Slashdot Mirror
Is Science Fiction the Opiate of the Geek Masses?
jimharris writes "After reading Geoff Ryman's Mundane SF website, where he promotes a new form of science fiction based on real science, I got to wondering if traditional science fiction is just the opiate of the geek masses? Most science fiction is based on speculative fantasy rather than hard science - the common example being stories built around faster-than-light travel. Einstein rules, and FTL space travel has about zero chance of ever existing. SF writer Ian McDonald replied in his blog, Heads down, there's going to be incoming... and a rather wide-ranging discussion and elaboration of the idea is held over at mundane-sf.blogspot.com. Proponents of the Mundane Manifesto readily admit that traditional science fiction is just harmless fun, but I have to ask, how many people out there have a positive view on life because they believe in Star Trek in the same way that other faithful do."
What you have to realize is that people are born stupid animals. They are going to kill each other. They are going to live a filthy life in the dirt. And if you give them an axe to build a better house they will use it to kill you and take what you have, every time. If you give a man a fish he'll eat it, then wonder where you got it, and in the morning you'll open your refrigerator and all your food will have been stolen. Teach a man to fish and you'll find him the next day selling those fish for drugs.
If we were handed a star trek utopia where everyone was provided for, and no one wanted, and there was technology to produce anything anyone could want 1000x times over, a charismatic strong man would convince people to let him have it (you don't believe me? Look at the world today and find one example where this HASN'T happened), and he would put the wealth in a big pile and employ thugs to guard it. People don't just want to be rich, they want to be richer than someone else.
All the hopes for people are based on the idea that people are mostly like you. I'm sure the parent poster is a kind person who hopes for the best for the world. I'm sure he uses his opportunities responsibly and doesn't hurt others. I'm sure he thinks that given the opportunity most people are basically like him. He's wrong.
People aren't worth trying to save. It's a nice dream though.
If I were so inclined I could pay for the education of 20 poor children from the third world. It would cost $1000 each per year. 90% of the people reading this could make the same commitment. But you won't. You won't give a fraction of your huge stack of money to help those kids who are going to die poor and illiterate, probably by being murdered by the kids I didn't pay for. (then next year vice-versa)
There are a large number of people in the world who would cut your head off for a months salary up front. That we all know. What is disturbing is that there is hardly anyone in the world who wouldn't look the other way for a years average salary that country. Could you turn down a hundred grand to just cross the street and not look back?
So a future Utopia will certainly come about. As soon as we have technology advanced enough, whether AI or something else, to manage things for us. As long as humans are in control of resources we will suffer from monkey hoarding instincts.