In the year 2000

[gfish]

I may have finally figured out why our current reality is so disjointed and contradictory, particularly for the last 10 years or so -- since, yes, the year 2000. I think when the modern conception of the future was first invented, back in the 50s, we inadventantly forked history. We invented two futures, each equally probable. On the one hand we had the shining pulp SF future, with flying cars and robot maids. On the other we had the apocalypse, global thermonuclear war with mutants and cannibals. Both of these were simultaneously assumed, and thus became contradictory self-fulfilling prophesies. We live in the super-position of the two. If you average the two alternatives, (Jetsons + On the Beach) / 2, you get the world we live in. Amazingly advanced and progressive while simultaneously horrible and retrograde.

This can't be a stable situation, yet it has lasted for 50+ years at this point. This points to a negative feedback loop keeping the two timelines intermingled, something which makes the alternate seem more probable whenever we get closer to one extreme. That can only be a trick of human perception, though. The next decade will see the absolute quantification of the analog world. The harsh light of objective measurement will finally determine if we live in heaven or hell, and then the waveform will collapse once and for all.

(Plot ideas: someone trying to control the waveform collapse? For good or evil? Or just to prevent it? Cross ref: the eschaton, particularly Frederick Pohl's conception thereof.)

Comments

[damiana]

Maybe I'm just weird (okay, no maybe there, I know) but the image this brings up in my mind is timelines twined around each other and connected like strands of DNA.

Which, of course, brings several *more* plot ideas to mind.

[anansi133]

There's a buried assumption here that's kind of like the exospheres of Star Wars: A jungle planet or a forest planet or a desert planet are each homogeneous- there's no story reason to travel from one biome to another within the same world, when that same action could give you an excuse to jump into a spaceship instead.

The apocalypse cliche is pretty democratic, true: it's assumed that if anyone has it better than the rest, it's not by much, and not worth mentioning.

but the shiny Jetsons version need not be so democratic: as long as the story focuses on the winners, it doesn't matter how many losers there are.

[sistawendy.livejournal.com]

Put down the coffee.

I dunno. I'm a lot more sanguine about the state of things than you are, I guess. A huge chunk of the world's population has been lifted out of poverty lately. Sustainably? We'll see, but people in rich countries tend to forget how much poverty sucks and how desirable is its elimination.

Over in my little corner of the universe, I'm so happy about how much easier it is to be trans right now that I can't regret not transitioning as little as twenty years ago.

Mind you, I'm a little worried about idiocracy, a "financialized" economy in America, global warming, and how our new Chinese overlords will treat us in a few years, but note of those problems are unsolvable.

[darlingfreak.livejournal.com]

Either that or... people are stupid and are coming up with more advanced ways to be stupid.

[bluegreen17]

i can think of nothing to add at present,but i did enjoy reading this. the world seems unreal to me these days. perhaps subconciously i think the world should have ended by now. i remember being a kid and thinking 'oh,in the year 2000 i'll be 42;i'll be old so i will be able to handle the end of the world.'haha.

[mcfnord.livejournal.com]

i knew it!

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm...

[rollick.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Faskinating. Does our country's current obsession with post-apocalyptic fiction (which we're certainly producing more of than utopian fiction) push things in either direction in particular?

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

My much simpler explanation: Reality was coded with a 2-digit date, so the year 2000 crashed it.