Utopias used to be the most common scifi futures. This is what the so called Cyberpunks (Sterling, Gibson, Cadigan, ...) rebelled against.
It used to be all about what wonders technology will bring us. By the time of the 70s it became clear that technology doesn't necessarily make everything better, but can be a burden in itself, or even widen the gap between the haves and haves not. And that is what they wrote about. It turned out to be the most popular scifi with audiences deeming it more believable.
E.g. consider HG Wells The Time Machine, where the future start out seeming quite like an utopia but then we meet the Morlocks.
But lots of books were downright dystopian much earlier. Heck, several of the "standards bearers" for dystopias pre-date cyberpunk by a lot, like Brave New World, This Perfect Day, 1984.
Particularly stories like The Time Machine where the setting as a whole very much was revealed not to be an utopia were among the most common "utopian" settings pre-cyberpunk.
Pure utopias were very rare for a reason: They're really hard to set compelling in stories in, and so most of the ones that do exist tend to set stories on their edges and fault lines.
What changed with cyberpunk wasn't that (surface) utopias went away, or even that we get to see the imperfect underside, but that the script is flipped so that the protagonist isn't a tourist on the underside, but belongs there, and is often alienated from any seemingly perfect parts of the world they inhabit.
Compare settings that do show both sides, like The Time Machine, and a cyberpunk version of The Time Machine would probably have a protagonist that was a Morlock. The world itself wouldn't change, but we'd get to see it from the opposite POV.
> even widen the gap between the haves and haves not
America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.
False Equivalence, Red Herring, Chronological Snobbery, Fallacy of Relative Deprivation, Contextomy.
So, by this logic, a homeless person with a used iPhone is better off than Louis XIV (who literally owned all of France) just because the king couldnt play Candy Crush?
This statement confuses global technological progress across centuries with an individuals actual financial security, social power, and quality of life within their own modern society.
I simply just cant understand why would someone repeat such a statement (and I have seen it everywhere).
> False Equivalence, Red Herring, Chronological Snobbery, Fallacy of Relative Deprivation, Contextomy.
There's a lot of reasonable arguments to unpack here.
But no, it's not that Louis XIV didn't have an iPhone, it's that the vast middle class in developed countries has central heating and access to penicillin and don't die from giving birth as much.
Also, America's poor are definitely worse off than medieval kings. They don't have access to those basic things that keep most modern people wealthier than medieval kings, like food, shelter and health care.
Some of the older (pre-medieval) king's ruins in Denmark are (by our standards) small stone houses with a moat, and what makes them remarkable is that they're made of stone, and the moat is rather big, so it keeps people out. Like metal doors in apartment buildings, sort of. (Correction for the historians: The oldest king's ruins are of course just holes in the ground where wooden beams used to stand.)
s/America's poor/Europe's lower middle class/ and you're there.
probably more that Louis XIV was not a medieval king.
(French isn't that bad a language)
* https://thisisversaillesmadame.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-lack...
Being available is not equal to a person being able to afford it.
Maybe you were writing about middle class and not the poor?
On the other hand kings had free-range organic grown meat prepared by personal cook anytime they wanted which is a true luxury even today.
There is no refrigeration, so "fresh" meat has to be slaughtered the same day. Kings tended to live in populated areas, so wild game would be scarce. Majority of meat would have been pork kept in pens (not free-range in the modern sense), or mutton/goat (free range, but typically older and tougher). At the same time, even a king likely wasn't slaughtering 365 pigs/year just to have fresh meat every day - lots of dried, smoked, or even salted meat in the diet...
The very oldest book in the bible contains the basic recipe for keeping meat fresh for ~week, and that's what Kosher, Halal, ... are really about.
And yeah, it depends. Roman emperors, for example, would have had fresh meat available whenever. Medieval kings, no way. Renaissance kings ... probably not constant fresh meat, and certainly not constant fresh fish, but a lot better than medieval kings.
Clean water depends on how you define "clean" e.g. from https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/united-states-water-poll...
> Current EPA data reveals that nearly half of all tap water in the United States contains detectable levels of PFAS chemicals
There's also plenty of contamination violations (apart from maybe Hawaii with only 2) of the water supply.
As far as health care goes, I thought that most people in the USA will refuse to get an ambulance due to the expense. I've also heard of plenty of reports that poor people will not visit a doctor for minor health issues even though they may be early signs of much more serious issues.
I mean, it’s no wonder people move from uganda to mississipi (or other places in the us) and not rhe other way around.
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/25/us-evang...
My parents had access to cheaper housing, less red-tape and fixed working hours, more job security than my generation, when I was born.
So now insert BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE FLAT PANEL TV AND IPHONE in retarded Sponge Bob chicken meme here.
My memory might be faulty but I remember watching "The Lion in Winter" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqz3gkrmBbo) and feeling really happy I was not alive then, even as royalty. (hope that's the movie)
You're somehow succumbing to the fallacy of the edilic life of old.
The same life where you had to have a dozen of kids to overcome infant mortality, and each time a woman gave birth it was like a Russian roulette.
And the average life expectancy was what? 40 years? You didn't had a midlife crisis because you'd be dead by then.
If you lived to 20 you had a pretty good chance of making it to 70
The answer to this riddle lies in the previous paragraph
i keep telling them they’re free to have their own personal monarchy in their own family as long as people are free to leave and also to leave the rest of us out of it. but for some reason they don’t seem to like the idea as much then.
But also, no they don't. Standard of living includes one's agency over their environment. An medieval king could say things and the kingdom would bend to their will. No one making $18,000 is having hundreds or thousands of people bending over to serve them.
Utter nonsense.
No, it doesn't.
Lol nope? This is utter ignorance. Medieval kings were constantly balancing power with people directly underneath them.
Whole dynasties have been eradicated in the continuous power struggles, particularly from rich families.
Not only that: medieval kings had to bow to religious authorities as well (something ee don’t do anymore). In 1077 kind henry iv had to stand three days bare headed in the snow to convince pope gregory vii to reverse his excommunication (an excommunication would effectively invalidate him as a king, btw).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa
You comment shows your utter general ignorance and complete misunderstanding of medieval times.
Do America’s poor have a standard thing like a roof on top of their heads? Nevermind a castle, just a basic house which has already been paid for.
https://acoup.blog/2025/08/22/collections-life-work-death-an... You can read https://acoup.blog/2025/09/05/collections-life-work-death-an... which is by a working historian.
I also want to add that, none of this is relevant to the point of whether or not the current system is "just" or reasonable given and I think overall that argument is mostly a red herring.
Counterpoint: any leaking abandoned oil well. Check out YouTube videos documenting the abandoned oil wells in West Texas, which are dumping industrial volumes of water into abandoned land.
We are social beings, and technology in the last decade especially has been gearing itself towards reducing communities both physically and digitally. Less people spend time together, more people feel lonely and isolated, and divisions between people are at all time highs with glorification of death to the “enemy”. Forums are almost entirely dead, the feed of information is both nonstop while being useless, and we have few outlets to feel true connection.
Harvard’s happiness studies finds that standard of living only impacts happiness to a point before facing a sharp plateau and socialization takes over as a dominant factor in longterm happiness, according to my memory at least. And, while I don’t entirely agree with Kojima’s predictions in MGS2, the AI seeking to provide “context” for the feeble human mind as rate of information on the Internet increases was prescient, though humans have adapted to this (albeit suffering shorter attention spans as a consequence).
IMO a true utopia would be similar to the Enterprise: people socialize and enjoy a life with comfort by technology, not at the behest of social media or the collective consciousness of others. Unplugged and connected in a more meaningful way.
Also worth mentioning the recently deceased Walter Koenig who had said that playing Alfred Bester in Babylon 5 was his favourite role, despite being much more famous as Chekov in the original Star Trek.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-babies-for-the-rich-the-rela...
I think it may be unclear that net worth and high education are a 1:1 proxy for IQ as many of the highest educated and highest earning individuals may be in that situation not because of raw IQ, but due to the other socioeconomic factors which lead to those conditions. Namely being born into high net worth households and being afforded extensive tutoring and supplemental education relative to their poorer peers. I accept the premise that highly educated households do correlate with high net worth, and the study's TFR findings relative to those points are interesting.
However, there is still a nonlinear relationship between high IQ and those factors, as well as between high IQ parents' offspring IQ levels. Not a few high net worth individuals choose mates based on factors distinct from having a similar or even a high IQ, if a strong correlation between genetic heritability and IQ is to be believed.
The study actually tracked high income with regards to increased TFR in the US and UK, while the correlation to high education was primarily in Sweden. This serves to weaken the connection between IQ and fertility as there are numerous high income situations which are specifically not correlated with high IQ or high education.
So, yes, having children is increasingly expensive especially in America, and wealthier people are more prolific. This does not appear, at least to my mind, to have direct bearing on observable trends in general population IQ in the short term, nor does it appear to be addressing future outcomes regarding the Idiocratic potential.
> This does not appear, at least to my mind, to have direct bearing on observable trends in general population IQ in the short term, nor does it appear to be addressing future outcomes
No but the proposed mechanism in Idiocracy is clear, and that is not happening. We may still head towards an dumb future, but it's not Idiocracy.
TLDR; I have met quite a few very high net worth individuals, their spouses and offspring. Hundreds of them, actually. I have not been impressed overall with their intellectual capacity for learning important and lifesaving knowledge in preparation for life-changing natural survival conditions which are outside of their daily routine. The same has been true at the middle and lower income distributions under similar circumstances. I am neutral about the future IQ of the population of any of their descendants, poor or rich.. There are many other factors at play.
The long version:
That has not been my admittedly anecdotal experience among high, moderate, and average net work individuals and small to large congregations of those net worth groups in North, Central, South Americas, East Asia, the Pacific Islands, the UK and Northern Europe. I haven't found any specific factors resulting in concentration of above or below average IQ individuals within any of those groups. I have traveled much; been in direct leadership positions among high net worth individuals' on board of directors, and have been in direct contact with significant groups of low net worth populations in both labor and non-profit support roles. I do confess to not having conducted specific research in the IQ to net worth among those groups, so this is just an informed opinion.
So, I will yield on the sole point IFF net worth is assumed to be a strong proxy for high IQ; then we might be headed in a smarter direction in the portions of the general population resulting from those families. I do agree with the distinction that the proposed mechanism in the film Idiocracy is not what is occurring. It does however seem apparent that due to many different mechanisms we may be in for a significantly dumber future, and on that we also agree.
It may be that among the high net worth populations; there may be a factor within the high IQ subgroup that is aware of the complex difficulty for the planet due to excessive and wasteful overconsumption and the aggregate demand that additional population stresses the situation. That subgroup may be choosing to self deselect for reproduction, and that subgroup may be among the highest fraction of IQ. It doesn't appear that this aspect was in the study you referenced, nor in any of that study's sources' research. Did I miss that component?
As far as Judge Dredd, my personal beef is that Megacity One's "dystopian" density with 800 million inhabitants from Boston to Washington DC barely ranks in terms of density in today's top 100 cities.
As far as Idiocracy, I believe that if the networks had played that and it was promoted on YouTube for free the night before the most recent presidential election, it might have gone differently.
What else would you add to the list?
thats the first sample i ever read that got me to read a book. not particularly great writing, but clean and propulsive and i hope the mystery pays off.
Some say it was the last sci-fi utopia in modern pop culture.
This one is pretty famous I think and I enjoyed it a lot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
(I just read that James Cameron held the screen production rights and was planning a series, but it never happened)
They mostly just said it was all great and fair and nobody needs money and is somehow trying to be their best selves… nevermind the numerous examples to the contrary.
They weren’t really post scarcity. They never explained how they’re not in a constant state of rioting when a weird government/military decides what everyone can have or do.
You just go with it, because that’s the backdrop. You have to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the story.
But also, Picard is the best Captain, by far.
Well, post-scarcity really just means that ordinary citizens have free access to replicators (matter-energy converters).
So the closest example (and the only one I can think of where you see civilian Earth, outside of SF Academy / SF HQ or a time travel episode), is probably the double episode in DS9 where the changelings reach earth and there's a false flag event by a corrupt Admiral that causes a momentary power outage and a planetwide lockdown for a few days. I believe it's meant as a 9/11 allegory -- the homeland is attacked and suddenly everyone WANTS a police state, or at least is willing to go along with it, and only the courageous honorable military officers are there to stop the corrupt ones, all the civilians are frightened into compliance.
But post-scarcity? That just means when the security officers aren't around, people can wander into Joseph Sisko's restaurant and eat as much as they want for free, and Joseph Sisko can run his restaurant with as much food supply/ingredients and kitchen equipment as he wants for free, and every gets as much clothing as they want for free, etc. When Earth isn't on lockdown, that's the implication, everyone has as much material goods as they want for free, that's post-scarcity and the implication is they have it.
Post-scarcity doesn't mean infinite resources, or that you can have whatever you want, not everyone gets free land/space on which to build their home, for example. If that's your definition of post-scarcity then I guess at least the Q Continuum has it! :)
And yes, in Star Trek, it mostly just seems to mean that food, clothes, and small clonable objects have very little value if you live where those machines are common.
But, of course, that’s not what people think when we talk about a “post-scarcity utopia”. And they don’t think about how people have homes and property and fuel and ships, or how everything bigger than a wrench is allocated by a mega government that seems to have ultimate control over all resource allocation.
We just have to assume “everything is good somehow, and everyone is fine and docile in luxury space communism.” Because they say that.
It’s all very weird, and easy to see why it was all intentionally left unexplained. It would have been a disaster to even try.
It's worth remembering that social organization (currency, capitalism, democracy) is a technology as well, and we should not expect that a sci-fi author can explain the advances in that technology any better than they can explain a warp drive. (one nod to this I think is telling is one scene in the movie where they travel back in time and Kirk is telling the others 'they still use money' in much the same way that he would say 'they still use guns'. They have replaced guns with phasers and replaced money with something else and Roddenberry can give us the blueprint for neither).
I think it's a sign of the times that people are kind of forgetful that this is an area in which we could advance - either insisting the status quo is somehow the best possible or even completely god-given natural or insisting that the answer is really obvious and doesn't require deep thought, research, and experimentation.
It feels like the actual problem is that the status quo is so entrenched, people have a hard time imagining how to unseat it.
Consider the last few successful Presidential election campaigns. Hope and Change. Drain the Swamp. Biden's uninspired but ultimately successful strategy of running against the incumbent rather than for anything in particular. People keep voting for "we don't like what's currently happening" and the system keeps running them over.
Or maybe the problem is actually this:
> require deep thought, research, and experimentation
These are the things that the status quo robustly impedes.
Tweet firehose social media feeds and fragmented leadership.
Research funded by the entity under study or the politicians interested in manufacturing support for a predetermined policy rather than trying to find out something we don't already know.
Federal laws or even corporate-bought international treaties preventing local governments or private citizens from trying something new because the something new might solve a problem someone doesn't want anybody solving.
You're tasked with changing the system while operating under the system that evolved to perpetuate itself.
Which isn't to say that it can't be done, but it's easy to see why people are nonplussed.
That’s a bit of a spoiled attitude. You can’t expect a science fiction author to just casually solve a problem that humanity hasn’t managed to solve in millennia.
We also accept that they have warp drive without expecting an explanation how they got it.
What would the effects of growing up in a post-scarcity utopian society be on a human? To never fear poverty or hunger? To be sure that no matter what they do (or don’t) they will be housed and cared for as long as they live?
I assume the people in Starfleet would be the ones who are most inclined to work for their betterment, with no fear of competition, with the drive to do The Right Thing. Outside the organisation there would be people who would be totally happy in doing nothing.
It's not the same since they exist in a world where most other people aren't at that level, but we can see that the human psyche isn't always able to manage it.
That’s very different from saying everybody can now have a life style that is above the poverty line and never have to work to keep that.
The utopian society is both a backdrop, and a goal we can strive towards.
But if we examine TOS and TNG, I could say it represented a "roving utopia" model where Utopia Meets Reality. The episodic nature and self-contained stories would typically examine the question: "what happens when the Roddenberry philosophy comes into contact with something unique?" and it would be a study in anthropology, comparative religions, or sociological questions.
I hadn't watched much Star Trek in the 1990s, but I was becoming excited about Babylon 5. One of the main points of departure was the planning of the 5-year story arc, and the character development that accompanied it. Every character in Babylon 5 was imbued with an origin, a narrative, and a destiny. Jumping into the story from the beginning, and riding along for all 5 imperfect years, it felt like we also had a destination, and threads came together, and there was resolution and revelation. The Babylon station was never a utopia in reality, only in its aspirations.
So I cultivated a disdain for Star Trek as it was in those days, but Trek was a product of its time, and had helped to cast the die for episodic and self-contained "Monster of the Week" type shows. However, I've rewatched all the films, and I commend them on great production values, acting, and interesting themes. The Star Trek franchise has grown to include something for everyone, including the Klingon-language performance of Bonnie Tyler's "Total Eclipse of the Heart", which definitely captured my attention.
Or if Comic Books are in scope, obviously "Miracleman: The Golden Age" is a utopia. Explicitly so. It is about the ways people are still people in a utopia.
Less mainstream, Greg Egan's Amalgam is also clearly a utopia. The couple in "Riding the Crocodile" choose to die at the end of that story, more out of some sense that stories need endings than because of any outside force.
As much as I love Star Trek, The Culture feels more mature and nuanced.
it's pretty shitty for anyone outside the singular theocratic military enclave that hordes all the water and decapitates scientists.
I think you're overestimating the sci-fi cannon indoctrination of the general public, or even tech people, and underestimating their reaction to current events. As things lie at the moment, Big AI is served as a SaaS that can be manipulated at any time by obscenely rich and powerful individuals with questionable decision making skills, some of who reside in the White House and some of who have called empathy a "fundamental weakness". One would be hard pressed to dispute these characters rival the caricatures present in some dystopian sci-fi as it is, they themselves even seem to enjoy the irony. Yes, I also cringe at the alarmist nature of these sentences, but we are at a point where we are most likely to dismiss things right in front of our eyes just by how outlandish it all sounds.
The public's willful transfer of their most intimate personal information to these entities, and once given almost impossible to remove, would make any surveillance state salivate. You have only to look at who holds the keys to this estate.