A new progressivism, one that embraces construction over obstruction, must find new allegories to think about technology and the future
Black Mirror fails to consistently explore the duality of technology and our reactions to it. It is a critical deficit. The show mimics the folly of Icarus and Daedalus – the original tech bros – and the hubris of Jurassic Park’s Dr Hammond. Missing are the lessons of the Prometheus myth, which shows fire as a boon for humanity, not doom, though its democratization angered benevolent gods. 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. While Black Mirror explores how humans react to technology, it too often does so in service of a dystopian narrative, ignoring Isaac Asimov’s observation: that humans are prone to irrationally fear or resist technology.
It definitely reads like a criticism of Black Mirror to me
Black Mirror didn’t fail to do those things, it wasn’t interested in them
The issue I’m taking is with:
I don’t think he’s trying to “improve the show.” He’s saying the same thing you are, that he just doesn’t think Black Mirror is a good show.
If he’s not arguing to improve it, he’s arguing that it shouldn’t exist at all, which is worse.
I don’t like Black Mirror, but I would never say that there’s no place for it. It obviously resonated with a lot of people, and it was probably an entry into the genre for a lot of new sci-fi fans. Very ‘Old Man Yells At Cloud’
It is possible to dislike something without believing it should be erased from existence. This is really extreme black-and-white thinking that isn’t remotely realistic.