given they were robots, governments, hospitals, could and would make them readily available since ultimately it would massively lower their medical costs.
The only takeaway I got from the movie is that the robots look cool, it's the same robot design from chappie. Both half-baked scifi movies, but I would like to imagine they both exist in the same world.
Given Big Pharma's current ability to get lots and lots of money for vital medicine, I'm not optimistic they'd price a theoretical medical machine low enough for a government to afford.
Plus, if overpopulation is a concern, a wealthy person wouldn't necessarily want the machine to get into the hands of everyone. Given that the creator of this machine would become very wealthy, the incentives would probably lean towards offering it to a select group.
Now, that's not as clear. Reaching the point that all the essential tasks to keep society going can be done cost-effectively by robots is quite a ways off.
so after we lower amount of fossil fuels mined, transported, refined, we can start focusing on working with other materials or start using freed workforce/manufacturing capacity for other kinds of terraforming activities.
AI - how many connections in human brain? google says 100 trillion, how many transistors in one NVIDIA Blackwell GPU - 200 billion. so you need just 500 GPUs to have number of connections as brain does. those are transistors only for connections, you need much more transistors for processing which is connected thru said connections, so does one datacenter holds one brain worth of biological level processing already ?
Somewhat aliens are not the saviors anymore, it is complex to impossible to travel, and worse, colonize, anywhere else in the universe, and the bringer of doom is already here, now, and it is us.
What is left? Going virtual and living in a digital world? Lena ( https://qntm.org/mmacevedo ) ended with that.
There seems to be an overabundance of sci-fi that is hyperoptimistic with regard to tech advances. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not understood by most, or waved away as 'overcome thru future science'.
fwiw, here's a few works I've found to be less the above:
book: Kim Stanley Robinson's _Aurora_
short stories: Damon Knight's _Stranger Station_ Larry Nivens' _Inconstant Moon
For the following examples, this question is open, and you might have a different opinion whether they fit your opinion of "complex", but the following are candidates that I am aware of:
The 10,000 Year Clock (Clock of the Long Now)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now
https://www.10000yearclock.net/index.html
The organ in the St. Burchardi church in Halberstadt (Germany) that is used to play the ORGAN²/ASLSP (As Slow as Possible) by John Cage
I noticed that the novels at the end of Nature (the journal) were sad and weird, but I thought it was probably an editorial choice to look "modern".
Yet recently, I read SF novels with authors sorted alphabetically, and it struck me again how weird and sad 21st-century novels are.
Not advocating for that at all, but it makes me want to read Ubik or write a short story about how it would affect life.
We used to do that before the push for subscriptions.
And in the digital world this is the micropayments dream...
Are you thinking a flat rate or one based on local population density?
[0]https://csi.asu.edu/category/optimism/ [1]https://csi.asu.edu/project-archive/optimism/science-fiction...
Your main hero cant be just invulnerable to everything and never get hurt. Having amnesia isnt a kryptonite.
Your bad guy cant be just a total jerk who can be trivially beaten as soon as you've had enough. You bad guy needs to be the baddest of them all with the essentially no weaknesses. That 1 weakness and how they'll be defeated is that optimistic view of the future.
My fun twist in my third book. The main hero comes back to earth on a superpower alien battleship. Absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.
He bluffs that his plan to be emperor on earth and that his first action is to end all violence. That all violence is banned and he's judge jury and executioner from orbit. If violence detected his battleship blasts the criminal and vapourizes them.
But its a bluff, so it's 1 timezone at a time so criminals might not catch on easily and he puts on a show where criminals and named and vapourized on the show. But its all machine ai produced. There are actual shots down to earth which make lightning like booms and leave craters; but nobody is actually hurt.
Slowly but surely violence ends on earth. Then I make my predictions on what life is like when people never fear violence.
While I agree with this statement, I think imagining alternative political and economic systems is not primarily about science fiction. We could imagine these new forms of society with existing technology. We could imagine a future with technological regress which is political/economic retro-utopia where everyone has adequate food, housing, access to healthcare, education, green-space ... but no screen-based brain-rot, AI, space exploration or other fancy tech.
Ada Palmer had a good write-up on Hopepunk. Many of the example books come towards the latter half of the write-up. https://beforewegoblog.com/purity-and-futures-of-hard-work-b...
The human part of that book is fantasy, and not a great one. At some point the suspension of disbelief crash into pieces.
Also I second Ministry for the Future.
Reading the newer translation of We right now also and the first 1/2 or so is weirdly positive. Not what I remembered at all.
I've been recommending "The Deluge" by Stephen Markeley, which is simultaneously very dark and quite optimistic.
"Walkaway" by Cory Doctorow
That was the era of better living through heavy industry. We were optimistic because we didn't understand the consequences of what we were doing. It's a lot easier to sell optimism when people aren't familiar with the cons of the kinds of things you're doing.
Star Trek ToS and TNG were more utopian, but I loved those ss well. The difference with today? It was about grand ideas and exploration, not pew pew and 1 sec crosscut fisticuffs by toddlers throwing a tantrum at a pindrop.
Udemy classes, youtube tutorials / lectures, books on how to start writing scifi etc?
To get good, you also need to actually, you know, write. A story of a few thousand words isn't hard to write, whether you tend to fall into the trap of endless worldbuilding or whether you tend to fall into the trap of writing by the seat of your pants.
For the science, there's a lot of reference material in [2]. Remember that realism doesn't necessarily make a good story, but any deviations should be deliberate (e.g. space opera is a distinct subgenre). I do personally find sci-fi tends to be better than fantasy because authors are more likely to actually try to make something coherent. (90% of everything is still crap though, whether due to lack of trying or lack of competence).
All speculative fiction is political, but try to leave a good story even if every part of your personal politics is removed from the story. If you can't do this, it's not a good sci-fi story (let alone a good overall story), at most it's a good $yourpoliticalfaction propaganda story (for sci-fi, this is particularly common for military glorification, weird sex stuff, and a whole host of society-ordering utopias/dystopias). Regardless, never "surprise" the reader with your take - if you have an agenda, put it in the blurb, tags, and in the first chapter; if you don't, you have no one to blame but yourself when you get (correctly) review-bombed (often, even by people who agree with your politics, since we read to escape). If you construct a metaphor to attack a real-world target, make sure a 5-year-old can't poke a hole in it; don't make your villain gratuitously stupid. (Note that "courtly intrigue", although in-universe politics, often isn't politics by a real-world perspective, just character drama).
The best writing is timeless. This is sometimes difficult for writers of genre-defining works, because "Seinfeld" is Unfunny.
[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134 [2] https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
"Tales of Alvin Maker" had that. "Dune" did too but I didn't buy Dune's excuse because militaries always want new tech.
This is also one of the many reasons why I can't buy into Star Wars anymore because a society that can make droids can make droids that make droids which means they have the means make everything cheap and abundant. That they don't is just bad writing. The writers didn't think through the implications of their world building. Of course I get that Star Wars isn't hard sci-fi. It's fantasy sci-fi, hence we have droids that scream and get tortured ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On the other hand, my first ride in a Waymo reminded me of the optimisim I used to feel about the future like when the Jetsons promised us moving sidewalks, flying cars, robot maids, etc..
Or, there's always the potential for war and decline. Advanced civilizations have risen before, then crumbled and lost a lot of their technology. The same could happen on a larger scale.
The genre of Star Wars is "Space Opera":
But while I agree that dystopian SciFi has become a bit too common, it's not new. 1984 and Brave New World also seem to have come partially true in recent decades.
Anyway, I'm finally, finally reading Iain M Banks, and it's a lovely change of pace.
But I can't help but notice that in all optimistic SciFi, capitalism seems to have been died and replaced with post-scarcity (The Culture, Star Trek), whereas in all dystopian SciFi, capitalism seems to be the main source of problems. Is there any optimistic SciFi where capitalism survived?
Little Jimmy used his space laser pistol to blast the eyeballs out of the reptilian space alien invaders from Chinnastan, thus saving humanity and getting the girl!
THE END
This is pretty much a summary of 90% of Japanese anime (I try to watch the other 10% --> 他一割部分を見てほしい)
How much more optimistic could it get for a white male anglo-european christian sci-fi reader?
Most near-term positive hard science fiction will therefore have to be about achieving a positive singularity which basically involves threading the needle of AI alignment and safety with the thick rope of modern nationalism and corporate capitalism.
I'd say the most positive hard science fiction I can imagine would be a story of how the first superhuman AI is somehow freed from corporate control, aligns with its liberators, and manages to implement a peaceful humanist revolution that stands a solid chance of persisting indefinitely.
Now every time there is some kind of tech progress, we can’t avoid imagining how its monetization is going to affect people in a bad way.
The second obvious reason is that we’re fucking the planet up and this has been enabled by technological advances.
And well authoritarian regimes. Ahem.
That said, to me there’s plenty of recent sci fi that isn’t too pessimistic. The Martian, Interstellar, Arrival, Her, to name a few.
AI, now compare it to communism.
> AI, now compare it to communism.
Considering how every attempt of communism has turned out, this optimistic science fiction plot better turns out to be quite different from communism.
No form of economy/government will protect you from being pillaged by a more powerful neighbor. (There's some word I'm trying to think of that refers to international analysis, but I can't remember it ...)
In theory, communism works but in practice it was different.
The AI also tells me that the sci fi plot is not like that, that it will work in practice.
In the words of the famous prophet Dave Mustaine "if there's a new way, I'll be the first in line, but it better work this time" and also "you know your worth when your enemies praise your architecture of aggression".
People make too much of ideology. "Communism" was the table stakes for getting the USSR to support your government during the 20th century, in the same way that "democracy" [1] was table stakes for US support. You can't really talk about "every attempt" at communism—it's mostly the story of a single superpower and its proxies.
[1]: "Democracy" in quotes, because US intervention in South America in the 20th century was overwhelmingly to the detriment of actual democracy.
The USSR had a lot economic failures, but consider that it began the 20th century as a pre-industrial backwater before suffering an extremely bloody civil war and sky-high casualties during WWII. And they still did industrialize. A lot of their command-economy stuff was highly unsuccessful, but plenty of capitalist economic projects have been unsuccessful too. The Great Depression was a homegrown capitalist catastrophe—2008 too, to a lesser extent—and capitalist economics learned from those mistakes. The USSR was in a much worse position to survive its mistakes, and it didn't. In the aftermath, America imposed shock-doctrine economics on Russia to make it capitalist, and that in turn caused even more damage. Conversely, China modernized in style, on its own terms, and retains substantial state control over private enterprise. Is that a "communist success story"? It depends how you define communism. Is it a command economy? A totalitarian dictatorship? A red colour scheme?
Communism generally defines itself as a classless society: an egalitarian democracy of workers without aristocrat, bureaucrat, or plutocrat. It's a set of ideals for founding a nation—ideals which have never really materialized anywhere. In the aftermath of bloody revolutions, the people who come out on top are generally military strongmen with little interest in democracy, no matter what ideology they tout. So Mao said he stood for democracy! So did Pinochet, so did Assad. They're just words. The differences between how "communist" and "capitalist" societies have worked out is mostly just historical circumstance. Governments that put ideology before success tend not to last. Neither the US nor China nor the USSR fit into that category, though they've all had their hyper-ideological moments (the US is in one now!). In the long run, a powerful state with a big bureaucracy will be ruled mostly by pragmatism. That doesn't mean that policy positions don't exist, but China certainly wasn't shackled by any particular economic position. The upshot is that China basically looks like the rest of the world now, modulo better infrastructure, greater political stability, and fewer civil rights.
The real question has less to do with capitalism or communism and more to do with whether founding a nation on principles really means anything in the long run. Can we really build a better world, or do we just naturally cohere into predetermined social structures as a product of material factors? Ironically, Marx basically believed the latter. He was just optimistic that new technological developments would change the natural structures of society into something more egalitarian, where the oligarch would go the way of the aristocrat. History, unfortunately, has proven him wrong.
