6 ms·

I used to enjoy my cyberpunk and other dystopias like the next guy. But to be honest, nowadays the world is bleak enough and even classic utopias like Star Trek

I used to enjoy my cyberpunk and other dystopias like the next guy. But to be honest, nowadays the world is bleak enough and even classic utopias like Star Trek grow stale or turn into dystopias. I like the fresh and friendly new vision of a livable future Solarpunk provides.

the-dude 5y ago
Let me tell you about the 70ies and 80ies.
- sha256kira 5y ago
  yes... go on?
  - the-dude 5y ago
    First we were all gonna die a horrible death in a nuclear armageddon. When that didn't happen, all forests would die due to acid rain and we would all suffocate. When that didn't happen the hole in the ozon layer was discovered and we would all die of skin cancer. I must have forgotten some.
    - sha256kira 5y ago
      Thats such an excellent succinct counterpoint to all the doomer nihilism we tend to slip into on HN. I feel like this should be on some kind of open source tshirt or commemorative plate.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      Those... are all problems that would have happened if we didn't change our behavior. And luckily we did. Well, except the forests are still being destroyed.
      - guscost 5y ago
        I don’t believe that claim at all.
        TaylorAlexander 5y ago
        I mean, obviously nuclear war was averted because we ended the cold war (we changed our behavior). I suppose I could be misinformed but I believe the hole in the ozone layer was fixed by banning CFCs (we changed our behavior)? I know less about acid rain. We are continuing to destroy forests.
        duskwuff 5y ago
        Acid rain was the result of air pollution containing nitrogen and sulfur oxides, primarily from industrial sources, but also from vehicles. Strict emissions controls have largely solved this problem in developed countries.
        guscost 5y ago
        > I mean, obviously nuclear war was averted because we ended the cold war (we changed our behavior). I had a very spirited argument the other day about whether a unipolar world is actually more stable than a multipolar world, or not. The threat of nuclear war is ever-present, even if it is less serious now than it was in the 60s. I’m not sure where you get “obviously” in this claim. > I believe the hole in the ozone layer was fixed by banning CFCs The alternative explanation (which I’m sure you will be able to find a “debunking” of somewhere) is that ozone is regenerated very quickly, and the “hole” (it really was never more than a “thin spot”) in the Antarctic has improved because the South Pole is exposed to just a little more solar energy now. CFCs probably do make some difference, but they are very heavy molecules and would not accumulate much in the upper atmosphere: https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-atmosphere-ozone-0518 https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-atmosphere-ozone-0518 (Note: That article has some data that could support this theory, but it does not reach the same conclusion. You are nevertheless encouraged to think for yourself.)
        5y ago
    - roughly 5y ago
      You understand that a huge amount of work and effort went into handling those problems, right? Like, they weren’t not problems, we just actually did something about them... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Helsinki_Protocol_on_the_Reduction_of_Sulphur_Emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Helsinki_Protocol_on_the_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
      - mrtksn 5y ago
        Not understanding that is at the core of the teachings of the alt-right thought leaders. It's actually formalised under the concept of "The Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters"[0] by the Dilbert's creator, who himself is very active in these politics, which is ironic because the law actually recognises the existence of the diverted threats but the application of the law on the current dangers is preached as "relax, nothing will happen no action needed". You can add the Covid-19 to the list when all this is over. They will say, "We were all gonna die but only 4 million people died. It was yet another fear-mongering by INSERT_YOUR_FAVORITE_BOOGYMAN". The 4 million number to be updated, when it was at 50K the argument was "They say it's extremely dangerous but the flu actually killed more people". It's bizarre. It's almost like a form of douchebaggery where you put all your chips on the idea that somehow it will be fixed by experts and simultaneously demand that the solution that the experts propose should not involve you in any way and if that solution alters your current or future way of life, the solution proposal will result in harassment to its creator. [0]: https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/01/22/adams-law-of-slow-moving-disasters-update/ https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/01/22/adams-law-of-slow-...
        the-dude 5y ago
        I never said or meant such a thing. OP stated that our future was bleak. I offered to tell tales from 70ies and 80ies. Whatever you are projecting is yours.
        mrtksn 5y ago
    - coldtea 5y ago
      We were also all going to freeze in the "New Ice Age".
      - smolder 5y ago
        Where normally this gets brought up as some reason we shouldn't trust climate science, this is actually a good example of how media sensationalizes shaky science to get people riled up. (The cooling theory, at its height of popularity, coexisted with a larger body of research predicting warming. I.e. it wasn't well supported.)
        coldtea 5y ago
        The problem is this is based on "it's different this time", which doesn't preclude hearing the same kind of excuses in the future: "how early 21st century climate change stories was mostly sensionalization by the media, and real scientists differed (what with "global weirding")" and so on.
        exporectomy 5y ago
        A recent survey in New Zealand found that 7% of people believed the worst case credible predicted sea level rise by 2100 is 15 meters or more, which is wrong. More people underestimated it too. But it shows that media sensationalism is probably leading people to ridiculous beliefs about climate change too. People saying climate change is a disaster, crisis, catastrophe, etc. use those words because they haven't got a clue what's going to happen and are just hyped up on fear. The media sensationalizes it out of proportion while the solid science is relatively boring. There's also media sensationalizing it as a false bogeyman which encourages denialism. But either way, most people are just tools of the media because it's so much easier and more entertaining than reading dry science papers.
        tomjakubowski 5y ago
        > found that 7% of people believed the worst case credible predicted sea level rise by 2100 is 15 meters or more, which is wrong 7%? Not very many. I would imagine much of it is random / thoughtless guessing, as opposed to someone strongly believing it to be true. edit: presuming it is the survey from this paper, they didn't offer respondents an "I don't know" option. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254348 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
GuB-42 5y ago
Utopias like solarpunk look nice but how does it make good stories? It is hard to make stories without some form of conflict, and being a utopia, solarpunk is defined by the lack of it. I mean, if it is perfect, there is no way for improvement, it is not surprising that utopias go stale. Dystopias are the natural result of pushing utopias too far. Once you have finished describing the wonderful world of joy, equality, optimism and forest-like cities, you will necessarily end up with the question "what happened to assholes?". Are they punished like criminals? Is their behavior "adjusted"? Did we engineer the asshole gene out? And the more you dig in, the more your utopia starts to look like a dystopia. As expected, these themes have been covered at length by many sci-fi authors.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > Utopias like solarpunk look nice but how does it make good stories? Feel-good stories make for good stories, like a good love story or a fantasy book about a young protagonist overcoming obstacles. There's nothing wrong with escapism from time to time. But indeed, there's not even a trace amount of punk in it.
- cyberpunk 5y ago
  Ach I dunno, did you read any of the Culture novels by Banks? His post scarcity human/machine setup the closest thing to a utopia I can think of, but there are still a good load of novels there :)
  - detaro 5y ago
    A good chunk of those are about the conflicts/interactions of the utopia with the rest of the universe, at least as the backdrop. (Which also works for solarpunk stories)
    - cyberpunk 5y ago
      I don’t think it’s possible not to have a bit of a soft spot for the affront..
  - lazide 5y ago
cyberpunk 5y ago
Our doom is going to be far less entertaining than a good Gibson novel I suspect. Maybe a good time to teach the kids krav and how to wire a solar panel to a car battery eh. :/

the-dude 5y ago

Let me tell you about the 70ies and 80ies.

sha256kira 5y ago
yes... go on?
- the-dude 5y ago
  First we were all gonna die a horrible death in a nuclear armageddon. When that didn't happen, all forests would die due to acid rain and we would all suffocate. When that didn't happen the hole in the ozon layer was discovered and we would all die of skin cancer. I must have forgotten some.
  - sha256kira 5y ago
    Thats such an excellent succinct counterpoint to all the doomer nihilism we tend to slip into on HN. I feel like this should be on some kind of open source tshirt or commemorative plate.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    Those... are all problems that would have happened if we didn't change our behavior. And luckily we did. Well, except the forests are still being destroyed.
    - guscost 5y ago
      I don’t believe that claim at all.
      - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
        I mean, obviously nuclear war was averted because we ended the cold war (we changed our behavior). I suppose I could be misinformed but I believe the hole in the ozone layer was fixed by banning CFCs (we changed our behavior)? I know less about acid rain. We are continuing to destroy forests.
        duskwuff 5y ago
        Acid rain was the result of air pollution containing nitrogen and sulfur oxides, primarily from industrial sources, but also from vehicles. Strict emissions controls have largely solved this problem in developed countries.
        guscost 5y ago
        > I mean, obviously nuclear war was averted because we ended the cold war (we changed our behavior). I had a very spirited argument the other day about whether a unipolar world is actually more stable than a multipolar world, or not. The threat of nuclear war is ever-present, even if it is less serious now than it was in the 60s. I’m not sure where you get “obviously” in this claim. > I believe the hole in the ozone layer was fixed by banning CFCs The alternative explanation (which I’m sure you will be able to find a “debunking” of somewhere) is that ozone is regenerated very quickly, and the “hole” (it really was never more than a “thin spot”) in the Antarctic has improved because the South Pole is exposed to just a little more solar energy now. CFCs probably do make some difference, but they are very heavy molecules and would not accumulate much in the upper atmosphere: https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-atmosphere-ozone-0518 https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-atmosphere-ozone-0518 (Note: That article has some data that could support this theory, but it does not reach the same conclusion. You are nevertheless encouraged to think for yourself.)
        5y ago
  - roughly 5y ago
    You understand that a huge amount of work and effort went into handling those problems, right? Like, they weren’t not problems, we just actually did something about them... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Helsinki_Protocol_on_the_Reduction_of_Sulphur_Emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Helsinki_Protocol_on_the_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
    - mrtksn 5y ago
      Not understanding that is at the core of the teachings of the alt-right thought leaders. It's actually formalised under the concept of "The Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters"[0] by the Dilbert's creator, who himself is very active in these politics, which is ironic because the law actually recognises the existence of the diverted threats but the application of the law on the current dangers is preached as "relax, nothing will happen no action needed". You can add the Covid-19 to the list when all this is over. They will say, "We were all gonna die but only 4 million people died. It was yet another fear-mongering by INSERT_YOUR_FAVORITE_BOOGYMAN". The 4 million number to be updated, when it was at 50K the argument was "They say it's extremely dangerous but the flu actually killed more people". It's bizarre. It's almost like a form of douchebaggery where you put all your chips on the idea that somehow it will be fixed by experts and simultaneously demand that the solution that the experts propose should not involve you in any way and if that solution alters your current or future way of life, the solution proposal will result in harassment to its creator. [0]: https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/01/22/adams-law-of-slow-moving-disasters-update/ https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/01/22/adams-law-of-slow-...
      - the-dude 5y ago
        I never said or meant such a thing. OP stated that our future was bleak. I offered to tell tales from 70ies and 80ies. Whatever you are projecting is yours.
        mrtksn 5y ago
  - coldtea 5y ago
    We were also all going to freeze in the "New Ice Age".
    - smolder 5y ago
      Where normally this gets brought up as some reason we shouldn't trust climate science, this is actually a good example of how media sensationalizes shaky science to get people riled up. (The cooling theory, at its height of popularity, coexisted with a larger body of research predicting warming. I.e. it wasn't well supported.)
      - coldtea 5y ago
        The problem is this is based on "it's different this time", which doesn't preclude hearing the same kind of excuses in the future: "how early 21st century climate change stories was mostly sensionalization by the media, and real scientists differed (what with "global weirding")" and so on.
      - exporectomy 5y ago
        A recent survey in New Zealand found that 7% of people believed the worst case credible predicted sea level rise by 2100 is 15 meters or more, which is wrong. More people underestimated it too. But it shows that media sensationalism is probably leading people to ridiculous beliefs about climate change too. People saying climate change is a disaster, crisis, catastrophe, etc. use those words because they haven't got a clue what's going to happen and are just hyped up on fear. The media sensationalizes it out of proportion while the solid science is relatively boring. There's also media sensationalizing it as a false bogeyman which encourages denialism. But either way, most people are just tools of the media because it's so much easier and more entertaining than reading dry science papers.
        tomjakubowski 5y ago
        > found that 7% of people believed the worst case credible predicted sea level rise by 2100 is 15 meters or more, which is wrong 7%? Not very many. I would imagine much of it is random / thoughtless guessing, as opposed to someone strongly believing it to be true. edit: presuming it is the survey from this paper, they didn't offer respondents an "I don't know" option. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254348 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

GuB-42 5y ago

Utopias like solarpunk look nice but how does it make good stories? It is hard to make stories without some form of conflict, and being a utopia, solarpunk is defined by the lack of it. I mean, if it is perfect, there is no way for improvement, it is not surprising that utopias go stale. Dystopias are the natural result of pushing utopias too far. Once you have finished describing the wonderful world of joy, equality, optimism and forest-like cities, you will necessarily end up with the question "what happened to assholes?". Are they punished like criminals? Is their behavior "adjusted"? Did we engineer the asshole gene out? And the more you dig in, the more your utopia starts to look like a dystopia. As expected, these themes have been covered at length by many sci-fi authors.

pyrale 5y ago
> Utopias like solarpunk look nice but how does it make good stories? Feel-good stories make for good stories, like a good love story or a fantasy book about a young protagonist overcoming obstacles. There's nothing wrong with escapism from time to time. But indeed, there's not even a trace amount of punk in it.
cyberpunk 5y ago
Ach I dunno, did you read any of the Culture novels by Banks? His post scarcity human/machine setup the closest thing to a utopia I can think of, but there are still a good load of novels there :)
- detaro 5y ago
  A good chunk of those are about the conflicts/interactions of the utopia with the rest of the universe, at least as the backdrop. (Which also works for solarpunk stories)
  - cyberpunk 5y ago
    I don’t think it’s possible not to have a bit of a soft spot for the affront..
- lazide 5y ago

cyberpunk 5y ago

Our doom is going to be far less entertaining than a good Gibson novel I suspect. Maybe a good time to teach the kids krav and how to wire a solar panel to a car battery eh. :/