Why? Not because I don't enjoy dystopian stories. I do. In fact, they are a particular fav of mine. I admired tales such as The Postman (the movie, didn't care as much for the book) long before The Hunger Games introduced the genre to a much wider audience.
What bothers me is that any SF story that presents a less than ideal future is called dystopian. I disagree with this association. Yes, it would be wonderful if humankind
· Harnessed a new power source that freed us from fossil fuels
· Solved world hunger/poverty/class issues/etc/etc
· Had a forwarding address out among the stars
|This image does not totally support the views expressed|
in my post, but the artwork was too poignant not to use.
· Rather than freeing man to live a life of leisure, industrial robots (& not even cool-looking ones) have replaced many human workers increasing unemployment and poverty (I'm confident that's not how Isaac Asimov envisioned the future).
· Drones kill innocents, the NSA spies on people worldwide, and governments control more of the average person's life (Robert A Heinlein and his libertarian ideals must be spinning in their respective graves).
· Dwindling resources, growing populations, and devastating pollution (lots of Golden Era SF writers got these right).
I, too, want flying cars, jet packs, 20-hour workweeks (with 40-hours of pay), food in a pill form - basically, The Jetson's-lifestyle. Until (if) we achieve these things, I feel a darker future is not so much dystopian as it is a reflection of the world we already inhabit.
Okay, I've had my say. Any folks who disagree and want to bash my take on the subject are welcome to do so now. Hell, I even encourage your good, bad & ugly comments. It'll let me know there are other thinkers out there.