#Modern utopian

[bea-lele-carmen]

[yellow-yarrow]

people always hate on brutalist architecture, and it's like, what do you mean when you look at those huge futuristic looking buildings with exposed structure and concrete, you don't feel the same feeling as when you are looking up at the night sky, or a mountain, or a huge animal. are you not getting existential. are you going to tell me next you also don't get emotional when you stand in front of a Rothko

[sunlitmiracle]

smashes my current interest together with my old interest (aka yet another "what Dungeon Meshi but Gamers?" AU)

Once when I was a child I had a complete crying meltdown over Creatures, because the manual insisted that the complicated AI of the Norns made them truly alive and 10-year-old me was freaked out at the idea of being solely responsible for making sure these real animals wouldn't die. The funny part was that this was the Playstation version of Creatures, which has no biochemistry and very basic AI compared to the PC/Mac games where players actually were debating whether or not it was true artificial life. A PSX manual gave me existential dread and it wasn't even telling the truth.

Anyway, kid!Marcille would also have a meltdown over the Creatures series, especially if she had the computer games and got to see how vastly different some breeds' lifespans are. Like in C2 where you have Norns that live for around 5 hours and Norns that live for 10, both of which are vastly more than Ettins who don't even live for 1.5 hours (and usually less due to radiation or starvation).

Lucky for her, having the computer version means she could download modified genomes made by other players that make creatures live longer or even outright remove certain death triggers. However I think she'd have more fun learning to read and edit the genomes herself, to get a better understanding of how the game works and how to change it to suit her own tastes. And because she could pretend she's one of the mysterious ancient Shee who created the Norns, Grendels, and Ettins and then vanished, leaving behind relics of their old society.

(Speaking of Grendels, she would unfortunately dislike them because they're the Designated Evil Species and she'd hate how they harass and attack her Norns. I think she'd also pity them though, because they get sick a lot and have short lifespans. Likely she'd just end up downloading/creating a genome without the aggression towards Norns. Ettins she'd like except for in C3 when they dismantle her meticulously-placed gadget setups, so she might mod out their hoarding compulsions too. Both of them would of course also live for however long her Norns would live.)

Also. While standard creatures' lifespans are counted in hours, if you modify the half-lives in the genome editor you can increase it to centuries. Or even just over a millennium if you set the half-lives to their max length (assuming you also leave the old age death trigger at its vanilla value).

and I like to think that elven Creatures players would pass around copies of what they consider a template genome that's appropriate to their own lifespans. Something that would make their creatures live for weeks or months of continuous play. I also like to think the Creatures DS Warp is still active in this AU because of the hilarious frustration when these long-lived Norns travel to worlds run by short-lived players whose Norns have vanilla lifespans, and vice versa.

(Most of the time in Creatures, offspring of parents with different lifespans will just have one or the other, but there's a chance the genes cross over right in the middle of the various age triggers and cause unstable aging rates. Like a Norn that goes through the childhood stages in hours but then has a very extended adulthood. Or a days-long childhood followed by suddenly dropping dead of old age once the vanilla adulthood genes kick in. Or, if the child has one parent's half-life decay rate and the other parent's age triggers, all sorts of odd things could happen. I once had hybrid Norns who lived for 20 hours and would die of organ failure before reaching the old age threshold!)

(Now that I think of it, Marcille would absolutely hate fast-agers. The first time she watches a creature hatch, turn old, and die in just one brief minute of life, she would be sobbing for days. One of the first things she'd learn to mod out would be mutations that cause the Ageing/Life chemical to decrease unusually fast.)

On a lighter note, while I don't know what her favorite designs would be I think she'd love choosing cute breeds to use in her world. Once she figured out how to give her creatures the comfortable life she wants them to have I can see her redirecting all her gene-editing efforts into changing color expressions. She might even learn to sprite or model her own custom designs.

[meat-loving-meat]

I want to write a Vanyel/Stefen modern-with-magic AU soooo bad but I don’t know Valdemar lore like at all. There are six books standing between me and feeling comfortable enough in the lore to imagine what Valdemar might look like with the internet and planes

[sharedsystems]

SHARED SYSTEMS LTD. THIS PLACE DOES NOT EXIST: VARIATIONS

“Variations; demos, outtakes and alt versions of tracks that didn't make it onto the final project of THIS PLACE DOES NOT EXIST. Some are unmastered, some are unfinished. That being said, I hope you like them.”

[joncronshawauthor]

Nobledark: Balancing Grimdark Nihilism and Noble Bright Hope

In the vast landscape of modern fantasy, readers find themselves navigating between two rather extreme realms. Grimdark and Noble Bright. It’s a bit like choosing between spending a weekend in a haunted mansion or at a blissful monastery. Both have their appeal, depending on your taste for misery or calm. But what happens when you want a bit of both? That’s where the delicate balance of…

[theparanoid]

Giant Claw - Deep Thoughts

(2015, full album)

[Progressive Electronic, Utopian Virtual, Modern Classical, Sequencer & Tracker]

[johannestevans]

it's honestly wild talking to like. random liberals about sci fi sometimes because they just don't... think about the ramifications of their random beliefs and what the end points of their ideologies are

"gene roddenberry's vision was that by the time of star trek, earth had moved on from the need for religion!"

and it's like. i get it. you forget that every religion exists except american christianity. or you think that all religion basically is american christianity.

but when you say to me, "hey, in my utopian future, jews and muslims and their cultures have simply been eradicated <3"

that. doesn't strike me as very utopian. it sounds very, funnily enough, christofascist

"it's the 24th century and these lads are literally doing bits from hamlet, but don't worry, jews have ceased to exist"

like there's constant quotes from shakespeare or dickens or conan doyle or countless other authors from the literary canon, and that literary canon is predominantly made up of white male christian authors, most of whom are british or american

and all of the human culture in star trek is predominantly defined by white american christian mores and cultural ideals, slightly modernised, but not by that much

it's a desire to treat an ultra modern culture as inherently homogenous because for a certain kind of xenophobic liberal, they genuinely internalise the idea that multiculturism is the cause of strife and conflict rather than lack of tolerance for other cultures, and frankly, they've never truly been comfortable in any sort of multicultural environment

and it's just. gross. and it's honestly wild to me that people will spend like. days and days thinking of the "ethical ramifications" of their like, transporter clone plot, but won't think for a second, "hey, i've created a world where jews, muslims, sikhs, hindus, buddhists, and countless other religious and ethnic groups No Longer Exist, and that's go-- um. wait a second--"

[schlock-luster-video]

On March 28, 1956, Forbidden Planet debuted in Los Angeles.

[hummingbird-hunter]

The thing is, I have nothing against socialism or communism as a political ideology; trust me, I'm as anti-capitalist as they come. The leftism is really not the problem here.

The problem is when in their leftism, people – Americans, really, and western Europeans – use the ussr as this sort of goal, this complete antithesis to the modern capitalist society, this almost-utopian place to live. They use hammer and sickle symbol, the ussr anthem; sometimes, as a joke, sometimes, not so much.

Not only that clearly shows that they know absolutely nothing about the ussr – it's also spreading russian propaganda, whether it's on purpose or not, which is especially insidious now, when russia is literally committing a genocide.

The ussr wasn't a socialist utopia where everyone is equal. It was a totalitarian dictatorship, responsible for colonisation and genocide of multiple people and cultures. Just like the russian Empire before it. Just like modern russia continues to do now.

For many Eastern European and Central Asian people, hammer and sickle is not just a symbol of a political ideology. It's the symbol, under which people were starved to death, imprisoned or executed for daring to write in their own language; in which cultures were erased, people – forcefully assimilated, stripped of their own national identity.

It's the propaganda of being "the same people, the same nation" that russians love to use; that westerners love to believe, for the sole reason of the oppressed daring to look similar to the oppressor; for the sole reason of Americans being unable to look past their own history and realize oppression comes in many shapes and forms.

By using the ussr symbols in your political movement, you're denying the atrocities commited under that symbol and spreading russian propaganda, whether it's on purpose or not.

It's not "progressive" to wave around a hate symbol.

Do your research.

[apas-95]

As much as the term is misused by reactionaries to mean 'cultural degeneracy', there is in fact such a thing as postmodernism, and it is in fact, like the other ideological currents that become prominent under capitalism, bourgeois in character.

Modernism was the ideological undercurrent of the historical materialist works of Marx, the nationalism of fascists, and the utopianism of the liberals. It was the shared belief held in the early capitalist period that the universe, the world, and human society were all fundamentally knowable and understandable to mortal men. The advance of the sciences and liberal enlightenment philosophy were, genuinely, an incredible and liberatory force in the revolution against the feudal world-system. Only in the capitalist period, with the development of the means and relations of production, could such an understanding of society as Marxism exist - Marxism being, fundamentally, the application of the scientific method to human history in service of the proletariat.

Post-modernism, as an ideological current, was developed in the NATO block following the second world war, though it had been incubating prior, at a much increased rate since the establishment of the first socialist state. It represented a rejection of modernism's 'grand narratives', and an assertion that each and every individual experience was so utterly unique and varied that it was impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about society at large - only about specific people. Post-modernism is not only the basis of the genocidal neoliberal ideology whose economic shock doctrine wracked the global south, but also of a significant portion of 'progressive' ideologies (the similarity, ultimately, of the Margaret Thatcher quote to the belief of the average 'communists are homophobic!' claimant not escaping notice). Fundamentally, it begins its analyses not from the scale of society to progress towards the individual, but from the individual to extrapolate out to society - it is an idealism that reduces all things in society to individual psychological quirks (or disorders, egads).

In the context of a post-modernist system (even world-system), the correct theory (in order to carry out correct practice) will necessarily need to deviate from traditional, modernist thought in some ways. In which ways it must deviate can only be discovered through practice, but we know that it cannot simply absorb elements of postmodernism in an eclectic manner - it must be a genuine synthesis, whose principal purpose is to overcome, annihilate, and replace postmodernist thought (along with the rest of bourgeois thought in general).

[bea-lele-carmen]

I was surprised, as always, by how easy the act of leaving was, and how good it felt. The world was suddenly rich with possibility.

Jack Kerouac, On the Road

Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life Sal, we gotta go and never stop going 'till we get there.' 'Where we going, man?' 'I don't know but we gotta go. But why think about that when all the golden lands ahead of you and all kinds of unforseen events wait lurking to surprise you and make you glad you're alive to see? Jack Kerouac, On the Road

[centi-pedve]

yes that's the bookie

the reason why we find it funny is because utopian socialism/collectivism is associated with a real world historical movement where groups of people managed to establish ACTUAL communities and do ACTUAL shit and while they failed in the end it was a fairly proactive movement unlike basically most other ideologies in reali which have a rich history of dicking around

which makes it funny that the character who shares a name and concept with the ideology is the chill af no problems one. he seems to be crafted from the philosophical concept of inherent human goodness and success in an abstract way more than how it literally came about. but it would be interesting to look at utopian keeping this history in mind

we rlly love utopian cuz his character makes no sense in the context of his ideology and its history. It's really funny to us. Unless there's some alternate more modern form of utopian socialism but that'd be lame

[tanadrin]

The other term we need to know if we want to understand the Shire is “clientelism”, perhaps more commonly refereed to as “patron-client relationships”. This is a social-political structure that emerges organically in many different contexts, and consists of a set of mutual, hierarchical obligations between powerful “patrons” and a network of “clients” who depend on them, economically, socially, or politically. It seems likely, from what we see of the Shire, that clientelism is the main organizing force within Hobbit politics. This would be far from unusual, in this sort of system. To understand this, let’s look at a prototypical example of this; the relationship between the Baggins and the Gamgees. Both Samwise Gamgee and his father, Hamfast Gamgee, are employed by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, but the relationship is clearly far deeper than that. Throughout Lord of the Rings, Frodo treats Sam almost a feudal retainer, not just a person in a employee relationship, but someone who owes personal fealty to him, an attitude clearly reciprocated by Sam. There’s affection, friendship, and even love between them, but in the context of a hierarchical relationship. It’s never in question who “Mister Frodo” is, though it’s clear that this loyalty comes with expectations and obligations. Sam is not a slave, not is he bound by oaths of vassalage, or contract. He is loyal because he is expected to be, and because the Baggins repay loyalty with patronage, both to him, and his family. The Gamgees are likely tenants of the Baggins, or at least dependent on them for access to agricultural capital. They likely send much of their income up to Bag End in rent, and provide services, as gardeners, batmen, valets, traveling companions, etc. They also provide support, in a social and civic sense, as we see. If Frodo had gone to the Free Fair to run for Mayor, the Gamgees and other tenants would have voted for him, and would have accompanied him in public, to demonstrate his status and prestige. But in return for this, they could expect generous gifts on holidays, loans of money on favorable terms, lax enforcement of rental arrears in time of drought and famine, and legal support in disputes. ... For bachelors Bilbo and Frodo, these were personal, individual relationships. But the norm was likely closer to webs of debts, favors, and obligations, traded back and forth between families, cemented by marriage alliances and social ties. We’re told repeatedly that gift-giving and hosting feasts are two of the primary preoccupations of Hobbits. To modern ears, this may come across as utopian, or idyllic, but these sorts of status displays were a key part of many economic and social systems. In many Pacific Northwest Native American tribes, this was known as “potlatch“, and served as both a political and economic system, in which conspicuous displays of generosity were used to denote power and prestige. The Shire clearly has a monetary economy, but gift-giving remains important. The entire first chapter of Lord of the Rings is devoted to Bilbo’s 111st birthday party, which is a huge event that attracts intense attention from across Hobbit society, and involves massive displays of largess, solidifying the Baggins’ social position, and cementing ties with neighboring families and rival clans. Or at least, it would have been, if Bilbo hadn’t had an ulterior motive.

[sylvanus-cypher]

I see a lot of people asking why the Third Committee in Lancer is unambiguously the utopian good guy. In most other settings and worlds, the Third Committee would be the secretly corrupt allegory for postwar Europe, full of dirty secrets and colonial exploitation under its otherwise pristine exterior.

However, by my estimate, it's not an allegory at all; it's a counter to Capitalist Realism. A major problem with most media is that it takes the premises of modern capitalism as a given, that humans are self-interested to a fault and any system or structures that exist are built first and foremost to enrich the people at the top of the pyramid. Even most openly anti-capitalist fantasy and sci-fi settings seem to accept this premise.

Lancer rejects this framing, and I think that's what makes the RPG special. The Third Committee exists under the premise that non-authoritarian democratic systems can exist for the explicit and unambiguous welfare and self-actualization of the people who live in them. The foundation of the Third Committee is not greed or consolidation of power through wealth; in fact, they use a sort of mock currency to engage with diaspora worlds that still use money in order to smoothly transition them into post-monetary societies.

If we had more media like this, more media that acknowledges that humans can build societies not based on the accumulation of power, then maybe it would be easier to imagine a life without capital.

[sharedsystems]

OUT NOW - FREE DOWNLOADS.

“Variations; demos, outtakes and alt versions of tracks that didn't make it onto the final project of THIS PLACE DOES NOT EXIST. Some are unmastered, some are unfinished. That being said, I hope you like them.”

All songs written, recorded and produced by Liam Munday / thisisldm Additional guitars by James Perry on Track 8 Artwork / AI implemented artwork by Shared Systems 有限 Logo by ADW Logo Design