4 ms·

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't think that makes the US a dystopia. I think it makes the US a society in a regressive slide towards dystop

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't think that makes the US a dystopia. I think it makes the US a society in a regressive slide towards dystopianism. Admittedly, this is a nitpick of your point, but it's an important distinction because a dystopia is supposed to be the absolute worst anything can be. The US is just nowhere near that. I also think that when we analyze the direction of a society, we should be looking on a larger timescale than between 1980s and 2010s. If you zoom out a little, to, say, the 1910s to 2010s, it's hard to make the argument that people are worse off on average. There's a lot of doom-and-gloom forecasting that suggests that not only is our society regressing, it is regressing so quickly and to such a low point that this cannot be countered. I don't think that's true. I think there is still time for positive change and that our society still provides us avenues for achieving it. It isn't easy, and it isn't getting any easier, but it is possible. While that possibility exists, a state cannot be a true dystopia. I'm also curious as to how old you think I am. I have a feeling I'm much younger than you may imagine. I also think I should point out that while I haven't read Push, it looks like it has a relatively uplifting ending that is a counterexample to what you're claiming.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
> I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't think that makes the US a dystopia. I think it makes the US a society in a regressive slide towards dystopianism. Admittedly, this is a nitpick of your point, but it's an important distinction because a dystopia is supposed to be the absolute worst anything can be. The US is just nowhere near that. I mean, fair enough, but if we zoom out, well, global warming is a thing. We're going to be too late to do much about it, and we may not be able to save ourselves or anyone else among humanity. Most non-human life is now going extinct. Multicellular life as a whole may go extinct if the clathrate gun turns out to be a real thing. We have declining living standards and the expectation of mass death. Oh, and a rather evil government.
- BjoernKW 10y ago
  > global warming is a thing So is the heat death of the universe, yet we don't feel existential angst about that. Global warming is a serious problem and it'll have a tremendous impact on human life. However, this will happen in a timeframe of several generations. While the consequences are certainly dire global warming won't mean the extinction of mankind, or most non-human life for that matter. Life will adapt. Mankind will adapt. We can't prevent global warming anymore but we can do something to slow it down and temper its effects. There's no reason to be defeatist about this. In the 80s sometimes the notion was floated that by now pretty much all of Northern Europe should be below sea-level due to global warming. This shows both that things don't always have to work out as badly as predicted and that a change for the better is possible.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >So is the heat death of the universe, yet we don't feel existential angst about that. Global warming is a serious problem and it'll have a tremendous impact on human life. However, this will happen in a timeframe of several generations. Several generations, my foot! The real nasty stuff will be coming to a head just about when I'm starting to hit retirement age. >While the consequences are certainly dire global warming won't mean the extinction of mankind, or most non-human life for that matter. Life will adapt. Mankind will adapt. We can't prevent global warming anymore but we can do something to slow it down and temper its effects. This is a stupid thing to say to people. "Oh, sure, you might die, or your personal prospects might get a lot worse, but humanity as a whole will probably persist!" Oh joy? Look, it's very nice that humanity might survive in some form, but I was hoping to survive in some form, into my natural old age.
    - E6300 10y ago
      What are you talking about? The most pessimistic estimates predict a sea level rise of 2 m by 2100. Just when are you expecting to retire?
      - AsyncAwait 10y ago
        Global warming is about much more than sea levels. Arguably, that's not even the most important concern. Food/water shortages, war over resources, refugee crisis that makes this one feel tiny in comparison etc.
chillwaves 10y ago
> If you zoom out a little, to, say, the 1910s to 2010s, it's hard to make the argument that people are worse off on average. Only want to point out this is a horrendous fallacy. Technology has increased wealth to exponential levels. Yes, I do expect things to be at least a bit better but there are measures of well being that cannot be expressed in the size of one's flat screen TV. Job security, access to healthcare, education, basic services and living in an inclusive and just society. By these metrics are we doing so much better? And let's not justify the unfortunate conditions of the present by the worse conditions of the past.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  > By these metrics are we doing so much better? And let's not justify the unfortunate conditions of the present by the worse conditions of the past. Yes. Yes, we are. Realize that in the 1910s, electricity was not in widespread use, millions died each year from diseases now treatable or totally nonexistent (e. g. smallpox), and we were on the verge of two of the deadliest wars in human history. It's frankly absurd to suggest that the only benefits of technological and scientific increases over the past century have been flatscreen TVs or creature comforts, or even that these are the primary innovations. Humanity's inventions over the past century have been a big, massive deal. Not dying from things as simple as influenza, being able to cross the country by plane in just a few hours, and near-universal (in the US) access to indoor plumbing, electricity, clean water and at least basic emergency medical care have already put us well beyond the level of those times. I won't even get into live birth rates, infant mortality, life expectancy, or overall risk of death due to accident or disease. But overall, I'm not justifying current problems as being OK because things used to be worse - I'm trying to remind everyone that society is a process, not an endpoint, and for as far as we've come we've got to be willing to take time and withstand some suffering to go further.
  - spangry 10y ago
    The facts you cite are irrefutably true. However, I'd question the notion that technological progress is synonymous with social/human progress. Although technological progress might make human progress easier, it doesn't guarantee it (IMHO). I suppose it comes down to how one defines 'human progress'. For me, the more relevant issue is how humans interact with each other (mostly at the non-individual level). I mean, we've mostly gotten past hanging out in small tribes, killing members of other small tribes in order to take their stuff. Arguably, we've made progress. But it's not entirely clear to me whether we've fundamentally changed our nature, or if the tribes have just gotten bigger. So although I'd agree that technological progress plays a role, I think it's an indirect one. Technology makes resources more plentiful. In turn, this makes it easier to get by without having to murder anyone. But it's no guarantee that we won't. Indeed, we seem to be at our most inventive when some other tribe is trying to kill us and we're trying to do the same right back (i.e. during times of war)...

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

> I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't think that makes the US a dystopia. I think it makes the US a society in a regressive slide towards dystopianism. Admittedly, this is a nitpick of your point, but it's an important distinction because a dystopia is supposed to be the absolute worst anything can be. The US is just nowhere near that. I mean, fair enough, but if we zoom out, well, global warming is a thing. We're going to be too late to do much about it, and we may not be able to save ourselves or anyone else among humanity. Most non-human life is now going extinct. Multicellular life as a whole may go extinct if the clathrate gun turns out to be a real thing. We have declining living standards and the expectation of mass death. Oh, and a rather evil government.

BjoernKW 10y ago
> global warming is a thing So is the heat death of the universe, yet we don't feel existential angst about that. Global warming is a serious problem and it'll have a tremendous impact on human life. However, this will happen in a timeframe of several generations. While the consequences are certainly dire global warming won't mean the extinction of mankind, or most non-human life for that matter. Life will adapt. Mankind will adapt. We can't prevent global warming anymore but we can do something to slow it down and temper its effects. There's no reason to be defeatist about this. In the 80s sometimes the notion was floated that by now pretty much all of Northern Europe should be below sea-level due to global warming. This shows both that things don't always have to work out as badly as predicted and that a change for the better is possible.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >So is the heat death of the universe, yet we don't feel existential angst about that. Global warming is a serious problem and it'll have a tremendous impact on human life. However, this will happen in a timeframe of several generations. Several generations, my foot! The real nasty stuff will be coming to a head just about when I'm starting to hit retirement age. >While the consequences are certainly dire global warming won't mean the extinction of mankind, or most non-human life for that matter. Life will adapt. Mankind will adapt. We can't prevent global warming anymore but we can do something to slow it down and temper its effects. This is a stupid thing to say to people. "Oh, sure, you might die, or your personal prospects might get a lot worse, but humanity as a whole will probably persist!" Oh joy? Look, it's very nice that humanity might survive in some form, but I was hoping to survive in some form, into my natural old age.
  - E6300 10y ago
    What are you talking about? The most pessimistic estimates predict a sea level rise of 2 m by 2100. Just when are you expecting to retire?
    - AsyncAwait 10y ago
      Global warming is about much more than sea levels. Arguably, that's not even the most important concern. Food/water shortages, war over resources, refugee crisis that makes this one feel tiny in comparison etc.

chillwaves 10y ago

> If you zoom out a little, to, say, the 1910s to 2010s, it's hard to make the argument that people are worse off on average. Only want to point out this is a horrendous fallacy. Technology has increased wealth to exponential levels. Yes, I do expect things to be at least a bit better but there are measures of well being that cannot be expressed in the size of one's flat screen TV. Job security, access to healthcare, education, basic services and living in an inclusive and just society. By these metrics are we doing so much better? And let's not justify the unfortunate conditions of the present by the worse conditions of the past.

ivraatiems 10y ago
> By these metrics are we doing so much better? And let's not justify the unfortunate conditions of the present by the worse conditions of the past. Yes. Yes, we are. Realize that in the 1910s, electricity was not in widespread use, millions died each year from diseases now treatable or totally nonexistent (e. g. smallpox), and we were on the verge of two of the deadliest wars in human history. It's frankly absurd to suggest that the only benefits of technological and scientific increases over the past century have been flatscreen TVs or creature comforts, or even that these are the primary innovations. Humanity's inventions over the past century have been a big, massive deal. Not dying from things as simple as influenza, being able to cross the country by plane in just a few hours, and near-universal (in the US) access to indoor plumbing, electricity, clean water and at least basic emergency medical care have already put us well beyond the level of those times. I won't even get into live birth rates, infant mortality, life expectancy, or overall risk of death due to accident or disease. But overall, I'm not justifying current problems as being OK because things used to be worse - I'm trying to remind everyone that society is a process, not an endpoint, and for as far as we've come we've got to be willing to take time and withstand some suffering to go further.
- spangry 10y ago
  The facts you cite are irrefutably true. However, I'd question the notion that technological progress is synonymous with social/human progress. Although technological progress might make human progress easier, it doesn't guarantee it (IMHO). I suppose it comes down to how one defines 'human progress'. For me, the more relevant issue is how humans interact with each other (mostly at the non-individual level). I mean, we've mostly gotten past hanging out in small tribes, killing members of other small tribes in order to take their stuff. Arguably, we've made progress. But it's not entirely clear to me whether we've fundamentally changed our nature, or if the tribes have just gotten bigger. So although I'd agree that technological progress plays a role, I think it's an indirect one. Technology makes resources more plentiful. In turn, this makes it easier to get by without having to murder anyone. But it's no guarantee that we won't. Indeed, we seem to be at our most inventive when some other tribe is trying to kill us and we're trying to do the same right back (i.e. during times of war)...