Sci Fidelity
One thing that's hammered people a bit is the idea that Science Fiction & Fantasy are basically dying genres (particularly the SF portion).
As the world continues to drift deeper into dystopia, I think there's a reason for the plight of SF, honestly.
Namely, that humanity's heading toward a wall -- whether it's a Great Filter and/or our eventual/inevitable extinction -- we're finding it harder to be hopeful about the future. People feel it in general. I mean, even the billionaires are cranky.
And that's (in my opinion) a big part of the problem. Is the planet a playground for billionaires, with the rest of us just human debris? That's what it comes down to -- the planet's not big enough for too may billionaires, because they end up a drag on politics and resources.
Think about it -- what's likelier to happen today: politicians do something that screws over millions of low-wage workers or something that'll piss off a few billionaires? You already know the answer.
If humanism means placing value on human life and dignity, plutocracy means placing value on the rich, and screwing everybody else.
In the 21st century, there's no excuse for humans living subsistence lives -- there's no excuse for poverty and misery, except as an instrument of social control that favors the rich and powerful and hoses everybody else.
That's why SF is crumbling and/or simply becoming technofantasy -- it becomes harder to imagine progressive futures in a world held captive to an 18th century economic system like capitalism.
Is it utopian to think that everyone should have shelter, food, healthcare, leisure time? We have the resources the make this possible.
And some might instinctively scream "socialism!" as if the above was heretical. As if everybody was just a billionaire in waiting.
Newsflash: you'll never be a billionaire. The top 1% are the top 1% for a reason -- most won't ever be fortunate enough to make it.
So, we're faced as a species with making a world safe for billionaires, or a world safe for the rest of us unfortunates.
Until that question is resolved (and, spoiler warning, right now, the billionaires are crushing it), our future as a species is in doubt.
A world safe for billionaires, is a ruined world, a hell for everybody else (and even, paradoxically, hell for billionaires, too, since they're basically captive in their gilded cages).
As the planet moves further into true globalism (in that humans realize that what happens in one country can affect the rest of the world), we're going to need to change our thinking.
How does this roll back into the plight of SF? It's because all of this stuff above weighs down our prospects for progress as a species, makes the post-apocalyptic collapse of civilization our likeliest future.
That's part of why SF has suffered -- in decades past, SF writers had the luxury of optimism. Today? Not so much.
I'll likely write more on this in the future....
As the world continues to drift deeper into dystopia, I think there's a reason for the plight of SF, honestly.
Namely, that humanity's heading toward a wall -- whether it's a Great Filter and/or our eventual/inevitable extinction -- we're finding it harder to be hopeful about the future. People feel it in general. I mean, even the billionaires are cranky.
And that's (in my opinion) a big part of the problem. Is the planet a playground for billionaires, with the rest of us just human debris? That's what it comes down to -- the planet's not big enough for too may billionaires, because they end up a drag on politics and resources.
Think about it -- what's likelier to happen today: politicians do something that screws over millions of low-wage workers or something that'll piss off a few billionaires? You already know the answer.
If humanism means placing value on human life and dignity, plutocracy means placing value on the rich, and screwing everybody else.
In the 21st century, there's no excuse for humans living subsistence lives -- there's no excuse for poverty and misery, except as an instrument of social control that favors the rich and powerful and hoses everybody else.
That's why SF is crumbling and/or simply becoming technofantasy -- it becomes harder to imagine progressive futures in a world held captive to an 18th century economic system like capitalism.
Is it utopian to think that everyone should have shelter, food, healthcare, leisure time? We have the resources the make this possible.
And some might instinctively scream "socialism!" as if the above was heretical. As if everybody was just a billionaire in waiting.
Newsflash: you'll never be a billionaire. The top 1% are the top 1% for a reason -- most won't ever be fortunate enough to make it.
So, we're faced as a species with making a world safe for billionaires, or a world safe for the rest of us unfortunates.
Until that question is resolved (and, spoiler warning, right now, the billionaires are crushing it), our future as a species is in doubt.
A world safe for billionaires, is a ruined world, a hell for everybody else (and even, paradoxically, hell for billionaires, too, since they're basically captive in their gilded cages).
As the planet moves further into true globalism (in that humans realize that what happens in one country can affect the rest of the world), we're going to need to change our thinking.
How does this roll back into the plight of SF? It's because all of this stuff above weighs down our prospects for progress as a species, makes the post-apocalyptic collapse of civilization our likeliest future.
That's part of why SF has suffered -- in decades past, SF writers had the luxury of optimism. Today? Not so much.
I'll likely write more on this in the future....
No comments have been added yet.
