As I said before, pop culture discourages thinking. We need to be able to relate to something to accept that it's possible— a story set in a realistic version of 2100 would never make it to theatres. Take my own story, Mother Meki. Liquid metal robots are featured extensively, and this because it makes sense that they would. Our current models of robots in the future (that they're going to be talking refrigerators with legs, or creepy Terminators with wires hanging out everywhere) makes absolutely no sense.
Think about what a person in 1750 would've thought of a car. They probably would have assumed that they would have tiny ferrets and badgers running in balls inside of them to make the wheels go 'round because many of the concepts of combustion and gears didn't make sense to them. It was too foreign, too alien.
We need the far future to seem like a sleeker, more medical version of today with exaggerated problems. "It's the future? So there must be dystopias and robot uprisings." In fact in reality, these two things might be entirely unlikely 500 years from now. Especially if man mergers with machines.
"Man uses technology to alter himself? Free will questions abound!" Why? Why is it that, whenever you use something to change yourself, it has to come at a cost of free will, and thus your base model self is the best option to go with? We don't have anything else to go by except extremist cults and dangerous mind-altering drugs, that's why.
Why is it aliens always invade us for our resources? Why not wipe us all out from a distance? Or, if they wanted our 'precious resources', why couldn't they just use another planet's? Or better yet, use their fantastic technology to recreate a far, far better version of the resource they're trying to pilfer? Because viewers need to connect. They want to be excited and know how things will turn out. Humans invade places. Locusts invade places. As far as we know, we invade locations for their resources. If we wanted to wipe something out completely, we understand that we could just nuke the place. But that's never needed to happen before. We never needed to kill off an entire nation from afar. And we still don't have the technology to turn mud into wine.
If we can't relate to something, the general public definitely won't be attached to it. And Western Culture is intensely materialistic and individualistic. The future will undoubtedly bring about hive-minds and collective attitudes where robots and humans are indistinguishable and all prejudices are eradicated due to an end to the socials stratas of today (brought about because of technology nonetheless). To middle aged affluent conservative male in America, what's worse than that? What's worse than the entire world as you know it changed into something utterly unrecognizable? Especially when, all your life, you're told that it's all about you. The individual is best, is key, and individualism trumps all, and this is why America and the West dominated the rest of the communal-loving world.
An era where communal living will become more successful and would be the norm (especially considering you're probably going to be a cyborg) is an absolute disaster to almost everyone in the West, raised to believe that you're not required to consider others or the progress of others.
It's why my Postcapitalist beliefs fall on nearly deaf ears to everyone, capitalist, communist, socialist, fascist, liberal, conservative, all of them alike. Especially capitalists and socialists. They don't think about where capitalism will lead. They just know that it's here and that it makes people rich(er). Where it will be in 50 years doesn't matter, or they just accept that it's still going to be around since it was here 100 years ago and still is now. They don't understand that capitalism's very nature is going to lead to a Singularity
Edited by The Young Homo Maximus, 23 June 2013 - 05:25 PM.