Science Fiction; books, tv, films and games.

[ipman]

Okay so I've been thinking about this but need some input. It's culture that drives change in societies and the way we humans think collectively. So many sci fi writers projected themselves into future possibilities and that could be looking at potential utopian societies or dytopian nightmares. They imagined what it would be like if aliens came to Earth or humans travelled to other planets.

Also sci fi writers tried to imagine the tech of the future and that could be spacecraft with new propulsion systems, AI robots, AI systems on spacecraft, transporters, communicators, weapons, etc.

There is the theory that youngsters watched tv like Star Trek and inspired went on to develop similar tech. Many of these ideas started in literature from Frankenstein, Do Androids Dream of Electic Sheep and Solaris.

Also can dystopian sci fi as a warning change the way humans think or do these possible future problems seem too difficult to avert. Some games are trying to make the climate crisis relevant, see>

Can video games change people’s minds about the climate crisis?

A new wave of game makers are attempting to influence a generation of environmentally conscious players. Will it work, and is it enough?

www.theguardian.com

Films like Blade Runner and Ex Machina looked at the threat of creating intelligent and powerful AI robots.

Films like District 9, The Day the Earth Stood Still and Monsters looked at Aliens coming to Earth.

Other films/tv looked at life on other planets from Forbidden Planet to Riddick, etc and of course Star Trek

Films/games like The Road, even Planet of the Apes and The Last of Us and HZD looked at post apocalypse Earth.


So what was the earliest sci fi in any genre that you really connected with, which do you think have merit and could humans learn from them or could they change the way humans think?

Just a classic to start and probably the most quoted>

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdUq2opPY-Q&ab_channel=DiegoR
.

 

[Alm]

I think Star Wars was one of the first I became obsessed with. Though I'm not sure how technologically inspirational it has been.

I think society will probably ignore many film warnings about robots and AI. But I have no idea where those industries will lead. I think it's going to be exciting and possibly worrying.

 

[ipman]

It surprised me when I just pulled up lists of sci fi films, tv, books and games, just how many there have been. Many I haven't seen. I think witers in all of those do express their concerns and hopes and then extrapolate it into the future.
Sometimes they even weave contemporary ideas into their stories, the first I really remember was Forbidden Planet, where some ancient civilisation had left their tech which produced immense power, but Dr. Morbius's ID was using it's energy to terrorise the visitors.

It also had a powerful robot as a servant, that was programmed not to hurt humans. Also watched Star Trek every week, they covered so many ideas and expressed a certain morality. Data was shown as beneficial.

I suppose one way to read Star Wars; a technocracy with a powerful dictator uses his power to destroy less developed planets. Their uniforms were often compared to those of dictatorships on Earth.

I did find the Borg to be an interesting idea, like Alien communists, the collective with a hive mind that assimilated all other life forms. Also the massive range of aliens that sci fi imagined.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand planets extrapolated the future of the International Space Station(+ more Rutger Hauer).

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8JpG7Cah-c&ab_channel=RANDOMVIDEOS

 

[Alm]

I suppose one way to read Star Wars; a technocracy with a powerful dictator uses his power to destroy less developed planets. Their uniforms were often compared to those of dictatorships on Earth.

I do wonder if we learn too much from films. Because, ultimately, we are learning from script writers in the main and not experts in morality or technology etc. Their skill is more imagination and persuasion than ultimately producing a beneficial message. At least I think films are too black and white and simplistic in their portrayal of right and wrong.

I saw a critique of Harry Potter recently which said that the 'good' guys were doing exactly the same as the 'bad' guys but because they were labelled the 'good' guys it was counted as a good thing.

Whilst watching Black Adam there was a bit where the Justice League were saying that good guys don't kill people. But it was perfectly acceptable to beat the living cr** out of people as long as they didn't die.

Black Adam might have been a rubbish film but I think a lot of young people take moral lessons literally from things like Marvel films. And I think their main goal is box office sales rather than being held to a high standard of understanding.

 

[ipman]

I'll have to think about this. But I came to the conclusion that different media like films are a force that drives change. It depends on the film, book, game but it does seem that a message that is being put out is that humans need to wake up to climate change which they discussed in that article. Or the dangers of AI robots, even if it just opens up a debate and that leads to humans implementing some sort of safeguard protocols.

So if they show some post apocalypse films where climate change has devasted the planet like Waterworld that shows a possible consequence and reinforces the message.

As it's also being shown in a form of entertainment it isn't as much of a lecture as say a documentary or a public info film.

Yes that's always been a blurred area 'morality' and it is over simplified.

I think the Star Trek Next Gen was often seen as being over moralising.

 

[Brian Boru]

learning from script writers in the main and not experts in morality or technology etc … too black and white and simplistic in their portrayal of right and wrong.
…
main goal is box office sales rather than being held to a high standard of understanding

Well said. It's always a useful practice to examine the underlying goal of any announcement. For movies and TV, it's almost always to recover investment costs and make a profit. Learning anything from them is usually not much more useful than learning from your fav corporation's PR releases.

It's culture that drives change in societies

Not solely, maybe not even primarily. I think tech has a bigger impact—the obvious 2 mega-changers being I suppose cooking and agriculture. It looks to me like accompanying huge culture changes came after the tech advances—and then of course had a major impact themselves.

can dystopian sci fi as a warning change the way humans think

I doubt it, see Alm's quote above. Those who make decisions and move us forward will likely read/watch with interest, but then return to the real world of actually making practical stuff happen. So maybe a minor influence, maybe trigger some suggestions in a meeting.

what was the earliest sci fi in any genre that you really connected with

Would have been books, I devoured all sorts of reading as a kid. Heinlein was the best writer—I was also into literature then—and Asimov & Clarke the top 2 world building and exploration authors. I didn't really look to them for ideas about society, I found the philosophical authors—eg Sartre, Camus, Russell, de Beauvoir etc—far more insightful in that area.

Data was shown as beneficial

Yeah, he was great!

post apocalypse films … shows a possible consequence and reinforces the message

2 problems with that:
♣ There are far too many rubbish films in the genre—I love disaster movies, I'll even watch 3/10 ones, but so many are just bad.
♦ Hard facts don't convey the message enough to change policy, it's difficult to see speculative fiction having more of an impact. Which is a good thing, it avoids the sinkhole of which spec fic do we pay attention to.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Before you can have any invention or change you have to have imagination and speculation!

The earlier authors like Asimov and Arthur C Clarke were more futurists than writers. Asimovs 3 laws of robotics was pretty damn prescient I would say, and more relevant today than ever. I dont know their works as well as I could, but there's still time. The writing isnt always of the best quality IMO but some of the grand ideas were definitely interesting.

Ursula Leguin is great, probably my favourite writer more recently. Not that she is recent.

When I was younger I really liked The Dispossessed which was kind of an exploration as to how an anarchistic society might function and what problems and successes it might have. Especially next to a society that was hyper capitalist with huge disparity in equality. Written in the 1970's I believe, she came from an anthropological angle at different things.

Spoiler: The Dispossessed

“A child free from the guilt of ownership and the burden of economic competition will grow up with the will to do what needs doing and the capacity for joy in doing it. It is useless work that darkens the heart. The delight of the nursing mother, of the scholar, of the successful hunter, of the good cook, of the skilful maker, of anyone doing needed work and doing it well, - this durable joy is perhaps the deepest source of human affection and of sociality as a whole.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia

The Left hand of Darkness written in 1969 deals with themes of gender among other things, the society the main character finds himself in is androgynous which is also pretty damn relevant today. Considered a feminist novel at the time.

Spoiler: Quote from Left Hand of Darkness

“How does one hate a country, or love one? Tibe talks about it; I lack the trick of it. I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one's country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That's a good thing, but one mustn't make a virtue of it, or a profession... Insofar as I love life, I love the hills of the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin,

The Lathe of Heaven is another fantastic one, there are so many layers to it I cant even begin. About a man whose dreams alter reality, and his relationship with his psychiatrist who discovers the secret and tries to use it to make the world a better place, according to his own world view. Naturally it doesnt work out roses.

Spoiler: From the Lathe of Heaven

“Things don't have purposes, as if the universe were a machine, where every part has a useful function. What's the function of a galaxy? I don't know if our life has a purpose and I don't see that it matters. What does matter is that we're a part. Like a thread in a cloth or a grass-blade in a field. It is and we are. What we do is like wind blowing on the grass.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin, quote from The Lathe of Heaven

Bonus Iain M Banks (RIP) quote from The Player of Games

“The set-up assumes that the game and life are the same thing, and such is the pervasive nature of the idea of the game within the society that just by believing that, they make it so.”
―

I loved the Culture books when I was younger, not sure how they all stand up but I have very fond memories.

 

[Alm]

Before you can have any invention or change you have to have imagination and speculation!

I agree with that. There is also that famous Einstein quote:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.

I think films and good sci fi can have good broader messages. I just also think that people don't question them enough and things like super hero films can be just as damaging as they are inspirational. People take a lot on board subliminally.

But I may be wrong, that is just my take.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I agree with that. There is also that famous Einstein quote:


I think films and good sci fi can have good broader messages. I just also think that people don't question them enough and things like super hero films can be just as damaging as they are inspirational. People take a lot on board subliminally.

But I may be wrong, that is just my take.

I dont think there is a right or wrong. In this case I think you have a good point too.

I dont think in terms of messages brain washing society, I more think in terms of ideas sparking the imagination of individuals. In Asimovs case of providing a kind of warning to anyone thinking of creating any Terminators in the future.

 

[Alm]

I think there are already drones being used in war. I wouldn't be surprised if we did escalate to robots.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Drones are being used for sure, but operated by humans with Xbox controllers as far as I know.

Asimovs laws were more about intelligent AI with the power to destroy as far as I know. Which was a pretty novel idea in the 1950's

 

[Brian Boru]

Einstein quote

Einstein will be so disappointed to hear I disagree with part of his quote, that "knowledge is limited". The more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know—ie there is a limitless well of knowledge waiting for us to discover it.

 

[Frindis]

TNG has given me a couple of interesting perspectives about what humanity could be like and I personally think the one from this clip is something we should thrive for. It would mean a big change in how we see the world and interact with it, but I am positive that we can evolve into better human beings. Is it far-fetched, too utopian? Perhaps, but we have managed to get pretty far as sapiens and I don't think we are going to stop quite yet if not that asteroid around the 1st of February destroys the whole planet. That reminds me, I have to rewatch Armageddon

 

[Brian Boru]

I am positive that we can evolve into better human beings

Oh absolutely, surely that is the long-term goal of Homo Sapiens, to speed the evolution of the next hominin species in the chain. There have been 10-20 before us, I wonder how many after us?

 

[ipman]

Well said. It's always a useful practice to examine the underlying goal of any announcement. For movies and TV, it's almost always to recover investment costs and make a profit. Learning anything from them is usually not much more useful than learning from your fav corporation's PR releases.


Not solely, maybe not even primarily. I think tech has a bigger impact—the obvious 2 mega-changers being I suppose cooking and agriculture. It looks to me like accompanying huge culture changes came after the tech advances—and then of course had a major impact themselves.


I doubt it, see Alm's quote above. Those who make decisions and move us forward will likely read/watch with interest, but then return to the real world of actually making practical stuff happen. So maybe a minor influence, maybe trigger some suggestions in a meeting.


Would have been books, I devoured all sorts of reading as a kid. Heinlein was the best writer—I was also into literature then—and Asimov & Clarke the top 2 world building and exploration authors. I didn't really look to them for ideas about society, I found the philosophical authors—eg Sartre, Camus, Russell, de Beauvoir etc—far more insightful in that area.


Yeah, he was great!


2 problems with that:
♣ There are far too many rubbish films in the genre—I love disaster movies, I'll even watch 3/10 ones, but so many are just bad.
♦ Hard facts don't convey the message enough to change policy, it's difficult to see speculative fiction having more of an impact. Which is a good thing, it avoids the sinkhole of which spec fic do we pay attention to.

Okay bear with me as I try to make sense. I think you are right about 'recover investment costs and make profit' if you look at media and culture from the point of view of the production companies, that's just economic sense, but from the point of view of writers, directors and developers, and from the point of view of audiences there is a dialogue that taps into the prevailing gestalt.

I agree that tech is important but that just fasciliates the production of those different media, so in many ways tech and culture work in tandem to convey whatever it is that writers and directors as visionaries(in the case of sci fi) are trying to express and convey.

I disagree, I think these explorations of possible utopian or dytopian futures are very important to humans.
I think they do have an impact, so for example films like Blade Runner or Ex Machina do influence the general human consciousness. Also films like 2001 A Space Odyssey and Moon.

It was interesting that at the beginnings of the covid surge, many people like me watched Contagion again, and found it helpful. It also then turned out that our Health Minister had watched it and used it to develop policy preparing for the outbreak.

I also think books like A Brave New World, and 1984 have had an impact as possible dystopian visions that humans would want to avoid as was the film Gattaca which showed a future society where segregation was based on 'good' genetics and excluded many from space travel. The latter of course is a vision of a form of eugenics.

So humans now can through these books and films be aware of possible dystopian futures and that can bring about better awareness on a general level and open up debate before some scientists and corporations take humanity down a path that may suit them and certain elements of society, but may not benefit all. Phew!

 

[Frindis]

@Brian Boru There is almost no limit to how we can improve individually, we just need to find the missing puzzles as to how we can improve better as a society. I do think we have the "cure" so to speak, but we are still a bit lazy to go about it and perhaps more interested in watching our phones than what is really happening around us. We got to start somewhere though and I guess talking about it is at least a way in the right direction.

@ipman Definitely. We would not have been talking about moves like Blade Runner or 2001 A Space Odyssey if they did not have some kind of impact. Those are the types of movies that are talked about in different institutions at different faculties and that are part of our culture and even future ones. As for what type of impact, that really depends on the eye of the beholder.

I would like to point out that while there are plenty of movies with a fictional script made by someone with a background in movie production/drama/theatre, there are also plenty of movies made by people with different educational backgrounds like psychology, anthropology, history, or biology which you'll find an abundance of if you look at documentary movies.

 

[ipman]

Before you can have any invention or change you have to have imagination and speculation!

The earlier authors like Asimov and Arthur C Clarke were more futurists than writers. Asimovs 3 laws of robotics was pretty damn prescient I would say, and more relevant today than ever. I dont know their works as well as I could, but there's still time. The writing isnt always of the best quality IMO but some of the grand ideas were definitely interesting.

Ursula Leguin is great, probably my favourite writer more recently. Not that she is recent.

When I was younger I really liked The Dispossessed which was kind of an exploration as to how an anarchistic society might function and what problems and successes it might have. Especially next to a society that was hyper capitalist with huge disparity in equality. Written in the 1970's I believe, she came from an anthropological angle at different things.



The Left hand of Darkness written in 1969 deals with themes of gender among other things, the society the main character finds himself in is androgynous which is also pretty damn relevant today. Considered a feminist novel at the time.


The Lathe of Heaven is another fantastic one, there are so many layers to it I cant even begin. About a man whose dreams alter reality, and his relationship with his psychiatrist who discovers the secret and tries to use it to make the world a better place, according to his own world view. Naturally it doesnt work out roses.


Bonus Iain M Banks (RIP) quote from The Player of Games



I loved the Culture books when I was younger, not sure how they all stand up but I have very fond memories.

Yes those three Asimovs Laws of robotics which come from fiction should definitely be the basis of safeguards in the future. It does seem with sci fi even though fictional that it does weave into and inform reality as humans progress into the future.

Just checking out Arthur C Clarke's background; radar instructor, Bsc in physics and mathematics, Chairman of Interplanetary Society, then a long series of science fiction stories and novels. Also some science factual books.
It was his idea for the Alien artefact, the Monolith before he wrote 2001 A Space Odyssy with Kubrick.

'His popularizations of science, which won him the UNESCO Kalinga Prize in 1962, are closely related to his fiction, in that the stories often fictionalize specific ideas discussed in the factual pieces'.

Clarke's 2nd Law 'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible'. agrees with your first sentence.

from> https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/clarke_arthur_c

I've got a copy of The Left Hand of Darkness, must read it.

 

[ipman]

I think there are already drones being used in war. I wouldn't be surprised if we did escalate to robots.

Yes drones are definitely being used at present, and anything from large Reapers controled by youngster who have gaming skills sitting in containers in US, and high tech drones can also operate independantly say locking on to a phone signal, or directed by smaller surveillance drones.

But there are many military drones available and being used in combat in the Ukraine. Plus a few companies like Boston Dynamics have created military robots, some have human form and aren't dissimilar to Terminators, others have dog form.

 

[ipman]

Einstein will be so disappointed to hear I disagree with part of his quote, that "knowledge is limited". The more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know—ie there is a limitless well of knowledge waiting for us to discover it.

I think it depends how you interpret Einstein's quote, and I appreciate the way you are interpreting it, because it's similar.

What I think he meant was; Humans always have a limited knowledge base and only if we keep imagining other possiblities do we add to that knowledge base.

Both Einstein and Picasso embraced the technique where they consciously absorbed all the knowledge available at the time, then did something like play the violin in Einstein's case to switch off conscious thinking, allowing their sub conscious minds to make new connections, see one concept within the framework of another, and then make leaps of imagination. Expanding the knowledge base.

 

[ipman]

TNG has given me a couple of interesting perspectives about what humanity could be like and I personally think the one from this clip is something we should thrive for. It would mean a big change in how we see the world and interact with it, but I am positive that we can evolve into better human beings. Is it far-fetched, too utopian? Perhaps, but we have managed to get pretty far as sapiens and I don't think we are going to stop quite yet if not that asteroid around the 1st of February destroys the whole planet. That reminds me, I have to rewatch Armageddon

I think a number of things will have to change to reach that utopia. Firstly humans need to transcend their tribal nature and that extends to; country vs country, religion vs other religion(replace if necessary with Zen Buddhism), male vs female, minority of rich vs poor, etc, so that all humans are equal and valued,( ie: one humanity all working for the common good and sharing equally food and resources). Also birth control is necessary and the human population needs to be managed so we don't consume the planet's resources.

Some believe that nations would only unite if their was an external threat to humanity from say an alien attack, but in reality a new level of consciousness needs to be promoted plus a transcendance beyond personal ego fullfillment.

Humans need to understand that Darwin's book had a line added to the second edition which he didn't write or believe. 'Survival of the fittest' was added to justify the aristocarcy dominating the masses.

Darwin believed all life was one entity living on the Earth and adapting to different environments over time. So humans need to respect all life forms as they are our ancestors and relatives in the gene pool.

I'm sure there must be many intereting ideas in Star Trek but this is the one that freaked me out.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdsbuJfMpr0&ab_channel=CharlesPope

 

[Alm]

...but in reality a new level of consciousness needs to be promoted plus a transcendance beyond personal ego fullfillment...

I believe this. But I believe that a lot of egoic thinking is a result of compulsive thinking. I think that with something like meditation we could each work on ourselves and create that new level of consciousness societally.

I'm not an expert, it's just a possibility, but I feel like a lot of meditation has helped me and could do others.

 

[ipman]

I believe this. But I believe that a lot of egoic thinking is a result of compulsive thinking. I think that with something like meditation we could each work on ourselves and create that new level of consciousness societally.

I'm not an expert, it's just a possibility, but I feel like a lot of meditation has helped me and could do others.

Yes it's good to calm the mind at least for a while each day, especially as modern tech and media seems to be overwhelming us. I wonder if ego thinking is also tied to those tribal structures where everyone is still competing to find and establish their place in the 'tribal' hieracrchy.

 

[Brian Boru]

I disagree

I agree with your disagreement
You talk about impact on humanity, and that's a given. I was talking about impact on policy and decision makers—ministerial always truthful soundbite aside—which has always been negligible.

People who are qualified and genuinely consider a topic deeply get listened to by the above. Media productions are for humanity. Iow:
NASA ESA etc scientists will inform governments' space policies;
Philip K Dick will inform humanity and fuel interesting conversations like this one

What I think he meant was; Humans always have a limited knowledge base and only if we keep imagining other possiblities do we add to that knowledge base

I doubt that was his meaning, since it doesn't make sense. If the objective is to 'add to that knowledge base', then spending time on other activities is mostly wasted—just keep accumulating knowledge.

One time in a thousand dreaming about something will be claimed as source of a breakthru—scientists are human too, and that will get so much more attention from those whose job is to make a profit by informing humanity. No need to mention he'd been researching around the idea for months, and his brain spent its nights trying to find patterns and connections between all the bits swirling around—very few clicks and views in that.

The fundamental problem with trawling thru speculative and imaginative ideas is the 999 dreck around the 1 gem.

 

[Brian Boru]

humans need to transcend their tribal nature

That is one of my hopes for the species which will replace us. We Homo Sapiens are only the first step into significant abstract intelligence, there is much for future hominin species to learn and improve upon—like the human nature we're saddled with. We may subdue that, but hardly transcend it.

all humans are equal and valued

Do you really believe all humans are that? Outliers excepted, for argument's sake.

in reality a new level of consciousness needs to be promoted plus a transcendance beyond personal ego fullfillment

I have trouble seeing those goals as being sometime 'in reality'. Unless you're talking Humans 2.0, you're going against basic human nature.

Survival of the fittest

That was never Darwin's, that was Spencer, one of the best English philosophers who explored 'Social Darwinism'.

humans need to respect all life forms

Why do you require this from humans, when so much of the rest of life rejects it in favor of the food chain or territory control?

intereting ideas in Star Trek but this is the one that freaked me out

Why freaked? It is not related to humans.

 

[ipman]

I doubt that was his meaning, since it doesn't make sense. If the objective is to 'add to that knowledge base', then spending time on other activities is mostly wasted—just keep accumulating knowledge.

It's those leaps of imagination that Einstein made. It took other scientists years to build up the knowledge base from where science was then to where it is when his ideas are proved.
It's a technique that I use, load my mind with ideas and then don't think about them, suddenly I wake at 4am with a new idea. It's a commonly known creative technique(I did research it at one point, and it was Einstein and Picasso explaining their process).