Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need more optimistic science fiction

craig-russell.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 211 posts

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#81

Post by pessimizer »

wirdnok wrote: post #35

Jerry Holkins of penny-arcade recently shared a similar sentiment. > 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. https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2025/02/28/opfor

The problem with that sentiment is that cynicism isn't deconstruction. It's often an accurate assessment of current trends and a prediction of where they might lead, not a collapse into abstractions.

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."

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#82

Post by Calwestjobs »

philipkglass wrote: post #56
Calwestjobs wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but 89 % of that 5% will be still used for interplanetary yacht fleet of owner of Chocó-Darién Inc.

The remaining 11% of 5% would need about 8 seconds to generate more energy than humanity currently generates in 10,000 years. Luminosity of the sun: ~380 yottawatts (3.8 * 10^26 watts) Sunlight conversion efficiency of a silicon based solar panel: ~20% A Dyson swarm around the sun built with silicon solar panels: ~76 yottawatts A Dyson swarm around the sun where 5% of the panels work: ~3.8 yottawatts The leftovers fr…

ok so are you saying that it is so much that we need 450 more planets worth of people to be able to use that

or

you're saying that if we can harness that much energy amount/density then we can just make matter on spot and we do not have to travel anywhere anymore, because we can make gold bricks or platinum sieves in particle accelerators just for fun? (this is same argument as why alcubierre drive is nonsense, having capability to manipulate such energy density makes us not want to travel anymore)

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#83

Post by marc_abonce »

This reminds me of a related quote from Ursula K. Le Guin:

"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.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#84

Post by krapp »

sho_hn wrote: post #34
porphyra wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Star Trek is often considered the archetype of optimistic science fiction.

Sadly its present-day incarnations are often anything but, so it's not an easy rec anymore.

I'd disagree. Modern day Trek is optimistic, just not in the naive way the original series and TNG were, where it was simply taken for granted that humans had evolved beyond their base vices and utopia was simply a natural expression of their enlightened nature. That isn't something one can aspire to. In modern Trek, humans are humans and human nature is realistic, and those utopian ideals have to be struggled for.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#85

Post by aleph_minus_one »

m463 wrote: post #80
AIPedant wrote: post #6

On Twitter, Colin Fraser pointed out that Black Mirror was somewhat optimistic in that the horrible evil technology actually works as described[1]. 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 canno…

I think optimistic scifi needs to lie a bit: - 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

> - 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)

where the alien species is an intelligent ocean.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#86

Post by aleph_minus_one »

Retric wrote: post #65
snowwrestler wrote: post #48

Optimistic 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…

That negative view doesn’t match the underlying reality of the world today. We’re simply getting a closer look at just what most people are like on social media/reality TV/streaming etc. Meanwhile the past sucked. 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 su…

> 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.

Whether a lot of these changes are good/optimistic or bad/pessimistic depends a lot on your political stance.

Yes, society is very divided.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#87

Post by nathan_compton »

m463 wrote: post #80
AIPedant wrote: post #6

On Twitter, Colin Fraser pointed out that Black Mirror was somewhat optimistic in that the horrible evil technology actually works as described[1]. 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 canno…

I think optimistic scifi needs to lie a bit: - 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

I think Greg Egan writes very optimistic science fiction that only really does 2 sort of. Exceeding the speed of light is, from my point of view, so absurd a premise as to make me feel that any hard science fiction which tries to get around it is not serious.

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.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#88

Post by nathan_compton »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #85
m463 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think optimistic scifi needs to lie a bit: - 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

> - 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.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#89

Post by Sevii »

Calwestjobs wrote: post #36
lif wrote: post #23

Unpopular take, and note, I am not an expert: 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' _Inconstan…

Exactly ! Just simple : Do we have any complex mechanism which works for last 100 years nonstop without fail ? Answers question of generational ships towards other solar systems. XD

This is really a question of slack. How long can it fail for? For a 100 year mission you likely want at least a month of slack in your air supply. Things are going to break. You build in redundancy.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#90

Post by rcxdude »

Calwestjobs wrote: post #36
lif wrote: post #23

Unpopular take, and note, I am not an expert: 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' _Inconstan…

Exactly ! Just simple : Do we have any complex mechanism which works for last 100 years nonstop without fail ? Answers question of generational ships towards other solar systems. XD

I mean, we have systems of government and other organizations which have lasted (significantly) longer than that. I think that's an important indicator of such questions.
Post reply on HN