Black Mirror's pessimism porn won't lead us to a better future
185 comments
·April 10, 2025bawolff
moduspol
The part I don't like about it is that the premise is too often:
"Imagine some theoretical technological advancement. Now take it out of context, put it in the worst possible circumstances, and imagine it appeared into a society like ours without any prior thought or discussion about the possible downsides of that technology."
For example: in a society where autonomous security guard robots kill intruders, there would not be people sneaking into warehouses. In a society where people can play back and re-live prior memories, it would not suddenly come up that one can relive experiences with past lovers. In a society where one's consciousness could be contained inside a "cookie," being unexpectedly in a strange place with no explanation would immediately have one questioning whether that's what happened.
It just feels ham-fisted. In their defense, I'm sure it's tough to introduce an entirely new concept and world and sell a brand new story all in the scope of a single episode, but the formula felt a little stale, at least while I was watching it.
mickael-kerjean
> Imagine some theoretical technological advancement. Now take it out of context, put it in the worst possible circumstances, and imagine it appeared into a society like ours without any prior thought or discussion about the possible downsides of that technology
This is precisely why I love Black Mirror. Despite the warnings, we're allowing companies to build killer robot and are running a large scale experiment to build a god. For a long time, I thought ethics is what prevented us from cloning human but recent years are showing balance sheet will outweigh it. As Netflix is 99.9% garbage, watching something like Black Mirror is refreshing
moduspol
We always have moved forward technologically despite doomers. They were there for first person shooter games, the Internet in general, dating apps, etc.
That’s not to say those things didn’t have significant downsides. They do. But it took years to get there and they weren’t an overnight surprise, like they seem to be in the Black Mirror episodes I saw.
Imagine what a few Black Mirror episodes would look like if they were made in the 50s or 60s about some technology we have today. It’d be silly. Our culture and values have changed so much since then over time as the technology came about.
MichaelDickens
> Despite the warnings, we're allowing companies to build killer robot and are running a large scale experiment to build a god.
I am doing everything I can think of to stop AI companies from building a god (to borrow your words). Last year and this year I've donated five figures to nonprofits that are trying to slow down AI development. I write letters to legislators whenever the opportunity arises — I wrote a letter to Gavin Newsom urging him to support SB-1047, which unfortunately he did not do; also wrote a letter to Scott Weiner offering support and encouraging him to keep trying.
You could do the same. I'm not confident about what's the best thing to do and I think the things I've done probably didn't help, but they are worth trying anyway.
throw0101d
> […] and imagine it appeared into a society like ours without any prior thought or discussion about the possible downsides of that technology."
Which is basically how most technologies appear{s,ed} in society: without prior thought / discussion.
There's certainly a lot of talk while it's being rolled out, but rarely prior.
> For example: in a society where autonomous security guard robots kill intruders, there would not be people sneaking into warehouses.
People do crime because they think† they can get away with it, because if you knew that you'd probably get caught why would you do it in the first place? How many people purposefully do crime in order to get caught?
In your specific example people will think they've figured out a way to get past the automated system. (Not even getting into the fact that in some jurisdictions it's illegal to set traps, e.g., Canada Criminal Code §247.)
† When they think at all, and it's not just a heat / spur-of-the-moment action (often when drunk).
moduspol
> Which is basically how most technologies appear{s,ed} in society: without prior thought / discussion.
> There's certainly a lot of talk while it's being rolled out, but rarely prior.
This is a semantic argument about timing. One could argue the Internet is still "being rolled out" today, but it's certainly widely available and we've had decades to reflect on its impact on society. It's not like the Internet was suddenly thrust on 1950s Mississippi and nobody considered that hackers might exist until everyone was on it.
The point is that some of the basic questions posed by the show would have been asked, answered, and accounted-for by society long before they seem to be in the societies depicted in the show.
> People do crime because they think they can get away with it, because if you knew that you'd probably get caught why would you do it in the first place?
It's not a binary decision. Of course you don't do it if you think you will be caught, but the likelihood of being caught and the consequences if you do are also significant factors in the decision.
If people were executed for stealing candy bars from convenience stores, we'd have a lot fewer people stealing, even if we put the same effort into catching them as we do now.
anigbrowl
For example: in a society where autonomous security guard robots kill intruders, there would not be people sneaking into warehouses.
We have a society (in the US) where cops often shoot first and ask questions later, but many people still do crimes. People will take risks about things that desperately matter to them, and indeed stories of such risk-taking are common cultural fodder. Are you not just generalizing from your own behavior?
parineum
> We have a society (in the US) where cops often shoot first and ask questions later, but many people still do crimes.
Often?
The reason they still commit crimes is there's fairly good chances they won't get caught and even better chances they won't get shot.
On the other hand, how often are people robbing places with hired security? Robot dog security is just security escalated.
casey2
No. You are just generalizing from specific news stories you've read about cops.
SpicyLemonZest
> In a society where people can play back and re-live prior memories, it would not suddenly come up that one can relive experiences with past lovers.
I think this episode was one of Black Mirror's strongest, because not only would it suddenly come up, it does to a lesser degree with the technology we have today. I've been the guy obsessively replaying painful memories from old photos I have. I don't think it was really presented as though the characters are the first ones to ever think of the idea.
Denzel
Correct. Kinda like it suddenly came up when Facebook started showing memories of dead friends and relatives to people that didn't want it nor enjoyed it. There's many instances of humanity plowing headfirst into some technology thinking "this will be great!" only to haphazardly run into the unanticipated not-so-great parts.
Not to mention there's literally people creating tech out here _today_ that's recreating _exactly_ what some Black Mirror episodes were talking about years ago. Like interactive chatbots model after dead people from voice samples, videos, and messages.
johnisgood
I liked "Crocodile" too, if I remember the name correctly. The other one that got to me was the one with the two astronauts. It raised a lot of ethical / moral dilemmas in me.
makeitdouble
> without any prior thought or discussion about the possible downsides
In BM's defense, I think it needs to be that way to a point, to have the viewer react and acknowledge these downsides within their current frame of reference.
It can be hard to swallow both a world that has evolved for 10~20 years, and also think about a whole new paradigm that matches that unfamiliar world.
euroderf
> Imagine some theoretical technological advancement. Now take it out of context, put it in the worst possible circumstances, and imagine it appeared into a society like ours without any prior thought or discussion about the possible downsides of that technology.
Isn't this the premise for the original Terminator ? Sure it was "unnecessarily" pessimistic, but man oh man it really hit a nerve and it set a tone for (all?) subsequent societal conversation.
null
ModernMech
"Imagine some theoretical technological advancement. Now take it out of context, put it in the worst possible circumstances, and imagine it appeared into a society like ours without any prior thought or discussion about the possible downsides of that technology.... It just feels ham-fisted."
So like exactly what is happening with driverless car technology.
A technology that was in its infancy in lab settings; taken out of that context and thrust upon our public roads by capricious impulsive billionaires in "beta" form, which has predictably killed people; but instead of pulling back and having a discussion about the possible downsides, this technology is allowed to plague us; because thought or discussion about possible downsides are short circuited by platitudes about how you have to crack eggs to make an omelet.
Can't get a driverless car future free of car deaths without first killing some people with driverless cars, ya know?
FridgeSeal
Black Mirror got way less nuanced after Netflix picked it up.
“Nosedive” was the most surface-level take of that idea, the “pain chip” episode was basically just shock-value, the “trapped in the weird guys computer simulation” episode was “Whiteout” but derivative. The killer robot bees episode was…an episode of tv I guess?
Possibly it’s a format that just inevitably “wears thin” quite quickly, but it did feel like the early episodes had far more “existential dread” and interesting-exploration about them.
throw310822
Exactly. The first two seasons were mostly a dark humour satire of our times and obsessions rather than a grim depiction of possible futures. The first episode is not even SF like also "the Waldo moment". 15 million merits is a metaphor that is not taking place in any real future.
It got much more commercial and literal after that.
rottc0dd
It's not necessary for a work of fiction to focus on diverse and realistic characters, particularly when its primary aim is to critique a specific aspect of technology. In such cases, characters often function as just means to highlight and amplify that central theme.
Take 1984. It reads like a thought experiment reflecting the author's deepest fears about the dangers of unchecked power structures. Allegedly, Orwell’s own son would have been around 40 years old in the year 1984 (I read so in Pynchon's introduction to this book in Penguin's edition. It was a great essay.)
But, 1984 also features a great protagonist and an absolutely haunting language. While many of the other characters mainly serve to convey the broader ideas, it’s him who grounds the story emotionally. His suffering, his moral collapse, and the eventual loss of his ability was so tough to read and will forever haunt me. When he breaks, it feels like a loss for all of humanity. But, what I mean is characters are not essential to make a great work. When Orwell wants to convey his ideas, the characters are sidelined and ideas take the front wheel.
I understand your perspective. I'm not a fan of many of the episodes either. I really liked the first season, but the ones that followed just didn’t live up to it. And it does not rise above a horror centered around some particular technology. But, it's them give it cultural relevance.
lolinder
> But, 1984 also features a great protagonist and an absolutely haunting language. While many of the other characters mainly serve to convey the broader ideas, it’s him who grounds the story emotionally. His suffering, his moral collapse, and the eventual loss of his ability was so tough to read and will forever haunt me. When he breaks, it feels like a loss for all of humanity. But, what I mean is characters are not essential to make a great work. When Orwell wants to convey his ideas, the characters are sidelined and ideas take the front wheel.
This paragraph goes one way and then suddenly pivots to the opposite conclusion without any justification. Orwell's character is why the story is wrenching. Without that emotional weight it has no staying power.
rottc0dd
I kind of think both are true. I will remember Winston as great thinker who is extremely aware his world. And the tragedy or death of him is death of his awareness. His ability to think. In all the protagonist I have seen in tragedies, he is peculiar. While reviewing one another writer's work, Orwell said
> ‘... was a bad writer, and some inner trouble, sharpening his sensitiveness, nearly made him into a good one; his discontent healed itself, and he reverted to type. It is worth pausing to wonder in just what form the thing is happening to oneself.’
In the first act, the writing was so cold and I could not feel any connection to Winston. Even, when getting intimate with Julia, he is thinking,
> In the old days, he thought, a man looked at a girl’s body and saw that it was desirable, and that was the end of the story. But you could not have pure love or pure lust nowadays. No emotion was pure, because everything was mixed up with fear and hatred. Their embrace had been a battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act.
I don't know when I started to feel things and empathize with him so much. When you think about circumstances and how he feels, he is cold as it gets, always scheming.
And in the most hopeful time of his life, he say these
> ‘We are the dead,’ he said.
> ‘We’re not dead yet,’ said Julia prosaically.
> ‘Not physically. Six months, a year – five years, conceivably. I am afraid of death. You are young, so presumably you’re more afraid of it than I am. Obviously we shall put it off as long as we can. But it makes very little difference. So long as human beings stay human, death and life are the same thing.’
But, when you think of an inner life, he has one of the richest and rare ones. We empathize with that, and when crystal ball falls, it was the most tragic thing I have experienced. I think, genius of Orwell is that he made the character and the idea indistinguishable.
wyldfire
I enjoyed several episodes, some more than others. "San Junipero" is one of the better ones IMO and IIRC it's a good bit more upbeat than the others.
Tronno
Not very upbeat actually. The episode drops several reminders that the simulated people can't die, by accident or choice. After they tire of life, they are trapped in an eternity of boredom and madness.
handoflixue
There's explicitly a conversation of "fine, not forever then - however long you like. You can always choose to leave."
wyldfire
I guess it wouldn't be black mirror without some technophobia. But it seems like I didn't imagine it [1]:
> The episode received critical acclaim, with particular praise for Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances, its plot twist, its visual style, and its uplifting tone, which is atypical for the series.
intrasight
The only episode I really enjoyed.
onionisafruit
Slight correction, Black Mirror copied Community’s MeowMeowBeenz, not the other way around.
addicted
The part you’re misunderstanding about black mirror is that it’s about how technology will strip the humanity out of people.
Also, the name of the show is BLACK mirror. Besides the iPhone symbolism by which the name is inspired, the whole point of the show is to hold up a mirror to the dark side of society.
This may lead to a show that is without nuance or is less interesting, but thats the point of the show.
lolinder
Every conversation about art runs into this problem: you can't criticize art without someone saying that the critic simply doesn't understand the art. Maybe in some cases this is true, but I don't think that's what's happening here. It seems pretty clear that OP understands Black Mirror's point perfectly and still thinks that unrelenting pessimism devoid of nuance is a bad point—they understand what the art is saying and don't like it.
bawolff
I understand that is the goal. I just don't think it succeeds.
To show darkness you have to have light. You can't cast a shadow if its pitch black.
In terms of black mirror, they show a society devoid of humanity, true. But in most episodes (there are probably some exceptions) it feels like the lack of humanity is not because of technology, but because the world of the show is populated by monsters. As a result, it doesn't effectively show the dehumanizing power of technology.
When watching an episode - ask yourself, would these characters still do monsterous things without the tech premise? If the answer is yes, then its not really about the tech.
filoeleven
> it feels like the lack of humanity is not because of technology, but because the world of the show is populated by monsters.
But...that's always been the case. Technology is a tool, and a tool is neither good nor evil; it's how you choose to use it. That gets repeated here all the time. Tech grants powers to people that we didn't have before, so people with a propensity to perpetrate evil can do it at efficiently at scale. The same goes for people who want to do good but aren't aware of the consequences of their actions. We can learn a lot more from the failure cases than the happy path, and it makes for more entertaining stories.
anyfoo
That may or may not be the case, but either way it's still valid to criticize that approach, in favor of a more nuanced and potentially more effective one.
Like, maybe that's the show the creators wanted to make. I'm not certain about that, but it's a valid premise. But then maybe I would prefer if the show was a bit different regardless of that. That's always allowed.
beAbU
I re-watched Community probably 5 times by now. It's one of my favourite television series in spite of it's flaws.
Sometimes I feel like Community is a more subtle Black Mirror than what we give it credit for. The writers came up with the weirdest ideas, and they just threw these at this world they created in Community to see what came out. /Everyone/ in that story finds themselves at Greendale because of some less-than-optimal circumstance, and the only thing they can do is react to the circumstances given to them.
Meow meow beans is a stand-out episode because it takes the absurdity of a social credit system all they way beyond the vale and straight to it's natural conclusion, where common sense failed to step in and take control.
radioactivist
Small correction: The meow meow beans episode of Community aired in 2014 and the Nosedive episode of Black Mirror aired 2016. So the Community episode came first.
ViktorRay
I disagree with the premise of this article.
Sometimes an extremely pessimistic vision of a possible future CAN change things...by making it so people are determined to fight to prevent that possible future from ever happening.
The novel 1984 by George Orwell was published in 1948. It is an extremely pessimistic vision of a possible future for mankind....and many of us over the generations who read it really really did not want to live in such a future and acted accordingly.
Black Mirror's pessimism could be similar.
Also in Black Mirror technology in of itself is never portrayed as inherently bad in any episode. It is the people and the way they choose to use the technology that leads to the horror. In that way every Black Mirror episode has that element of optimism. If only each new piece of tech in reality could ever be introduced so we maximize the positives rather than the negatives.
dataviz1000
"The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair published in 1906 described an extremely pessimistic vision of the exploitation of the American factory worker. The descriptions of the meat packing industry in the book led to passing of the Meat Inspection Act. Sinclair was frustrated that most people were more concerned about eating bovine tuberculosis infected beef than the exploitation of people, but, nonetheless, it was pessimistic novel which lead to positive action.
epolanski
Me too I also dislike the cherry picked and wrongly built narrative, see the nuclear one.
> In contrast, France ran from the past towards the future, overcoming public fears of nuclear disasters, now getting 70% of its electricity from nuclear power.
France has put a single reactor online in the last 25 years, it has closed reactors and cancelled building new ones for some time.
The problem has always been financial with other sources becoming simply cheaper, more competitive and easier/quicker to put online.
kelseyfrog
To be fair, the reason behind this was the arguably poor decision decades ago to overbuild reactor capacity.
epolanski
France sells energy to it's neighbors.
rufus_foreman
>> many of us over the generations who read it really really did not want to live in such a future
You live in exactly that future.
The screens that you watch, watch you. You can't escape them in your own home, let alone in public.
Words are redefined by the elite at their whim, as they were in the novel.
Very few would dare to publicly align themselves with the nation which we have always been at war with.
You live in that world now.
int_19h
If we did, you wouldn't be able to post this comment.
null
alabastervlog
I wonder if any ancient Greeks leveled this same criticism at Aesop’s Fables.
Animats
It's not that Black Mirror is bad. It's that, as the article points out, we don't have a fictional vision of the future to use as a goal.
The author mentions Jill Lapore's 2017 article in the New Yorker, which is sort of a survey paper of dystopian fiction from that period.[1] No alternatives are presented.
For most of human history, the big problem was making enough stuff. There just wasn't any way to make enough stuff for everybody. In the 20th century, high volume manufacturing got going. By the 1950s, the US had this totally worked out. At long last, society really could make enough stuff for everybody. Science fiction of the 1950s is mostly utopian. With scarcity conquered, the future looked bright.
But it didn't work out.
Think about why for a while. I'll wait.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/05/a-golden-age-f...
noufalibrahim
I remember an article, I think by Neal Stephenson, that described the change in the attitude of SF over the years. Things like 20000 leagues under the sea, off on a comet etc. were optimistic, adventurous and generally upbeat. Even the Asimov books were more about world building than doomsaying. There's quite a bit of dystopian pessimistic stuff that's in the market now and perhaps it's just because it's what sells or maybe there's a deeper underlying reason. In any case, the shift was something he talked about in the article/talk.
I remember reading round the world in 80 days when I was a kid and while it's not really "science fiction" in the 90s, the overall premise really triggered my imagination. Can't really say that for many of the more doom and gloom type stories that I read later in my adult life. I liked the freshness of Black Mirror when it first came out (pre Netflix) but then it dawned on me that it was mostly doomscrolling repackaged and converted into slick entertainment. I tuned out after that.
Animats
The dystopian era of SF movies started in 1972 with Silent Running.[1] That was the first "grubby future" Hollywood movie, and is an obscure but notable milestone in cinema history.
There was early dystopian SF. H.G. Wells' The Time Machine ends with a dystopia. E. M. Foester's The Machine Stops (1909) was way, way ahead of its time.
Vashti’s next move was to turn off the isolation switch, and all the accumulations of the last three minutes burst upon her. The room was filled with the noise of bells, and speaking-tubes. What was the new food like? Could she recommend it? Has she had any ideas lately? Might one tell her one’s own ideas? Would she make an engagement to visit the public nurseries at an early date? — say this day month.
To most of these questions she replied with irritation — a growing quality in that accelerated age. She said that the new food was horrible. That she could not visit the public nurseries through press of engagements. That she had no ideas of her own but had just been told one-that four stars and three in the middle were like a man: she doubted there was much in it. Then she switched off her correspondents, for it was time to deliver her lecture on Australian music.
The clumsy system of public gatherings had been long since abandoned; neither Vashti nor her audience stirred from their rooms. Seated in her armchair she spoke, while they in their armchairs heard her, fairly well, and saw her, fairly well. She opened with a humorous account of music in the pre-Mongolian epoch, and went on to describe the great outburst of song that followed the Chinese conquest. Remote and primæval as were the methods of I-San-So and the Brisbane school, she yet felt (she said) that study of them might repay the musicians of today: they had freshness; they had, above all, ideas. Her lecture, which lasted ten minutes, was well received, and at its conclusion she and many of her audience listened to a lecture on the sea; there were ideas to be got from the sea; the speaker had donned a respirator and visited it lately. Then she fed, talked to many friends, had a bath, talked again, and summoned her bed.
Social media. 1909.
physicsguy
There's the whole 'solarpunk' genre of fiction that I'd say is more optimistic. Epitomised by stuff like Becky Chamber's books 'A Psalm for the Wild Built' and 'A Prayer for the Crown Shy' (which are both excellent by the way).
noufalibrahim
Thank you for the recommendation. I haven't read much solarpunk. Cyberpunk is too dystopian for me. Steampunk, I like the aesthetic but I don't think I've read much literature in that genre except the difference engine.
ViktorRay
I think Neal Stephenson had it backwards. The utopian science fiction comes second and is more of a reaction against the pessimistic dystopian science fiction.
Frankenstein is considered by many to be among the first science fiction books and is essentially a Black Mirror story from the 1800's. You had HG Wells and War of the Worlds for example. The Time Machine by HG Wells also portrays a possible negative vision for humanity based on an extrapolation of the social trends of the time.
Look at Asimov's robot stories. The orignal "robot" story was not from Asimov but a pessimistic story written in the 1920's about killer robots attacking people and being violent and all that. Asimov's optimistic peaceful robot stories were actually a reaction to the pessmistic violent robot stories that had been popular previously.
I think humans generally over the past few centuries have had uneasy feelings about technological changes and then that is reflected in dystopian, negative fiction. People react to that negativity by intentionally writing bright optimistic positive science fiction stories.
Look at Star Trek the Original Series for my final example. That tv show came out during the turmoil of the late 1960's and it responded to that turmoil and feelings of nuclear holocaust with a vision of the future that was filled with optimism and idealism.
GeoAtreides
>we don't have a fictional vision of the future to use as a goal.
yes we do, it's called The Culture by Iain M Banks.
It's a series of books, and it's not easy-web-novels reading, so in the grand scheme of things is pretty niche
weregiraffe
Yeah, The Culture, where the real powers are AI. Very niche, just as Yudkowski...
HelloMcFly
Optimistic scifi properties:
* The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet by Becky Chambers (+ sequels)
* Monk & Robot by Becky Chambers (+ sequel)
* Most of, but not all of, Star Trek. This is getting infected with cynicism in some places, but still largely optimistic about a utopian future.
* The Martian by Andy Weir
* For All Mankind on Apple TV+
* Arrival movie
That's what I can think of since the 90s. Doubt it's a complete list, but really Becky Chambers is the optimistic voice in the domain, primarily since she focuses her works on interpersonal vs. galactic or societal dynamics.
GeoAtreides
you can always split away from the Culture and go on without the Minds, if you so desire.
Animats
That's a long way off.
What's going to be interesting near term is when AI management outperforms human management. The dynamics of capitalism then demand that AI be in charge. Marshall Brain's "Manna" is the classic in this area.
uxcolumbo
We do, it's called Star Trek - The Next Generation.
xg15
> [During Covid] In a moment when screens kept us connected, protected and employed, the reductiveness of dystopian science fiction felt silly. Biotechnology like GMOs and mRNA offered existential hope, rather than risk.
He can thank Elon & the Tech Lords for bringing the public perception of tech right back into dystopian nightmare territory.
But even apart from that, this seems like an extremely selective recollection of the Covid era. Yes, technology was a livesaver during that time, and we all were using it in frequency and to a degree like never before. (And indeed even that time brought lasting new "skills" which offer genuine new possibilities, like the new casualness and ubiquity of online meetings)
But I also remember that tech didn't actually feel very empowering during, on the contrary: Suddenly being online changed from something fun and interesting to mandatory: You had to be online, even for the things you'd much rather do offline. What been an extension of possibilities before now became a constraint. This definitely made it feel much more dystopian than before.
> We must move away from binary tales of catastrophe, not towards naive utopianism that ignores problems and risks that comes with change, but hopeful solutionism that reminds us we can solve and mitigate them [...]
I think this misunderstands the reasons why people are wary of new technology and instead pulls up the old "Luddite" strawman (which was itself a misrepresentation).
Of course we could introduce new tech carefully and with a strong emphasis of identifying and mitigating the risks. The problem is that we won't do that, because the incentives point into the opposite direction. Companies don't want to fall behind, so they move fast and break things instead of being careful. The general population then finds themselves as guinea pigs in barely tested new technology with little power to actually influence the course this technology takes. This causes a feeling of helplessness and resentment.
runjake
Black Mirror is dystopian fiction that hits pretty close to home. Maybe too close to home.
S07E01 "Common People" hit me pretty close to home with my own healthcare insurance experiences, where my rates go up every year and my coverages go down, and things that were formerly covered are now covered in Plus/Premium add-on packages. We also see this streaming and cellular services, except those are more elective.
The way I see it, if you don't like it, too bad.
darth_avocado
Yeah but toxic optimism won’t lead us to a better future either. We need optimists to work towards a better society and pessimists to keep them in check when they are being naive to a fault. Optimists built the nukes, pessimists keep us from using them.
anyfoo
While I don't fully agree with the article, I really like this sketch about "Black Mirror in medieval times": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1aSqZ23ydk
It does show rather well (and rather funnily) how it can be a fine line between warning about technology, and taking it too cynically.
simpaticoder
Thanks for the link - that was great. Yeah, with some exceptions (15 million merits being one, given that it's pure allegory) the show seems to ask, "given some new technology, what is the cruelest most horrifying situation in which it could be used?" This basic premise can indeed be applied to anything, past or present. Personally I'd take the automobile, call the episode "Meat Grinder," reference the ~30k deaths/year in the US from car accidents, noting the ambivalence of literally everyone to that fact.
ckw
This is a great idea. Like a 1905 person’s weird vision of the 1950s— getting a bunch of things wildly wrong, like fashion and geopolitics, but strangely accurately describing a fledgling attempt to mandate ‘seat belts’ and criminalize drunk driving, so as to diminish the tens of thousands of preventable traffic deaths yearly, against the lobbying efforts of industry and the insouciance (and even outright opposition) of the public.
intrasight
Every weapon ever devised by humankind has been used
schiffern
I must have missed the time we used tungsten telephone poles and cobalt bombs?
weinzierl
"Absent is the plot twist of Pandora’s box that made it philosophically useful: the box also contained hope and opportunity that new knowledge brings."
Yes, add that and it might be something interesting but sure not the Black Mirror I want to watch. I mean it is called Black Mirror for a reason.
And it is not even true. Take the episode "San Junipro" for example? Isn't there some hope and opportunity in it? And yet, this episode (one of the best in my opinion) only works because the hope can shine against a black background.
bawolff
> Take the episode "San Junipro" for example? Isn't there some hope and opportunity in it? And yet, this episode (one of the best in my opinion) only works because the hope can shine against a black background.
Arguably though that episode is a bit of an outlier. I think its the most hopeful (relatively speaking) of all the black mirror episodes i've seen.
dexwiz
I dunno about you, but I don't care about a computer program that believes it's me living on after I die. You can wrap it with all the feel good trappings you want, that set of bits is not you. If anything, living a life in a way that you put off doing the fun things until the after life, spiritual or digital, sounds awful.
alabastervlog
The end shows us the entirety of anything real happening: it’s a modern day pharaoh’s tomb. Nothing’s alive, just pantomiming at life. Hieroglyphs and organs in jars, but even less human.
What you see is the only real thing. Caretaker machines swapping hard drives or whatever it is they were doing (it’s been a while since I watched it)
That’s why it shows us that, when it does.
disconcision
i think it's both, and more. i didn't read the ending as particularly opinionated about how 'real' the depicted emulation was, though i do think it had a decidedly hopeful tinge. the idea that we might somehow, in some way get the opportunity to do it over, to do it right, even if weird/contingent/incomplete, has i think a mythic resonance that transcends strict bounds of realism. even in a fully fantastic utopian afterlife unmediated by technology there would still be the question of whether this is 'really real': ontological, psychologically, etc. nonetheless, there are levels of unreality many seem willing to accept, the ending of 'inception' being another paradigmatic film example. i guess my perspective is that many aspects of 'real life' also abut artifice and pantomime (a phenomena not unrelated to the feelings of regret inspiring desire for strictly-impossible second chances), and the decision to accept anything as 'real' is always contains an element of tenuousness, uncertainty, and faith.
goatlover
I disagree, because they show the characters inside the computer simulation experiencing the world. They're conscious beings, and there's a big fight between the two main characters related to that existence, with both deciding to mind upload at the end for starting a new life together. You might disagree that simulated characters can ever be conscious in the real world, but there's plenty of fictional stories where the simulated characters are conscious, this being one of them.
As such, it doesn't matter what the substrate is for this story. The technology allows a kind of conscious life after death where people can choose to live life differently than they previously did.
thesongtho
It ends with the song "Heaven on Earth" with no distortions or long fade out.
The final scene has, imo, no inherent negative connotation. It seems intended as an hopeful outcome.
jstanley
> You can wrap it with all the feel good trappings you want, that set of bits is not you.
If there's a continuity of experience from your present day life to your virtual life, if the virtual version shares all your memories, hopes, fears, thought patterns... Then in what way is it not you?
Do you also think that "reconstructive teleporting" would build another person but that person would not be you?
mrguyorama
>If there's a continuity of experience from your present day life to your virtual life
There cannot be. There isn't even a continuity of experience for when you go to sleep.
It doesn't matter at all how perfect the copy is, because I STILL AM ME.
Brain uploading has never made sense because, well, I can't fit in the wires.
It doesn't matter that some digital simulation of my brain activity happens, and that the simulation feels like it was me and now is an immortal simulation, because I still die. My consciousness cannot be transported to software.
dexwiz
I don't like teleportation that much either. But at least there is meat on the other end. Uploading is an entirely different mode of existence.
nullc
> I dunno about you, but I don't care about a computer program that believes it's me living on after I die.
1% of your cells are replaced daily. Presumably you still believe you're you even though much of you is constantly being replaced. If it were an option would you really deny your future self an arbitrarily long happy life because you got hung up on Theseus's Paradox?
dexwiz
I don't remember the part of that scenario where a scan is taken of the ship and uploaded to a server.
I long ago accepted that my image of self is a sort of illusion. That things I consider other, like microbes in my gut, constitute a large portion of me. And I change over time. Even the memories I have are copies of copies.
But all that happens in a continuity. Being uploaded is a stark difference and a disconnect that I cannot philosophically reconcile.
anon-3988
Arguably the only "you" that exists is the "you" right now. For how can you show that you are not in vat? Prove that yesterday was real? Even if a second ago was real?
dexwiz
Of course the only me that exists is right now. In no feasible reality would I ever shake hands with me from yesterday or me in the vat. Nor would I ever shake hands with me in a robot, just a robot that thinks it's me. Even if those other entities exist they are not me.
weregiraffe
>computer program that believes it's me
So, a computer program can believe?
taneq
Iirc Pandora’s Box explicitly contained the opposite of hope. The last demon which she kept trapped inside it was “foreknowledge” and the only reason humanity was able to continue was that without knowing the future, we were able to have hope.
jfengel
A friend of mine curated Black Mirror for me. I've got a lot tolerance for horror.
She showed me San Junipero and Hang the DJ. And then we were done.
jhbadger
Eh, Black Mirror is basically just a 21st century version of The Twilight Zone only with the Cold War fears replaced with modern ones. But still, TZ wasn't all doom and gloom but found the time to be optimistic now and then.
alganet
Humans need some level of paranoia, mistrust and waryness of new technology in the same way electrical circuits need circuit breakers and ships need life boats.
Pessimism saves lives and resources. It won't lead us to a better future, but it might save what does.
Furthermore, for many of us, we are already in a state of technological mindfuckery beyond Black Mirror levels. Black Mirror sounds like a fairy tale.
We need humans, kind humans that are not fools. That's very hard to make. Without that any future, technological or not, is bleak.
9283409232
Trying to replace everyone with AI and actively build a surveillance state also won't lead us to a better future. They say Black Mirror is dystopian but I would say we are on the dystopian timeline so it is just emulating reality a few years into the future.
silvaring
Thats why we need a strong open source competitor to closed source AI.
9283409232
Open source AI won't change what I'm referring to. Open source or closed source AI leads to the same thing.
bigyabai
When did it promise that it would? I feel like people reject these stories not because they're counterproductive, but because they frighten them. We feel so personally and viciously attacked by modern narratives because they question everyday concepts and routines we're all comfortable with.
I'm reminded of growing up watching episodes of Twilight Zone and Star Trek that yes, were kitschy stories, but instilled lifelong lessons about independence in their audience. Black Mirror isn't my favorite show but it seems to resemble the same "near future cautionary tale" archetype that has remained popular for centuries.
api
Unrelenting pessimism without nuance is no more profound than unrelenting optimism without nuance, but it comes off as “deeper” and more “sophisticated” because of human negativity bias.
Dark, pessimistic, sad, tragic things seem superficially more profound for the same reason that people slow down when they pass a car wreck and true crime shows about serial killers are popular.
We are this way because it probably had evolutionary survival value. “If you mistake a bush for a lion you’re fine, but if you mistake a lion for a bush you’re dead.”
Huh, i guess i both agree and disagree with this article.
I disagree that black mirror has to save the world. Art doesn't have to literally save the world to be useful, it just has to add to the conversation. The fact we are talking about it proves that it has.
On the other hand, i've never really liked black mirror that much. It feels polemical to me. Its unrelenting pessimism robs it of nuance, which makes it feel flat to me. To be clear it doesn't have to be happy, it can still be grim and dark, but when every character is a terrible character, it undermines the story
Take the episode "nosedive" where everyone is obsessed with social media ratings. Compare it to other people who copied it (meow meow beans in community, or majority rule in the orvile). I think the other tv shows did it better and honestly made technology look worse, because they had characters that weren't cartoon villians.
Maybe the part i don't like about black mirror is not that it showd technology stripping people of their hummanity but that all its characters already lack humanity so there is nothing to strip, which is kind of boring.