Four Kinds of Dystopia
An interesting and thorough categorization, but I take issue with the defeatism inherent in the concept.<p>When the author says &quot;I would like to suggest that all modern societies are both Kafkaesque and Phildickian with either a Huxleyan or Orwellian overarching framework; modern, western, capitalist societies tend to be basically Huxleyan (HKP) and pre-modern, eastern, communist countries tend to be basically Orwellian (OKP),&quot; that is a premature conclusion, and one that  should be challenged.<p>Yes, many societies have aspects of various kinds of dystopias. Does that mean all those societies <i>are</i> dystopias, or that all technology which may enable certain kinds of dystopia is inherently bad? Further, are all forms of life which involve being an active participant in one&#x27;s society or culture so necessarily just a way of explaining away one&#x27;s participation in a dystopia?<p>When we start categorizing the United States, for instance, as Phildickian-Huxlian-etc., we&#x27;re doing so without answering the bigger question: Is the modern US a dystopia? Why or why not? If not, is it becoming more like one, and if that is so, what can we do to stop it?<p>I think the author is using the term &quot;dystopia&quot; to describe &quot;flawed modern societies,&quot; which is not really what it means. I&#x27;d be curious to know what the author thinks an ideal human life <i>ought</i> to look like.