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

91–100 of 211 posts

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#91

Post by d--b »

The fact that sci fi has gotten more pessimistic is debatable. But if we had to pinpoint a reason, I’d say that Silicon Valley selling the world technological utopia and delivering attention farming algorithms is a good culprit.

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.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#93

Post by sho_hn »

krapp wrote: post #84
sho_hn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure that being sentimental about and talking up genocidal mass-murderers like the Georgiou character etc. easily fits your characterization of the franchise.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#94

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#95

Post by nntwozz »

morkalork wrote: post #42
sho_hn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The TNG Picard character was a man of _principles_ that you just don't see anymore on TV.

Yeah TNG is my go-to for optimistic sci-fi. Voyager a close second; Deep Space 9 is a bit more muddled.

Modern Trek is a let-down, although Lower Decks has been awesome with lots of member berries sprinkled throughout for the TNG-era enjoyers.

I should add that Star Trek: Prodigy (albeit a kids show) has been very optimistic and enjoyable too, feels very much like TNG-era. Janeway and Chakotay are in as well.

P.S.

On a tangent The Orville (a Star Trek TNG clone by Seth MacFarlane) is pretty good; some Star Trek actors even show up in it.

Season 4 is apparently in production.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#96

Post by Legend2440 »

Calwestjobs wrote: post #82
philipkglass wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, havin…

We would find new things to do with that energy.

Making matter from energy would still be inefficient though. c^2 is a really big number.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#97

Post by GoatInGrey »

pessimizer wrote: post #81
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 wi…

Applied cynicism is deconstruction in the sense that all that is being offered is criticism and disbelief in a thing. There is no message of doing something else because it is better, only a message to do something else because it isn't the thing the cynicism is targeting. Sometimes not even an alternative is offered. The thing just sucks and it shouldn't be done, according to the critic.

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.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#98

Post by krapp »

sho_hn wrote: post #93
krapp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure that being sentimental about and talking up genocidal mass-murderers like the Georgiou character etc. easily fits your characterization of the franchise.

The Section 31 series flopped pretty hard though. Georgiou isn't portrayed as sympathetically outside of a series that's supposed to be a vehicle for Michelle Yeoh.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#99

Post by alganet »

nntwozz wrote: post #95
morkalork wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TNG Picard character was a man of _principles_ that you just don't see anymore on TV.

Yeah TNG is my go-to for optimistic sci-fi. Voyager a close second; Deep Space 9 is a bit more muddled. Modern Trek is a let-down, although Lower Decks has been awesome with lots of member berries sprinkled throughout for the TNG-era enjoyers. I should add that Star Trek: Prodigy (albeit a kids show) has been very optimistic and enjoyable too, feels very much like TNG-era. Janeway and Chakotay are in as well. P.S. On…

Star Trek kinda sucks.

It's an attempt at reforming quasi fascistic points of view. Strong hierarchies, heavy specialization of individuals, etc.

It is also kinda nice, in the sense that it explores this idea that you should put yourself in the shoes of the places they explore.

It also sucks, because their fans like to put themselves in the shoes of the quasi fascistic spaceship troops.

So, in the end, it is a dystopian nightmare. Told from the perspective of the ones who brought the dystopia to fruition. Which makes it optimistic, I guess! Except for all the planets not on their control having to put up with them.

Re: We need more optimistic science fiction

#100

Post by morkalork »

nntwozz wrote: post #95
morkalork wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TNG Picard character was a man of _principles_ that you just don't see anymore on TV.

Yeah TNG is my go-to for optimistic sci-fi. Voyager a close second; Deep Space 9 is a bit more muddled. Modern Trek is a let-down, although Lower Decks has been awesome with lots of member berries sprinkled throughout for the TNG-era enjoyers. I should add that Star Trek: Prodigy (albeit a kids show) has been very optimistic and enjoyable too, feels very much like TNG-era. Janeway and Chakotay are in as well. P.S. On…

Lower Decks and Prodigy are very much created by people who have fond memories of TNG and Voyager. Even though Prodigy is a kids show, I have a soft spot for it since I was watching Voyager as a 10-13 year old. It definitely works at tapping into the fuzzy nostalgia vibes if you're the right age.
Post reply on HN