4 ms·

I think what has made dystopian sci-fi compelling in the past, is that it points out the flaws of our ideals, and resonates with many of us in an acknowledgemen

I think what has made dystopian sci-fi compelling in the past, is that it points out the flaws of our ideals, and resonates with many of us in an acknowledgement that perfection is impossible, even if we shift society to give more of an appearance of perfection, there's always a significant cost. Yes, these ideas are played out, and there's tons of bad examples of media that just replays these ideas without bringing anything novel to the table. But I still find the idea of a 'realistic' dystopian sci-fi more potentially compelling than a sugarcoated 'impossible' utopia because I fundamentally believe it can't exist. I cannot conceive of a real utopia in practice, and what someone else may call a utopia I would surely call some sort of nightmare. Refer to Brave New World as a good example of exactly this dynamic.

Razengan 6y ago
> what someone else may call a utopia I would surely call some sort of nightmare. The very definition of a utopia (colloquially, regardless of where the word actually came from) is a state where nobody feels like its a nightmare. Where everybody has basic comforts and the freedom to do what they want (as long as it doesn't harm anyone) and decide their future and has safety nets against misfortune. You can still have plenty of interesting trials and tribulations in such a setting (competing in sports, getting good at art, exploring the cosmos) and I'm sure that if done right it will be a refreshing change from the usual tired old trope of "Everything's fucked! And will always be fucked!"