>>
It always bothered me that Sci-Fi writers always set the dates on their super futuristic stories around a century into the future. It immediately made me think the writers lacked considerable perspective on anthropological development. Set your shit in the year 12013, aka, long x5 after conscious beings counted years from the absurdly arbitrary mythical year one as agreed upon and revised all those times, and everything that exists today and entire world populations that have risen and collapsed in between has long since been lost and forgotten and given a shit about. That's the inevitability of the future. I mean, it's only 10k years down the road, a relative sliver of time on any timeline outside the puny scale of an individual humans lifetime. Setting your crap crap a century into the future is so close, why even say you're setting it in the future at all? Might as well just say it's all taking place in Japan or Europe, present day. But I suppose, since Sci-Fi always seems to boil down to the superiority and awesomeness of humanity, while simultaneously showing how perfectly balanced our present animalistic barbarism is with our stunning intellect... setting it in the future would mean presenting humans so vastly different than what we're all conditioned to accept as the model virtuous human today, audiences wouldn't be able to tell "good" an "evil" apart which is apparently really what they want.
Maybe I'm just jaded because Arthur C Clark set some realistic expectations with 2001, but as humanity began to stand on its own two feet, it paused about halfway up in about 1972, sat back down, shit down its own neck, fell out of its chair and laid there on the floor pissing all over itself ever since.
]
[
class /
co /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w /
zom
]
[
a /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
wp /
x
]
[
be /
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fag /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sm /
ss /
unf /
v
]