Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
For those of you who have read the culture novels - do you consider them to be utopian or dystopian?
I was discussing them with a friend recently and he views them as profoundly utopian. On the other hand, I view them as one of the best examples of a soft dystopia that I've ever read.
The easy answer's that they're a weirdtopia - akin to Caelum Est Conterrens or The Metamorphisis of Prime Intellect - but that's not very helpful.
It's hard to call them a pure dystopia. It's not 1984 or Brave New World or (the inside or outside!) of The Matrix; hell, it beats Reedspacer's Lower Bound. The average person's life is the sort of thing a large portion of the world would still call paradise, and the Minds are as gods. Many of its problems are downstream of showing the people are still (somewhat) people with rough edges and friction, or are artifacts of needing to be in a story where there is conflict, or to where something else can meaningfully be outside of The Culture.
But it's hard to call it a pure utopia, either. There are monsters, either from outside of the universe or just plain Klingon-equivalents. It is a world where people die, sometimes not even out of their own free will. The Culture might not be able to lose a war, but they can lose hundreds of billions of lives in one. The people just get bored. In a world with free energy and free automation, that's aiming pretty low. I'd argue that we only see people who excel because of their own fixations, where a healthier utopia would have more options and interests in arete for its own sake, but that could arguably be a literary thing. Same for the weird relationship with the Sublime, or the lack of people turned or turning into Minds or something on their scale.
Man, reading up on Caelum Est Conterrens reminded me, despite my many sympathies for their basic attitude, how many rationalists seem to be dedicated to fulfilling the worst stereotypes about the scientifically minded. See this discussion's gem:
There's this idea among the other-ways-of-knowing crowd that science can only ever talk about what we can currently define and measure, and that it is in particular obvious that there are things we will never be able to measure well, so science is limited to only a specific sliver of reality. This leads to the silly caricature of the scientist as a person who is only obsessed with measurable and entirely dismisses the immeasurable. Whereas I'd say most scientists have not only no issue admitting the limited scope of our current knowledge, they actively work on increasing that scope, precisely because they do not dismiss these concerns.
But no, this person just unironically dismisses caring about free choice (even putting it in scare quotes) as opposed to happiness, because the latter is easier to define.
Stereotype accuracy, indeed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link