5 ms·

The argument made in this article is somewhat... disingenuous. The author states, "science fiction has always built our culture powerful frameworks for thinking

The argument made in this article is somewhat... disingenuous. The author states, "science fiction has always built our culture powerful frameworks for thinking about the future." He argues that much of the "future" we now live in was predicted by science fiction of the past, and he portrays this fact in a positive light. But then he makes a logical about-face and warns that "the very real danger here is man's tendency to look to his illusion for inspiration"! The problem is, his argument is that science fiction has always been a startlingly good predictor of the immediate future, but now that science fiction warns us of dangers and should perhaps inspire extreme caution—now that science fiction is saying something the author doesn't want to hear—we ought to ignore it as dangerous and silly imaginings.

jamesdelaneyie 12y ago
Caught that as well. Wouldn't say disingenuous though, as it felt more rushed than actually thought about. Also a really really shit title.
calibraxis 12y ago
Yes, anthropologist David Graeber points out that we shifted from poetic technologies to bureaucratic technologies. Much of the internet is about better ways to filling out forms. (What I'm doing right now on HN.) In movies/games, we've gotten good at merely simulating the future that previous generations thought we'd actually live in. Maybe anyone born since 1970 expects a cyberpunk dystopia, over starry-eyed scifi alternatives. Graeber writes, "The greatest and most powerful nation that has ever existed has spent the last decades telling its citizens they can no longer contemplate fantastic collective enterprises, even if—as the environmental crisis demands— the fate of the earth depends on it."
- snlacks 12y ago
  As someone who builds better forms, it's scary to think that I enable bureaucracy and information tracking to expand by making it less of a headache to fill out a form. But I come to grips with it, thinking, "well, if we're going to be tracked and managed, we may as well have nice interfaces and relevant information."
  - wsinks 12y ago
    I've been thinking a lot about roles in life in the past couple of years. You are enabling others who feel more compelled to build the environmental dreams by making sure their information is relevant and clean. Garbage in, garbage out. Humans can clean up garbage. Robots can help us clean up garbage faster than we could ourself.
    - snlacks 12y ago
      Excellent point. I tend to think in relative terms myself, where "garbage" as adjective can be new-and-improved "garbage." I work in healthcare-billing-electronic-records, so if I make a form that makes it easier or more pleasant for a doctor (someone who actually does useful stuff) to collect money from insurance or treat a patient, then it's still a net positive. Not everyone can improve the world through social or political change. Some people have to treat wounds and tend to daily care, literally or figuratively. Finally, by removing unnecessary barriers, maybe they get more done or do it more accurately. Edit: Maybe, we can help to make this seemingly inevitable dystopian future a little less bad?
rwallace 12y ago
Perhaps the argument could have been better phrased, as it could be read to indicate that science fiction is a good predictor, whereas in reality, science fiction has always been not only a bad predictor, but actually worse than you would expect from random chance. The point the article is trying to get at is that science fiction used to inspire. Sure, we never did get hyperdrive, terraforming or sentient robots, but people raised on such stories gave us weather satellites, flu vaccines and cell phones. What will people raised on more recent science fiction give us? I hope the answer doesn't turn out to be a world where we bicker over politics until we run out of fossil fuel and sink back into the mud.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  I think it's hard to pinpoint cause and effect here. Science fiction in the golden age was the product of an interesting coalition of nerds, dreamers, rocket scientists, hippies, and idealists. It was a product of a very optimistic age, and it was also built by, and for, a niche audience. Most of what passes for sci-fi today is a far more mainstream product. Mainstream products tend to closely track pop culture, which to a large extent, tracks socioeconomic conditions. Today's stuff is really just romance, thriller, or adventure tropes with sci-fi window dressing. The recent fascination with dystopian futures reflects the current zeitgeist to some degree: we're living in a more uncertain, economically unstable age than the sci-fi writers of the 40s through 60s were. Everything was looking up-and-up back then,[1] and the sky really seemed to be the limit. These days, people are more skeptical and more concerned. We are getting a literature (and cinema) that is equal parts fear and escapism. It's certainly possible that dystopian sci-fi is creating a feedback loop, and that it's making us more scared and more cynical. But I don't see compelling evidence for a causal or directional effect there. More likely the directionality is the opposite: people seem to be buying that stuff, and so the publishers in the market select and publish more of it. What we're seeing is largely an artifact of selection -- by the publishers and studios, and accordingly, by all the dystopian stuff floating around in pop culture. I wholeheartedly support the call to action in the article, namely, that "It's time for us to dream again." But that's easier said than done. The market wants what it wants. Publishers want what the market wants. Few people are in a position to challenge that consensus. Perhaps it will take a few breakout hits of a more optimistic, exciting, less morbid vein to change things up a bit. I would certainly back any ambitious Kickstarter projects of that nature. [1] A notable caveat is that Cold War nuclear paranoia played a discordant note in the overall melody here. The effects were interesting, and the interplay between bold optimism and end-of-the-world panic made for a rich and complex output.
BrainInAJar 12y ago
Of course the argument made is disingenuous, and of course the author is saying we should ignore the predictions he doesn't want to hear, he's a venture capitalist & has a vested monetary interest in us not looking too closely at the negative effects of some technologies

jamesdelaneyie 12y ago

Caught that as well. Wouldn't say disingenuous though, as it felt more rushed than actually thought about. Also a really really shit title.

calibraxis 12y ago

Yes, anthropologist David Graeber points out that we shifted from poetic technologies to bureaucratic technologies. Much of the internet is about better ways to filling out forms. (What I'm doing right now on HN.) In movies/games, we've gotten good at merely simulating the future that previous generations thought we'd actually live in. Maybe anyone born since 1970 expects a cyberpunk dystopia, over starry-eyed scifi alternatives. Graeber writes, "The greatest and most powerful nation that has ever existed has spent the last decades telling its citizens they can no longer contemplate fantastic collective enterprises, even if—as the environmental crisis demands— the fate of the earth depends on it."

snlacks 12y ago
As someone who builds better forms, it's scary to think that I enable bureaucracy and information tracking to expand by making it less of a headache to fill out a form. But I come to grips with it, thinking, "well, if we're going to be tracked and managed, we may as well have nice interfaces and relevant information."
- wsinks 12y ago
  I've been thinking a lot about roles in life in the past couple of years. You are enabling others who feel more compelled to build the environmental dreams by making sure their information is relevant and clean. Garbage in, garbage out. Humans can clean up garbage. Robots can help us clean up garbage faster than we could ourself.
  - snlacks 12y ago
    Excellent point. I tend to think in relative terms myself, where "garbage" as adjective can be new-and-improved "garbage." I work in healthcare-billing-electronic-records, so if I make a form that makes it easier or more pleasant for a doctor (someone who actually does useful stuff) to collect money from insurance or treat a patient, then it's still a net positive. Not everyone can improve the world through social or political change. Some people have to treat wounds and tend to daily care, literally or figuratively. Finally, by removing unnecessary barriers, maybe they get more done or do it more accurately. Edit: Maybe, we can help to make this seemingly inevitable dystopian future a little less bad?

rwallace 12y ago

Perhaps the argument could have been better phrased, as it could be read to indicate that science fiction is a good predictor, whereas in reality, science fiction has always been not only a bad predictor, but actually worse than you would expect from random chance. The point the article is trying to get at is that science fiction used to inspire. Sure, we never did get hyperdrive, terraforming or sentient robots, but people raised on such stories gave us weather satellites, flu vaccines and cell phones. What will people raised on more recent science fiction give us? I hope the answer doesn't turn out to be a world where we bicker over politics until we run out of fossil fuel and sink back into the mud.

jonnathanson 12y ago
I think it's hard to pinpoint cause and effect here. Science fiction in the golden age was the product of an interesting coalition of nerds, dreamers, rocket scientists, hippies, and idealists. It was a product of a very optimistic age, and it was also built by, and for, a niche audience. Most of what passes for sci-fi today is a far more mainstream product. Mainstream products tend to closely track pop culture, which to a large extent, tracks socioeconomic conditions. Today's stuff is really just romance, thriller, or adventure tropes with sci-fi window dressing. The recent fascination with dystopian futures reflects the current zeitgeist to some degree: we're living in a more uncertain, economically unstable age than the sci-fi writers of the 40s through 60s were. Everything was looking up-and-up back then,[1] and the sky really seemed to be the limit. These days, people are more skeptical and more concerned. We are getting a literature (and cinema) that is equal parts fear and escapism. It's certainly possible that dystopian sci-fi is creating a feedback loop, and that it's making us more scared and more cynical. But I don't see compelling evidence for a causal or directional effect there. More likely the directionality is the opposite: people seem to be buying that stuff, and so the publishers in the market select and publish more of it. What we're seeing is largely an artifact of selection -- by the publishers and studios, and accordingly, by all the dystopian stuff floating around in pop culture. I wholeheartedly support the call to action in the article, namely, that "It's time for us to dream again." But that's easier said than done. The market wants what it wants. Publishers want what the market wants. Few people are in a position to challenge that consensus. Perhaps it will take a few breakout hits of a more optimistic, exciting, less morbid vein to change things up a bit. I would certainly back any ambitious Kickstarter projects of that nature. [1] A notable caveat is that Cold War nuclear paranoia played a discordant note in the overall melody here. The effects were interesting, and the interplay between bold optimism and end-of-the-world panic made for a rich and complex output.

BrainInAJar 12y ago

Of course the argument made is disingenuous, and of course the author is saying we should ignore the predictions he doesn't want to hear, he's a venture capitalist & has a vested monetary interest in us not looking too closely at the negative effects of some technologies