Dystopian fiction is fun, but dystopias rarely come about. Even the Dark Ages weren't so 'dark'. Dystopias, when they occur, do tend to be regional in nature, and often (though not always) occur for short periods of time. The future is almost always brighter than the past, which may be why dystopian fiction is popular, particularly among sci-fi fanatics. The fear of a frightening future most likely prevents it, or should prevent it. Always expecting things to be good and wonderful can create a society of Pollyannas. Of course, it also creates Cassandras.
The one thing that worries me, more than anything else, is a decline in standards. I don't mean a decline in standards of general behaviors. There is politeness in good society and there is excessive or unnecessary politeness. Miss Manners was never my friend.
I'm referring to standards of right and wrong. Too often, we choose people as role models of what is good and just. I used to do that, but have not for many years now. I trust no politicians, even those I like or prefer. Athletes, celebrities, businesspeople, all exist in a pantheon of model humans. None for me. I will admire individual traits, and focus on those. No whole person is perfect, and we can't really expect them to be. That inability to have a perfect role model (for what it's worth, I'm not including Jesus here, though certainly He is a great starting point) creates misunderstandings about what is good and bad in humanity.
When right and wrong become fungible, as it seems they slowly are, we need to worry. When 60% of Millenials surveyed don't distinguish between right and wrong, it's time to start discussing what we're teaching our kids.
Long ago, I attended a 'witch trial' in Williamsburg. The judge asked the audience to vote as if they lived in the 1600s and knew only what those people knew. Was she a witch? I raised my hand yes. I knew it was wrong, using modern knowledge, to vote this way - but I'd been instructed to think as they did. I was rather shocked how many people did not raise their hand. She clearly was a witch. Does this mean between that trial in the 1600s and today what is right and what is wrong changed?
No. Right and wrong are still the same thing. What changed was our ability to have both deeper and broader insight into the world. She was never a witch. We know that today. Some people knew that, back then. But knowledge was not sufficiently deep enough, or widespread enough, to know for sure.
We face fewer and fewer challenges like this as our knowledge advances. But there is, increasingly, a lack of understanding the nature of the difference between a consistently moral judgement and one that is simply based on what is known at the time. The assumption that slavery was considered to be not immoral 200 years ago doesn't mean right and wrong changed. It was, in reality, known to be immoral by a very large body of people. In fact, many people who practiced it didn't agree with it, probably knowing it was immoral. They just viewed it as 'how things are'. That's an important distinction.
I've faced this challenge many times at the office. Today, in a modern office, hearing that someone is doing something because 'that's how it's done' will often lead to disastrous results. The decisions made often aren't of a moral/immoral nature (though I certainly have been involved in several that were). Rather, just whether they are more efficient or not.
There is a line in the Harry Potter books that always stuck with me. At one point, Dumbledore is speaking with Harry and tells him, "Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right."
