[dead]
We need more optimistic science fiction
201–210 of 211 posts
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life extension sort of solves this problem and is much more plausible.
But life extension will be for the rich. What's the point of extending your life if you're going to be surrounded by twats like Elon Musk all day every day...?
I think the idea is that in a post-scarcity society everyone gets it.
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - learn we are not alone in the universe 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) w…
Everyone read Solaris.
It is of course an absolute classic, but funny to recommend in this thread, as it's probably the most pessimistic first contact story I can think of, in fact I think it raises serious questions about humans communicating successfully with each other (let alone anyone else).
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#204I look forward to a world where people no longer need to sacrifice their curiosity to earn bread, clothes and basic housing. UBI would be a good start, but with the resources at hand we should be able to do more. 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…
I'm optimistic on AI enabling the passion economy helping out with this. If anyone can get their taste out there and an AI handles most of everything else (marketing, niching), people can focus on what they are good at (what they like).
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone read Solaris.
It is of course an absolute classic, but funny to recommend in this thread, as it's probably the most pessimistic first contact story I can think of, in fact I think it raises serious questions about humans communicating successfully with each other (let alone anyone else).
> it's probably the most pessimistic first contact story I can think of
三体 by 刘慈欣 (English: "The Three-Body Problem" by Liu Cixin) is clearly a much more pessimistic first contact story. :-)
And honestly: I did not find Solaris pessimistic; for me it was just a story about a first contact that fails because humanity still has a lot of things to learn.
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#206I think it's been established that cautionary tales don't work. ("Tech Company: At long last we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create the Torment Nexus") So we might as well have some positive visions of the future! They might be more pleasant to read about too.
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is of course an absolute classic, but funny to recommend in this thread, as it's probably the most pessimistic first contact story I can think of, in fact I think it raises serious questions about humans communicating successfully with each other (let alone anyone else).
> it's probably the most pessimistic first contact story I can think of 三体 by 刘慈欣 (English: "The Three-Body Problem" by Liu Cixin) is clearly a much more pessimistic first contact story. :-) And honestly: I did not find Solaris pessimistic; for me it was just a story about a first contact that fails because humanity still has a lot of things to learn.
I don't know - The Three Body Problem is certainly a _bummer_ but in a way it presents a universe where all lifeforms can at least identify with eachother with respect to the desire to out-compete everyone else for resources. The aliens in TTBP are basically just people.
In Solaris we are presented with something genuinely alien to human beings with which communication is barely possible.
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
You never hear people talk about what slavery did for homelessness. One can be quite deranged, if a mean and a bed are provided and we beat you with a stick you are motivated to do the manual labor. It is also a sound method to overcome addiction. If pampered people living the good life cant quit smoking, stop drinking, cant quit Valium, cant stop eating. What would it be like to wake up under the bridge with an empt…
Fortunately that choice is pure fiction. No one has ever solved addiction with slavery, as you suggest. Just the opposite: many addicts have been forced by their addiction and circumstances into sex work, and some abducted sex slaves have been forced into addiction to control them. You seem to have a rich fantasy about what life is like for the impoverished and addicted.
Slavery is perhaps the wrong term.
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#209Optimistic science fiction shows humanity applying unique ingenuity to solve tough problems. Our lived reality today is that we already know the technical solutions to many tough problems (hunger, homelessness, many diseases, overpopulation, climate change, war) but simply refuse to apply them. Of course people don’t believe optimistic sci-fi anymore. Star Trek the original series is usually taken as an example of op…
> (hunger, homelessness, many diseases, overpopulation, climate change, war) This is a profoundly, even comically, contradictory set. You cannot actually "solve" any half of these without causing the other half.
Not with that attitude, no. Why so pessimistic?
Re: We need more optimistic science fiction
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. 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 a…
Nearly every edifice of modern society relies on the tacit consent of other people. Pharma needs patent laws and a whole market economy to function. "One wealthy person controls everyone with robots" basically ends up with one wealthy person alone with some robots.
>Pharma needs patent laws and a whole market economy to function.
I agree in general with this sentiment. However, I think that "medical robot that can cure anything" isn't something you'd patent (as you'd have to make some of the details public). I imagine you'd keep it as a trade secret and only license the machine for use by your own technicians or something along those lines.
I do think that the key assumptions for this scenario are that companies become as powerful (if not more powerful) than countries, and the incentives change such that withholding medical care is beneficial to the wealthy.
Do I think this is the most likely outcome? No. But I think that current countries with partially starving populations are a "worst-case" scenario for what a society dealing with scarcity looks like.