I strongly recommend "The Prefect" by Alastair Reynolds. The novel itself is a sci-fi detective thriller that stands on its own as a great story. The technology is integral to the story, but the plot stands strong regardless of the tech. The tech itself is a fantastic far-future imagining of Neuralink, blockchain, and AI. Written in 2007 long before the former two were around. The audiobook is narrated by John Lee whose voice I could listen to 24/7.
One of the things that fans love about Star Trek is that it takes place in a Utopian future, where a unified planet has solved hunger, war, and inequality with science and a communitarian, service-driven culture. But this also arises from decades of catastrophic war that destroys much of the planet.
The Expanse also hints at less Utopian solutions to problems. One of them is that earthlings have a unified government in the UN and a universal basic income system called "basic," which provides for survival, a poverty life but still the staples.
But much of our sci-fi reacts to that playing different, stupider games thing you articulate. Oh, you've discovered a source of limitless, clean energy? The oil companies are going to try to kill you.
I think it's worth noting that sci-fi, even though ostensibly written about the future, has historically been a reaction to the recent past. Heinlein's Starship Troopers was written in 1959 as a reaction to post-WW2 and the decline of the "citizen soldier". Joe Haldeman's Forever War is a military sci-fi book in the vein of Starship Troopers but written as a direct reaction to the Vietnam War. Scalzi's Old Man's War from 2005 has references to PTSD and the Iraq War. None of those books are dystopian, but they're also not advancing solutions.
My point is that I think *most* sci-fi is actually reactionary, even if it's speculative.
You should check out for all mankind
Whoa this looks sick. Can’t believe I hadn’t heard of it before.
I strongly recommend "The Prefect" by Alastair Reynolds. The novel itself is a sci-fi detective thriller that stands on its own as a great story. The technology is integral to the story, but the plot stands strong regardless of the tech. The tech itself is a fantastic far-future imagining of Neuralink, blockchain, and AI. Written in 2007 long before the former two were around. The audiobook is narrated by John Lee whose voice I could listen to 24/7.
One of the things that fans love about Star Trek is that it takes place in a Utopian future, where a unified planet has solved hunger, war, and inequality with science and a communitarian, service-driven culture. But this also arises from decades of catastrophic war that destroys much of the planet.
The Expanse also hints at less Utopian solutions to problems. One of them is that earthlings have a unified government in the UN and a universal basic income system called "basic," which provides for survival, a poverty life but still the staples.
But much of our sci-fi reacts to that playing different, stupider games thing you articulate. Oh, you've discovered a source of limitless, clean energy? The oil companies are going to try to kill you.
Funny you should mention that. Sam Altman said Star Trek was one of his favorite universes: https://investing1012dot0.substack.com/p/historical-futurism?utm_source=publication-search
I think it's worth noting that sci-fi, even though ostensibly written about the future, has historically been a reaction to the recent past. Heinlein's Starship Troopers was written in 1959 as a reaction to post-WW2 and the decline of the "citizen soldier". Joe Haldeman's Forever War is a military sci-fi book in the vein of Starship Troopers but written as a direct reaction to the Vietnam War. Scalzi's Old Man's War from 2005 has references to PTSD and the Iraq War. None of those books are dystopian, but they're also not advancing solutions.
My point is that I think *most* sci-fi is actually reactionary, even if it's speculative.