Are we heading for a dystopian future? (Warning: Heavy)

Proxy

Was watching Blade Runner last night, and this morning on the bus I thought of this at least as an interesting talking point; are we heading for a dystopian future like the one in many sci-fi flicks? Where do you think we're heading, as a civilisation?

Before you answer, just take into consideration the changes in civilisation in the last 100, 50, 10 years. The government, the media, technology, culture, our collective outlook, the way we live, the way our kids live/might live?

With the way some of "the young folk" act... its looking a bit daunting as it is.... and I don't just mean the skangers or "da baiz". I'm talking about some people I know who are in first/second year of college.

Also, the amount of control given up/taken by governments around the world, the cloak and daggar, the tabloid-style disemmination of knowledge. The conflicts now and in the future that we don't know are made up or not.

It seems a bit that this kind of progression is becoming normal, or else we're becoming apathetic. What do you think?

Mossy Monk

Define dystopian please.

Sposs

I like Pie.

Pompey Magnus

I'm confused, an AH thread with no references to knobs, travellers or Romanians. Am I lost?

Dudess

That fear has always been around. Hasn't come to fruition yet, and if it does, it will no doubt be a gradual process we'll barely be aware of. Then again, maybe to those in the 1950s, today's world would seem pretty darn dystopian. But then, as someone asked above, define dystopian.

ScumLord

Don't be so pessimistic, Jesus your pessimistic. Whats with all the pessimism?

I don't think we'll end up like any of those overcrowded futures. We simply don't have the resources anymore, I'm pretty sold on peak oil wiping out half the planet and leaving a utopia behind.

Overheal

Dystopian = Utopian gone horribly wrong.

I could definitely see it. V for Vendetta was one such possibility.

Im thinking though it will be something we won't consider dystopian at the time - the change would be gradual and occur over several generations.

mike65

Science fiction since it was invented as a genre has always looked into a glass darkly.

And every generation thinks the next 10/20/30 years will see the end of us all (read the cold war thread).

Mike.

Rob_l

Orwell's vision in 1984 of every movement being monitored is becoming more of a reality for britain anyway.

But yes there is a creeping government control seeping into every corner of life and media is becoming ever more our terror inducing source, according to statistics life is now safer than it was 50 a hundred years ago but the media has us terrified of all the possible ways we are going to be murdered.

Dyr

Was it the new collectors edition box?

havent watched mine yet


in other news: if dystopian futures have hottie sean young replicants running around then im all for them

Proxy

Bambi wrote:

Was it the new collectors edition box?

Yes it was. It rocks.

Multiple wrote:

Define dystopia

Basically, the opposite of utopia. Not quite hell on earth, but a disorganised mess that wouldn't be nice to live in.

Rob_I wrote:

according to statistics life is now safer than it was 50 a hundred years ago but the media has us terrified of all the possible ways we are going to be murdered.

That reminds me of the last Focus magazine actually. I agree that change to such a society occurs over a period of time and is largely unnoticed, and largely unchangeable. But then again, the (again, sci-fiesque) notion of the power of a few noticing something and doing something to change it does entrall me. Much like boneyarsebogman's recent thread about the power of boards.ie, I wonder IF we did manage to set out our biggest and likeliest fears for the future, could we do anything to change it or would it simply be inevitable?

Does the power lie in our hands anymore - or did it ever? (Goes off to watch V For Vendetta... )

Cokehead Mother

OP, I wouldn't worry. It'll just drive you insane.

Proxy

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

OP, I wouldn't worry. It'll just drive you insane.

Not worried, just a talking point:) I wanted to gauge peoples thoughts on where they think the future is heading, either good or bad.

Blowfish

mike65 wrote: »

Science fiction since it was invented as a genre has always looked into a glass darkly.

I disagree, although there were some who painted a bleak picture of the future, most 'classic' Sci-fi (e.g. Clarke or Asimov) up until the 70's generally depicted a more utopian view.

It wasn't really until the birth of Cyberpunk in the 80's that people switched to a more dystopian view.

L31mr0d

its near impossible to predict ANYTHING past, about, 15 years from now. But I don't believe man has the ability to form a utopian society and maintain it. Man is naturally destructive, competitive and ego centric.

If we are defining a dystopian future as one thats not utopian then yes, I believe the future will be dystopian. Personally I see it going along the lines of the movie "idiocracy"

EamonnKeane

Rob_l wrote: »

But yes there is a creeping government control seeping into every corner of life

Yes, the secret police raided my home last night and shot all my children. I got away with a moderate beating

mossieh

Bambi wrote: »

Was it the new collectors edition box?

havent watched mine yet


in other news: if dystopian futures have hottie sean young replicants running around then im all for them

Bambi, congratulations, that made me laugh out loud. Nice work

Great thread too OP.




I think the dystopia will preceed a revolution which will be followed by an Iain M Banks 'Culture' style utopia.

I fecking hope it does anyway.

marcsignal

Fingerprinting, Retinal Scanning, 'Terrorism' stories on the news every night (neocon thoery) It's plausible I suppose :eek:

Check this for size, you can watch it online for free www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Random

I love said films but would hate such a future. Intersting concept though.. and how long would it last before people rebelled?

random

random wrote: »

I love said films but would hate such a future. Intersting concept though.. and how long would it last before people rebelled?

There probably wont be one. America is the prime example at the moment of a dystopian society in the making; they are living in constant fear of another war, after another war; and the whole, "if you see something suspicious, report it" is very reminiscent of the whole thoughtcrime issue in 1984. The subways are littered with those messages.

binhead

I can't wait!

it'll be class.

Nothing further to add.

Yet.

Terry

Oh hell yeah.

Bring on the revolution.

I'm fat, so I'm already famine and nuclear winter resistant.

Jigsaw

Ah sure the future will be grand. Or at least it better be cos the past has been ****e.

JIZZLORD

at least ye're not singapore
it's illegal for more than 5 people to hold a public gathering without police permission.
that and er... caning, one party government, detentions without right to trial, mandatory conscription (all jehovas witness were arrested a while back because the refuse on religious grounds)etc...

Pigman II

I think it's hoverboards for everyone.

DublinWriter

Proxy wrote: »

Where do you think we're heading, as a civilisation?

We'll go back to agrarian/rural way of living in about 25 years time, and here's why:

Oil will run out in about 10 years' time given the demands China are now putting on production.

There won't be a sudden stop, there will be a gradual wind down of the world economy as oil becomes more and more expensive, driving inflation to levels that make global currencies worthless.

We are starting to see it happen now as oil creeps to over $100 a barrel.

People will return to the land and trade on a system of barter.

I can't believe that people put their collective head in the sand over this, expecting that someone will develop a 'Mr.Fusion' device that will give us an unlimited energy supply in the next 10 years.

Terry

Pigman II wrote: »

I think it's hoverboards for everyone.

That's only eight years away.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

We'll go back to agrarian/rural way of living in about 25 years time, and here's why:

Well heres why not: Everyone would starve to death within a month. Without mass transport of essential food and supplies, current population levels and centres are wildly unsustainable.

If you've ever watched "Escape from LA", when Snake Plissken pushes that button to turn off all the electricity, hes just wiped out about 80% of the world's population.

Even the Romans had great difficulty supplying their population with food and water, and their cities were miniscule compared to what we have today. Storage of most foodstuffs over a long period of time (the kind of timescales it would take to transport things by horse and cart) requires refrigeration and / or sealed containers (which you need an industrial base to produce). Not to mention we would literally drown in horse manure.

Everyone can't become a farmer.

DublinWriter wrote: »

I can't believe that people put their collective head in the sand over this, expecting that someone will develop a 'Mr.Fusion' device that will give us an unlimited energy supply in the next 10 years.

I can't believe how out of touch you are with energy alternatives available right now. We already have a "Mr Fusion", except hes called "Mr Nuclear". Biodiesel alternatives exist, Brazil ran most of its cars on ethanol for quite some time. Its a question of economics; right now its cheaper to use oil to power things.

If it gets too expensive to buy / find / refine oil, we'll just switch to one of the many other options. Not to mention there are very exciting things happening in the field of geothermal right now, especially with the use of Stirling engines.

Energy isn't going to be a problem for the forseeable future, if ever. We live in an environment rife with the stuff. Which just leaves us with politics and people.

Its natural for those at the top to accumulate power to themselves, and fortify that power. This is the stage we are at now, with all of these relatively young democracies. The US is a good example of this, with first father then son being leaders of the country, and an elite class of ivy leaguers who run the show. The EU is also moving in this direction, with unelected councils which have more power than the elected ones. The public service and government in Ireland likewise are following the same path.

Set against that we have enormous changes in technology, such as the internet for example, which allows instant communication with anyone in the world, and any amount of people. Moving from the old hierarchical power structures to new distributed ones (where votes and discussions are taken daily by the entire population) will probably be a bloody and drawn out process, but inevitable.

So I'd say, short term, dystopian future yes. Mid to long term, no.

daveharnett

Regarding energy:

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I can't believe how out of touch you are with energy alternatives available right now. We already have a "Mr Fusion", except hes called "Mr Nuclear".

Agreed.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Biodiesel alternatives exist, Brazil ran most of its cars on ethanol for quite some time.

Ethanol has a long way to go. There is not enough land on the planet to provide the ethanol we'd need, let alone grow food. The price of grain worldwide is allready increacing because of this. Not sure if GM can make this viable in the long term.

However, nuclear/geothermal power can produce almost unlimited hydrogen, and some algae can produce it through something like photosyntesis.

Regarding society: The 1984 scenario does not worry me, simply because 1984 has been written, and is the most influencial work of fiction since the king james bible. We have had ample warning, and we are watchful.

My big worries are:
1: Worldwide seperation of church and state has to happen yesterday. Religious nuts of all creeds with access to neuclear weapons worry me.
2: Unless they manage a revolution in the next twenty years, China could very well kick the world's ass.

MOH

Deleted User wrote: »

There probably wont be one. America is the prime example at the moment of a dystopian society in the making; they are living in constant fear of another war, after another war; and the whole, "if you see something suspicious, report it" is very reminiscent of the whole thoughtcrime issue in 1984. The subways are littered with those messages.

Sounds a bit like Brazil (not the country)

SimpleSam06

daveharnett wrote: »

Ethanol has a long way to go. There is not enough land on the planet to provide the ethanol we'd need, let alone grow food. The price of grain worldwide is allready increacing because of this. Not sure if GM can make this viable in the long term.

However, nuclear/geothermal power can produce almost unlimited hydrogen, and some algae can produce it through something like photosyntesis.

I'd say neither ethanol nor hydrogen can fully replace oil. Ethanol happened to fit Brazil's needs because they grow lots of sugar cane there. It does illustrate the point however. Biodiesel however has a bright future, more algae that can produce the stuff. This has the advantage that it can be stacked to any height or depth you want as well.

Or you can just go with elephant grass, which is many times more effective at biofuel production than feed grains or any kind of grains. Just because the US wants to keep its corn farmers employed doesn't mean the rest of the world must follow suit.

In any case, we're probably looking at fully electric vehicles before too long; an infrastructure is already in place to distribute the power (unlike hydrogen), all you need are better batteries, and they are getting great results out of capacitors these days.

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well heres why not: Everyone would starve to death within a month.

...and why is that a reason why my scenario wouldn't happen?

You're confusing cause and effect.

In such a scenario there would be massive population loss. England had a population of about 4 million in the 16th Century.

It was only industrialisation that caused massive population growth and concentration in the 19th Century.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Even the Romans had great difficulty supplying their population with food and water, and their cities were miniscule compared to what we have today.

The Romans had an empire to run. The scenario I described would see society re-arrange itself along feudal lines.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Storage of most foodstuffs over a long period of time (the kind of timescales it would take to transport things by horse and cart) requires refrigeration and / or sealed containers (which you need an industrial base to produce). Not to mention we would literally drown in horse manure.

Well, mankind survived for tens of thousands of years before it invented the 'frige or had any kind of industrial base. Obviously they weren't eating frozen pizza and out-of-season fruit and veg transported from the other side of the planet back then.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Everyone can't become a farmer.

No, but I think we'll see a return back to the small-holdings (>1 acre) that most Irish people lived on in pre-famine times.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I can't believe how out of touch you are with energy alternatives available right now. We already have a "Mr Fusion", except hes called "Mr Nuclear".

You're obviously ignorant to the science. Mr. Nuclear is actually "Mr.Fission". You need an advanced industrial base to build, maintain and operate such an installation.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Biodiesel alternatives exist, Brazil ran most of its cars on ethanol for quite some time.

Again, you need to read up on the science. Biodiesel is not the same as ethanol.

Farming Biodiesel on the scale required to replace today's supply of oil would practically destroy the worlds topsoil. Topsoil takes about 15 million years to replenish.

Again, I can't believe how naive people are in thinking some miracle alternate energy source will rush in and save the day.

It's not just a question of oil being used to generate energy either. Look at everything around you that was manufactured using petrochemicals - plastics for example.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

....In such a scenario there would be massive population loss. England had a population of about 4 million in the 16th Century...It was only industrialisation that caused massive population growth and concentration in the 19th Century.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

DublinWriter wrote: »

..and why is that a reason why my scenario wouldn't happen?

So lets see, 80% of the world's population dying of starvation when plenty of alternative energy sources exist. I don't know, why don't you tell me why it couldn't happen?

DublinWriter wrote: »

Well, mankind survived for tens of thousands of years before it invented the 'frige or had any kind of industrial base. Obviously they weren't eating frozen pizza and out-of-season fruit and veg transported from the other side of the planet back then.

We're not talking about transporting from the other side of the planet. We are talking about transporting food a few hundred miles before it goes rotten. While the hunter gatherer lifestyle might suit your needs, I doubt many will see it the same way.

DublinWriter wrote: »

You're obviously ignorant to the science. Mr. Nuclear is actually "Mr.Fission". You need an advanced industrial base to build, maintain and operate such an installation.

Why, oddly enough, we happen to have just such an industrial base! How about that!

DublinWriter wrote: »

Again, you need to read up on the science. Biodiesel is not the same as ethanol.

Aaaand you need to read the few posts just above yours.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Farming Biodiesel on the scale required to replace today's supply of oil would practically destroy the worlds topsoil. Topsoil takes about 15 million years to replenish.

Thank goodness we can produce it from algae then eh? I'm not too sure of the lifecycle of algae, but I think its a bit less than the order of 15 million years. Besides why are you so fixated on biodiesel, we'll probably all be using electric vehicles for most our needs.

Oh won't somebody think of the topsoil!

DublinWriter wrote: »

Again, I can't believe how naive people are in thinking some miracle alternate energy source will rush in and save the day.

Hey I guess you better run and tell France their nuclear power generation facilities, which give them 80% of their electricity, won't save them.

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's not just a question of oil being used to generate energy either. Look at everything around you that was manufactured using petrochemicals - plastics for example.

Sigh. Even if all of the readily useable oil runs out, there are still enormous quantities left in harder to get to shale oil. And hey you know what else algae are good for? Producing plastics! :eek:

Greetings from the 21st century! Shouldn't you be off smashing a cotton mill or something?

mike65

Oil will not be running out in 10 years, oil has been 'running out' since 1962 (the year of peak finds) its been downhill, just not visible, since.

There is still alot of oil out there though its just of a rather dubious type - the huge fields of tar-oil gunk in Canada for example.

Grow your own will make a return but only for a minority who have some land or access to same.

Mike.

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Besides why are you so fixated on biodiesel, we'll probably all be using electric vehicles for most our needs.

Powered by what exactly?

We're still waiting for the Hydrogen-Cell revolution and time is ticking-down.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

Powered by what exactly?

We're still waiting for the Hydrogen-Cell revolution and time is ticking-down.

Hydrogen is a dead end. Producing it is difficult, storing it is tricky, and there is no infrastructure in place to transport this highly volatile substance. As for where else we might get the power, I have already mentioned nuclear several times, and geothermal at least once. Most likely power will come from a wide variety of sources though, wind, wave, and solar as well.

Mizu_Ger

Predictions of the future weren't all doom and gloom. This one was upbeat and kinda accurate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO58SGiYwwo

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hydrogen is a dead end. Producing it is difficult, storing it is tricky, and there is no infrastructure in place to transport this highly volatile substance. As for where else we might get the power, I have already mentioned nuclear several times, and geothermal at least once. Most likely power will come from a wide variety of sources though, wind, wave, and solar as well.

A nuclear powered car? You're kidding, right? Are you talking about Fission or Fusion?

As for cars powered by wind/wave/solar, how exactly will that happen given the relatively low yield of those energy sources compared to fossil fuels?

Your thinking is typical of those who are in denial. You're mentioning very vague methods of energy production that possibly are at least 30 years away from being viable to totally replace fossil fuels.

Personally I think it's too late and we're now witnessing the start of the 'end-times' as indicated by the spiraling cost of oil and the subsequent high inflation we are now starting to have.

DublinWriter

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

Predictions of the future weren't all doom and gloom. This one was upbeat and kinda accurate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO58SGiYwwo

Yeah, especially the part about the husband paying for his wife's shopping!

mike65

DublinWriter when oil spiked in the 70s inflation went though the roof, that has'nt happened this time and its not a spike this time of course. The funadmentals of the global economy have changed hugely since the bad old days. Shocks still happen but whereas a generation ago the first thing would have been a run on several currencies that does'nt happen now nor do the lights go out.

Your pessimism seems misplaced to me. And no I'm not saying all is well, its just not THAT bad.

Mike.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

A nuclear powered car? You're kidding, right? Are you talking about Fission or Fusion?

As for cars powered by wind/wave/solar, how exactly will that happen given the relatively low yield of those energy sources compared to fossil fuels?

Wow.

Lets see if you can track this: Nuclear power plants (a mature and existing technology which already supplies 80% of the power needs of a major first world country, France) put electricity into the grid.

You car / whatever gets plugged into the grid, via your common household plug socket.

You drive off into the sunset.

As for wind/wave/solar I did not say these could replace all current energy sources. They will however prove to be important supplemental sources.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Your thinking is typical of those who are in denial. You're mentioning very vague methods of energy production that possibly are at least 30 years away from being viable to totally replace fossil fuels.

Er which one of nuclear or geothermal is 30 years away? The largest geoplant in the world is in the Philippines of all places, I've visited it myself. Places like Greenland also get most of their power from geo already.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Personally I think it's too late and we're now witnessing the start of the 'end-times' as indicated by the spiraling cost of oil and the subsequent high inflation we are now starting to have.

Personally I leave talk of "end times" to tinwitted preachers trying to bulk up the collection plate.

DublinWriter

mike65 wrote: »

DublinWriter when oil spiked in the 70s inflation went though the roof, that has'nt happened this time and its not a spike this time of course.

The reason oil spiked in the early 70's was purely because of OPEC choking the supply to the West for political reasons. The spike was caused by artificial reasons then.

What I think will happen now is that there won't be a big spike. Oil will gradually get more and more expensive, gradually driving inflation to massive levels in 10 years time.

What will happen at that point will resemble Weimar Germany or the Russian currency crises of the late 90's; currency will become so devalued that it will ultimately become worthless.

Without currency, International Banking will collapse, taking with it the entire industrial and capital base of the modern economy as we know it.

mike65

Thank God its Friday.

Mike.

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Lets see if you can track this: Nuclear power plants (a mature and existing technology which already supplies 80% of the power needs of a major first world country, France) put electricity into the grid.

Oh, I'm all for nuclear, don't get me wrong.

Firstly, it won't happen in Ireland.

Secondly, the whole supporting infrastructure behind Nuclear Fission will always be heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

The heavy plant machinery needed to mine, process, refine and transport Uranium Ore will still require fossil fuels to operate. Why? For the same reason that you don't see electric powered jet-airliners.

Electricity as a power source is completely inefficient in supporting the huge amount of torque required to run such massive engines.

ScumLord

I still think poo power is the way forward it just seems perfect to me, poo goes in, methane and fertilizer comes out. It wouldn't solve transport problems but home heating and electricity would be sorted. The other byproduct fertilizer goes into producing more food, which in turn makes more poo, which in turn makes more power and fertilizer. It's so simple it's amazing and all we'd need to do is put a mini power plant at the end of every towns sewage system. Sounds expensive but in the long run it would pay itself off. It's allot more Eco friendly than any other option because it's recycling.

SimpleSam06

DublinWriter wrote: »

Firstly, it won't happen in Ireland.

If there are no alternatives, you had better believe it will happen in Ireland.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Secondly, the whole supporting infrastructure behind Nuclear Fission will always be heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

The heavy plant machinery needed to mine, process, refine and transport Uranium Ore will still require fossil fuels to operate. Why? For the same reason that you don't see electric powered jet-airliners.

Electricity as a power source is completely inefficient in supporting the huge amount of torque required to run such massive engines.

Electric engines can produce just as much torque as fossil fuel powered engines, and whats more they can go from zero to full power instantly. In fact they can do better, using tight inductive coupling which, combined with low loss magnetic materials, enables the development of high torque at high rpm, and you don't need torque converters.

Have you any facts at all, or are you just making it up as you go along?

DublinWriter

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If there are no alternatives, you had better believe it will happen in Ireland.

Two words - Joooooooooooooe Duffy!

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Electric engines can produce just as much torque as fossil fuel powered engines, and whats more they can go from zero to full power instantly. In fact they can do better, using tight inductive coupling which, combined with low loss magnetic materials, enables the development of high torque at high rpm, and you don't need torque converters.

So you're suggesting, and with a straight-face, that we'll be seeing battery-powered Boeing 747's in the near future?!?