Cyberpunk - Only dystopian, or possibly utopian?

[Invincible Summer]

I've been really into the whole cyberpunk genre lately. For those unfamiliar, it's the sci-fi film/book sub-genre dealing with usually dystopian societies where corporate-capitalism is dominant, futuristic technologies are everywhere, and artificial intelligence/cybernetic augmentations are commonplace.

Think movies like Gattaca, Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell, etc.

These works usually deal with how corporate ownership and power over technology and society creates this bleak, dystopian world. However, I can't help but to wonder (as a technocracy/transhumanism sympathizer) if the technologies that they talk about could be seen in a utopian light? Basically, even though this genre seems to critique how technology affects the individual, could it also be seen as technologies to strive for?

I'm not sure if I'm being clear, or if this belongs in Science & Environment.

[Absolut]

I think it seems to be a pretty interesting genre, however, the only book that Ive tried to read was The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, but the language was too hard, I couldnt keep up with the story.

Either way, could you (or someone else) maybe recommend some easier books?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've been really into the whole cyberpunk genre lately. For those unfamiliar, it's the sci-fi film/book sub-genre dealing with usually dystopian societies where corporate-capitalism is dominant, futuristic technologies are everywhere, and artificial intelligence/cybernetic augmentations are commonplace.

Think movies like Gattaca, Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell, etc.

These works usually deal with how corporate ownership and power over technology and society creates this bleak, dystopian world. However, I can't help but to wonder (as a technocracy/transhumanism sympathizer) if the technologies that they talk about could be seen in a utopian light? Basically, even though this genre seems to critique how technology affects the individual, could it also be seen as technologies to strive for?

I'm not sure if I'm being clear, or if this belongs in Science & Environment.

I would be interested if you found any contemporary Utopian cyberpunk novels. I bet if you look at books from the early years of the internet when there was a lot of optimism about digital technology being able to create alternatives to the market (yeah, that worked out well: Amazon Kindle, $.99 mp3s) you might find some.

[Jazzratt]

Depends on the Cyberpunk universe in question. In a lot of them the writer has used the technology not as the cause of the problems but as a way of exacerbating the problems caused by the political system. The existance in a lot of the settings of, say, anti-aging drugs creates a defacto aristocracy based on those who become rich being able to live indefinately - this can also lead to a few powerful individuals ruling in an oligarchic-plutocratic gerontocracy (get your -arcies out :p). The drugs themselves, however, could be viewed as a thoroughly desirable thing if made available equally.

Some of the technologies are also unequivicobly good - cyberspace, livable LEO habitats and so on. Whilst some are quite the opposite - the idea of creating sentients as basically slaves or an underclass (AIs in the world of William Gibson [or at least that's how I read their treatment] and, obviously, replicants from Blade Runner).

It's not the technology that makes the dystopia though. Consider the term cyberpunk - the cyber- indicates the state of technology but it's the -punk that indicates the dystopian edge (although this has become somewhat lost on the vast number of other genres that tack -punk on the end of things. Steampunk is particularly bad for that, urgh. But that's another rant). Anyway I want cyberdecks and Sense/Net entertainment and I want them now :lol:

[Invincible Summer]

I think it seems to be a pretty interesting genre, however, the only book that Ive tried to read was The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, but the language was too hard, I couldnt keep up with the story.

Either way, could you (or someone else) maybe recommend some easier books?

The Difference Engine is considered more "steampunk," as it's in a Victorian-era setting. I liked it, but it took me two reads to get into it.


William Gibson's "Neuromancer" is supposed to be the original cyberpunk novel. His style takes a bit of getting used to, but he has become one of my favorite authors. His "Burning Chrome" short story anthology is quite excellent as well. I believe those works pre-date Neuromancer, so it's quite interesting to see how he had this genre building up before his "big break"

You could also look into the books "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson and "Holy Fire" by Bruce Sterling.



Depends on the Cyberpunk universe in question. In a lot of them the writer has used the technology not as the cause of the problems but as a way of exacerbating the problems caused by the political system. The existance in a lot of the settings of, say, anti-aging drugs creates a defacto aristocracy based on those who become rich being able to live indefinately - this can also lead to a few powerful individuals ruling in an oligarchic-plutocratic gerontocracy (get your -arcies out :p). The drugs themselves, however, could be viewed as a thoroughly desirable thing if made available equally.

This is true, and something that technophobes (i.e. lots of the liberal-left) tend to forget - it's the political system in which the technologies exist that create the problems, not the technology itself.


Some of the technologies are also unequivicobly good - cyberspace, livable LEO habitats and so on. Whilst some are quite the opposite - the idea of creating sentients as basically slaves or an underclass (AIs in the world of William Gibson [or at least that's how I read their treatment] and, obviously, replicants from Blade Runner).
Creating sentient AIs to act as an "underclass" or "slaves" as a bad thing... I'm a bit divided on this one. On the one hand, we should advocate for as much automation and use of non-human labour as possible to free up time and energy for humans. At the same time, how intelligent and sentient should we program them to be? Is it wrong to treat programmed, constructed machines as "slaves?" After all, they are essentially hyper-intelligent tools.


Anyway I want cyberdecks and Sense/Net entertainment and I want them now :lol:
I'm sure Kurzweil has something coming down the tube in the next decade or so :p

[Jazzratt]

Creating sentient AIs to act as an "underclass" or "slaves" as a bad thing... I'm a bit divided on this one. On the one hand, we should advocate for as much automation and use of non-human labour as possible to free up time and energy for humans. At the same time, how intelligent and sentient should we program them to be? Is it wrong to treat programmed, constructed machines as "slaves?" After all, they are essentially hyper-intelligent tools.

I've been in a few arguments on this subject (I think there's one in the HPG if you can be arsed to look) and it boils down basically to how much "I" you have in your "AI". Most manufacturing robots and other labour saving machines and programs won't even be capable of acheiving true intelligence. If, however, we make something capable of true learning and an ability to reflect on its own actions, a true sapient creature, I think it would be morally wrong to force it to do things and I'm very ambigious toward killing it in a fit of paranoia (as I believe happens in Gibson's books? The only one I've read recently enough to remember the details is Count Zero [see my sig]). To directly answer your last question it isn' wrong to treat anything like a slave unless it is capable of resenting that slavery.

[Absolut]

You could also look into the books "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson and "Holy Fire" by Bruce Sterling.

Thanks a lot. Ill be sure to keep an eye open!