3 ms·

I'm not sure I agree with this premise. > In 1984 ... everybody is miserable "He loved Big Brother." In that story, nobody other than the protagonist consider

I'm not sure I agree with this premise. > In 1984 ... everybody is miserable "He loved Big Brother." In that story, nobody other than the protagonist considered that they had a bad lot in life because their basic needs were always taken care of and, in the end, Winston was successfully converted to a regular, party-loving citizen. Of course, I agree with your overall point; people will welcome the dystopia with open arms when it promises to solve all of their problems.

rhelz 2y ago
Not a bad argument!
shiroiushi 2y ago
>people will welcome the dystopia with open arms when it promises to solve all of their problems. At what point does "dystopia" become "utopia"? If it solves all your problems and you're not unhappy, why is it a "dystopia"? This reminds me of Huxley's "Brave New World": it's widely considered a dystopia, but it reads to me like a utopian society: everyone has lots of sex, they aren't miserable because of social division and lack of housing, everything is really good. People who don't grow up in the society (savages) consider it terrible, but that's the case for most people today: how many irreligious, urban westerners want to live in a conservative Islamic society, and vice-versa?
- rhelz 2y ago
  // At what point does "dystopia" become "utopia"? So you think you can tell....Heaven from Hell :-) That is a very deep, and interesting question. For the general case, I don't know. Best I can do is pick one specific aspect of a "utopia." E.g. The Chinese Social Credit system. I would love to benefit from doing random acts of kindness. And I would love to be able to punish bullies and assholes in a meaningful way, which had real impact on their lives. But, whoever controlled that system would have a lot of power, and a lot of temptation to abuse that power. So much power that it's not a matter of if, but when and how often, that power would be abused. We have people, not angels, so the system would have to work even if it were run by people. Without very robust checks-n-ballances to prevent abuse, and without robust methods of getting relief from that abuse, even the people who were benefitting from the system would be living in perpetual fear of losing their social credit, through no fault of their own, and finding themselves so encumbered by having no social credit that they would never be able to rebuild the life they had. So yeah, maybe that's even a candidate for a partial answer to the general case. The system has to work even if it's run by people, not angels.

rhelz 2y ago

Not a bad argument!

shiroiushi 2y ago

>people will welcome the dystopia with open arms when it promises to solve all of their problems. At what point does "dystopia" become "utopia"? If it solves all your problems and you're not unhappy, why is it a "dystopia"? This reminds me of Huxley's "Brave New World": it's widely considered a dystopia, but it reads to me like a utopian society: everyone has lots of sex, they aren't miserable because of social division and lack of housing, everything is really good. People who don't grow up in the society (savages) consider it terrible, but that's the case for most people today: how many irreligious, urban westerners want to live in a conservative Islamic society, and vice-versa?

rhelz 2y ago
// At what point does "dystopia" become "utopia"? So you think you can tell....Heaven from Hell :-) That is a very deep, and interesting question. For the general case, I don't know. Best I can do is pick one specific aspect of a "utopia." E.g. The Chinese Social Credit system. I would love to benefit from doing random acts of kindness. And I would love to be able to punish bullies and assholes in a meaningful way, which had real impact on their lives. But, whoever controlled that system would have a lot of power, and a lot of temptation to abuse that power. So much power that it's not a matter of if, but when and how often, that power would be abused. We have people, not angels, so the system would have to work even if it were run by people. Without very robust checks-n-ballances to prevent abuse, and without robust methods of getting relief from that abuse, even the people who were benefitting from the system would be living in perpetual fear of losing their social credit, through no fault of their own, and finding themselves so encumbered by having no social credit that they would never be able to rebuild the life they had. So yeah, maybe that's even a candidate for a partial answer to the general case. The system has to work even if it's run by people, not angels.