@tiotasram@kolektiva.social2026-08-14 12:50:14
The world needs more science fiction of the social- variety.
Rather than imagining how life could be different because of advances in purely mechanistic technologies, why not imagine how life could be different because of advances in social technologies: new inventions of ways societies can be organized or groups of people can relate to each other.
Some concrete examples of existing social technologies: Amish barn-raising, dolphin surf-fishing, online crowd-funding, Capoeira, potlucks, punk rock concerts, etc.
Each of these things was invented at some point, spread (not inevitably) through social communication, allows groups to achieve a specific purpose (or facilitates several different outcomes) and may or may not require specific tools or mechanistic technologies. There will be new social technologies in the future, and they could radically change how human societies function and what human lives look like, just as mechanistic technologies can.
In the current sociopolitical climate, we see one vision of the future, heavily propagandized, which assures us that advances in mechanistic technology will make life ever easier for humans, leading into a golden age where human needs are met by robots. In this imagination, each individual can actualize the productive capacity to meet their own needs because an individual's productive capacity has been multiplied in every dimension by new mechanistic technologies. Humans can finally be rid of the messy complexity of community-dependence and be totally free because mechanistic technologies will replace the need for community connections to satisfy material desires.
But there's an ugly underside to this vision explored by cyberpunk, where advances in mechanistic technologies bring us to a point of total hierarchical domination and control. In this future, productivity-multipliers are recognized as force-multipliers, and the humans who gain control of them use them to subjugate everyone else.
Some of the best science fiction authors, like Le Guin or Asimov, look at not only mechanistic but also at social technologies, and often at the interaction between the two. Social technologies also have the capacity to radically change the human condition, but they don't lend themselves as well to the power fantasy or libertarian utopia of the self-sufficient individual. Social technologies involve people satisfying their needs through dependence on others, and in turn being obligated to take part in communities.
As an anarchist, I believe that the social technologies needed for human flourishing have not been invented yet. I also believe that with the right social technologies, even without significant advances in mechanistic technologies, it's possible for everyone to be able to meet their own needs through community, in a truly sustainable way.
I wish we had more authors using their craft to help explore the space of social technologies and inspire others to join in that exploration, so that the technologies we need can more quickly be invented and evangelized.
#anarchy #SciFi #technology
@tiotasram@kolektiva.social2026-09-15 07:31:34
Wish inspiration hadn't struck right at 1 a.m. when I have to teach tomorrow, but we'll see if I can get back to sleep now that I'm done with a draft of this story. Glad to have my first entry in my "incredulous young historians of the future" series actually written instead of just imagined. There are surely some typos ahead...
#SciFi #Writing #Technology #ShortStory
"The Age of Progress", a short story by Tiota Sram.
"Your assignment", said the teacher, "is to describe why the progressive vision of technology that gives us the name 'Age of Progress' today failed, and why it was actually a pessimistic view of technology. Your study guides have links to a few sources, but as usual you should synthesize information from at least two knowledge systems, and one of those shouldn't be family-based."
"Ugh", said Ye'xik, "this is gonna be tricky. Wasn't the whole problem with the Age of Progress that they were too optimistic about technology?"
"Well, they did talk a lot about the end of the world and extinction, and I did almost happen, right?" said Finan.
"Yeah, that's gotta count as pessimism, doesn't it?" Gedi chimed in.
"Well..." said Hallavia, with their usual deliberate tone, "I think it's not that simple, or at least it doesn't have to be."
The four of them were walking outside to have lunch, pondering the new assignment from this cycle's history and culture teacher. A brief silence fell as they pondered the Age of Progress.
"Maybe we should look at it through another history system?" offered Finan. "I mean, we've been learning about knowledge systems and lenses, and the 'Ages' lens of just one perspective with its own distortions, right?"
"My mab is working with my omeh on an oral history right now", said Gedi, "maybe I can use that as my second knowledge system? I'll see what they have to say about it!"
"We shouldn't all use the same knowledge systems though", said Ye'xik. "I think there's a bit of a thesis/antithesis thing going on here too? Like we were learning in ideas class?"
"Wait, I missed ideas last week", said Gedi, what's an antithesis?"
"It's just an opposite, really", said Ye'xik. "You take the thesis statement and construct any statement that contradicts it. The two form a pair, and then you can try to find a synthesis that combines both ideas."
"I didn't really get that part", Finan interrupted, "like, if they're contradictory, how could they be expressed together? Wouldn't you need to pick one that's true?... wait I guess maybe if you mixed different knowledge systems? But then would they really be contradictory?"
The group fell silent for a moment in thought.
Hallavi spoke up: "Incommensurate isn't the same as contradictory, I think. That's what it would be if you had two truths from different knowledge systems that didn't fit. Plus... not all knowledge systems have a concept of truth, or of contradiction?"
The group pondered this for a bit more.
"I think maybe there's lots of ways to be contradictory, even in a very logic-hungry knowledge system", said Gedi. "Then if your thesis and antithesis contradict in one way, you could find another sort out 'axis' in which they don't, and state your synthesis from there?"
"Oh, that makes sense", said Ye'xik.
"Anyways what were you saying about the Age of Progress, Ye'xik?" said Gedi.
"Wait", interrupted Hallavi, "Did that mashes sense to you, Finan?"
Finan had been silent, looking down at their feet, but replied "Oh yeah, thanks for checking Hallavi! I think I got the part about synthesis now, thanks Gedi. I was just thinking about optimism and pessimism more. Is that where you were going with this, Ye'xik?"
"Haha, yeah Finan, you got it", said Ye'xik. "Since optimism and pessimism can be opposites, does the teacher actually want us to form a synthesis of them?"
"Oh..." muttered Gedi, "that's a good idea."
"I think..." began Hallavi, pausing to collect their thoughts, "I think the teacher would have told us that, though. Obviously it's not a wrong way to approach this assignment because it incorporates pessimism, but teachers usually aren't too tricky. I think it's okay to be literal about the pessimism thing. And I think I have an idea..."
When Hallavi remained silent for a moment, Ye'xik opened their mouth to speak, but then looked at Hallavi and closed it again. Finan and Gedi were looking at Hallavi too. They pushed through the doors out to the meadow, and settled in their usual place to sit, pulling lunches out of their bags. Hallavi finally spoke up while the others were chewing: "The Age of Progress lasted from the Enlightenment to the Dim Times, and they believed that technology would always get better, no matter what. That's the progressive vision of technology our teacher was talking about. They thought it could solve any problem, and they wouldn't have to worry about weapons or extinctions or the climate or pollution or any of that stuff, because technology would eventually come up with a solution. They looked at the technology that solved problems like diseases or overcame engineering challenges and extrapolated too broadly, basically. That's the idea they had?"
The other three were all nodding their heads, knowing Hallavi needed room to think and put words together.
Hallavi continued: "So it seems like it's optimistic, because they thought it could do anything. But they were thinking about technology like I just talked about it: like an 'it' that could 'do'. That's not what we've been learning in our technology class. Invention is a social phenomenon, and technologies have both material and social bases, not to mention communities of practice and knowledge maintenance. So I think the idea of technological progress divorced from social participation is pessimistic, because it mythologizes technology in a way that makes it seem uncontrollable."
"Huh" said Gedi and Finan while at the same time Ye'xik said "mhmm".
Hallavi looked up shyly at the rest of them, but they were all looking back with admiration.
"I think you're right, Hallavi", said Ye'xik. "Or at least, that's probably what the teacher wanted us to puzzle out. Good thing they asked us to include two knowledge systems so we can each have our own perspectives to contribute, otherwise you'd go first and our presentations would all just be 'What Hallavi said'".
Hallavi blushed but Finan laughed "Hah! You're right and that Ye'xik."
Gedi was looking at their sandwich with some intensity. They looked at Hallavi then back at their sandwich. "It's like they thought they were strapped to an out-of-control rocket, when you put it that way", they said. "It must have been scary, really, to believe that technology was almost an entity, changing in an inevitable way. That word 'inevitable' really takes all the human agency out of it, doesn't it. And even though they kept saying that technology would inevitably solve problems, look at what the technologies they invented actually did!"
Finan shuddered. He added, "Really, it was their dominators who were saying it was inevitable wasn't it? Back then it wasn't like today where historians travel and sample all kinds of ideas, so the primary sources we're reading are almost all from dominators, right?"
Ye'xik responded "Yeah, I keep forgetting to account for that. It was such a weird and horrible time, it's kinda hard to believe everything we read and hear sometimes."
Gedi picked up the thread again "That makes it worse, right? All those dominators saying the stuff they're doing is inevitable, and lying to everyone's faces about it being progress and wonderful stuff, meanwhile two thirds of it is the most awful stuff there's ever been, I mean they could have literally killed everyone and ruined the whole planet, and they almost did."
"They did actually crush a lot of cultures beyond recognition so the survivors had to rebuild with only weak ties to their old traditions", said Hallavi with a quiet intensity.
They all were silent for a moment, pondering the horrors of a bygone age.
Finan broke the silence: "That's a terrible kind of pessimism, to believe that technologcal 'progress' is inevitable, at a time when most people are dominators somewhere in a hierarchy and the ones on top constantly talk about how technologies like medicines will 'save' the world while mostly inventing new technologies of violence. Everyone must have understood what they really meant based on the technologies they were actually developing and investing into. I think I still don't understand how the Age of Progress and the Dim Times could even happen".
"Yeah, and the pessimism is only part of our assignment", signed Ye'xik. "We still have to describe why the progressive vision failed, although I think maybe you just did a lot of that, Finan".
A gloom descended briefly, until Gedi said "Well, this assignment is supposed to take a week or two, right? Thanks to Hallavi we've already cracked the crux, I think, so we don't need to ruminate too much right this moment about ancient history, and we know things turned out okay in the end. Let's finish lunch and go climb a tree!"
@hex@kolektiva.social2026-08-26 18:34:02
RE: https://todon.eu/@CrimethInc/117162698930485347
There was a time, 4 or 5 years ago, when my partner and I had a conversation. We had already fought last time, and now we had kids. We had the ability to leave, so we decided that we would if things got bad enough. We had to make a decision about when that would be, about what the trigger would be. It was Roe being overturned. It had happened in the past. We left as soon as we could.
If you haven't left, or can't leave, you need to make another decision. You need to decide if you're going to fight or hide. I'll tell you now, your best chance is if you fight before it's too late. If you try to keep your head down the best outcome you can hope for is to survive in shame.
If you decide to fight, then you need to decide when. I don't know what your life looks like, so I can't tell you where that line is. But you need to know what it is, because not knowing is the same as hiding. You need to talk to other people and know when they'll fight, because your best chances are together. Everyone should have a breaking point. A lot of folks may have blown right past it and not noticed, because it's all too overwhelming, because life is already too much without adding more. I understand, but without thinking about it you're making a different choice.
This is an extremely common platform for leftists. I remember my old roommate and their autistici email address. I have an account with them for organizing I did in the past. If you've ever listed to anything on the Channel Zero network, you've probably run across someone reading out a noblogs domain. This is an explicit attack on the left, and specifically on anarchists. This provides the legal framework for mass arrests targeting anarchists.
Will they do that? I don't know. They know they're unpopular and they know anarchists are a big part of the fight. Will they use those warehouses? They'll do what they can get away with.
What will you do to stop them? What will you do when they escalate? Figure out your escalation plan. What would it take to get you in the street? What would it take to get you on the barricades? If you don't have a plan, if you haven't at least thought about it, and maybe even talked about it, then you're deciding to let them do whatever they want.
Fascism is like a dying star that gets bigger even as it consumes itself before exploding. It has to have an enemy, so it will make enemies to feed on. You may be used to being safe when the state cracks down like this, but you never really were. Your turn was just so far off it seemed impossible. But now we're at the end. No one will be safe until this is over. So at the very least, make plans for when they come after you.
@tiotasram@kolektiva.social2026-08-26 16:24:32
Just finished "Rialto" by Kate Milford. A wonderful book with a *lot* of things to like but also a few I wish had been done differently.
Starting with the good stuff, an #OwnVoices portrayal of anxiety depression is always welcome, *especially* one that portrays positive coping strategies, including active therapy, and complex but ultimately supportive family dynamics. Dad & daughter each reminding each other to use calming strategies at different points in the book was lovely, and getting to see the complexities of the trying to be a supportive sibling was great! Larger than that aspect, portraying a YA adventure in which the parents are actively involved but don't spoil things is so great and must have been difficult to pull off. Most YA stuff quickly ushers the parents out of the picture, and this fails to provide any kind of positive or negative role model for parent/child interaction. This book had ample examples of the former, *and* let the kids have plenty of agency too. Excellent stuff that I absolutely want to see more of.
So what didn't I like?
First, as an anarchist, I always hate to see unapologetically positive (and thus drastically unrealistic) portrayals of the police. Without getting into spoilers, even the stuff about the Piepowder court bothered me. It's presented here as a cutesy alternate court tradition, but I can't help but speculate that these courts were likely not always fair in practice, and the whole "single person makes immediate judgments model" from this book is terrible in general. I just don't like positive portrayals of terrible systems that happen to be good because the people involved are good people, since they reinforce harmful positive mental models of "justice" that don't apply to the real world. This element wasn't enough to totally spoil the book for me (the plot could have mostly functioned without it) but it's a downside to me.
Second, the book is set in rural Missouri, and has plenty of Black characters. Yay for representation? Certainly better than the cast being all-white given the setting. But the book doesn't have any Black *culture* that I picked up on, and it chooses to try to completely sidestep the relevant history. Maybe I'm just not attuned to elements that were there; if anyone who read this did see them feel free to point them out. The history definitely isn't there though... for example, was the park segregated, or not? During the time it was active one imagines most parks would have been, and that if it hadn't been that would have been a very important difference, which would even have been relevant to the plot and themes of the book as written.
Now perhaps this critique is unfair because Black children and young adults *should* get to see themselves portrayed in cozy fantasies without things always having to be about racism... In a choice between erasing Black characters and erasing racism (and especially racist histories) maybe there's no right answer here and this is fine, actually. My instinct tells me that there are ways to do better, though, and that presenting a history with all the racism carefully elided isn't the greatest compromise to make here.
A while ago I read "Under the Heron's Light" by Randi Pink. It also has mythical animal guides, a Southern setting, helpful family members, a multi-generational mystery to solve, and a (slightly older) teen protagonist who is up to the task. In contrast, it is all about racist history, and takes us through multiple extremely harrowing scenes from the past.
In any case, this discomfort also wasn't a deal-breaker for me, in part because, as I said, I think it's probably good for Black children to see uncomplicatedly positive representations of people like them alongside the plenty of stuff out there that does get deep into the racism and history. I also don't have the best perspective to judge this stuff, although that doesn't mean I should default to "it's probably fine" (I'd be happy to hear from anyone who feels they have a better perspective on this, about this book or the trend in general...).
Overall, I enjoyed Rialto quite a lot. I don't think it quite makes it into my top tier of recommendations for my kids, but I think it does make the list somewhere.
#AmReading #ReadingNow #Bookstodon