11 Horrifying Fictional Dystopias That Keep Us Up At Night

The Book: Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

What It's Like: In a future United States, books are outlawed and are required to be destroyed. It is up to the “firemen” to investigate and hunt down any illegal books so that they can burn them and the houses they are hidden in.

But What About In The Real World? Unlike the dystopian United States presented in Fahrenheit 451, books are not generally illegal in the US, there is no government institution tasked with destroying books, and firemen put out fires rather than create them. But that's not to say there is no truth in the world Ray Bradbury presents. Bradbury originally wrote his book in 1951, and was inspired by Nazi book burnings in the 1930s and the Red Scare in the United States. At the time, the US Congress was persecuting writers and intellectuals for supposedly being Communists. And yet, many of the anti-intellectual, authoritarian themes he presented still ring true today. 

As part of the modern culture war, there have been many attempts across the United States to ban books from local libraries. While there haven't been calls for the complete removal of all books (nor the complete destruction of any), the bans and challenges have been based on ideological grounds in order to restrict the types of knowledge the general public (specifically the nation's youth) is exposed to. According to the American Library Association 2,571 unique titles were challenged or banned in the year 2022, which represents about a 40% increase from the year previous. Forty percent of the books banned between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, featured protagonists or prominent secondary characters of color, according to PEN America, and 41% had prominent LGBTQ+ themes or characters. 

According to the Washington Post, however, children's picture books with LGBTQ+ themes or characters make up about 75% of the challenges to children's literature, and about 64% cite “a wish to prevent children from reading about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, nonbinary and queer lives” as the primary motive.

Now, while the numbers are clear, the implications and reasoning tend to be far more complicated. Many of the challenges and bans are targeted at books intended for young readers, and many challenges cite a need to “protect children” from “inappropriate” content. What is and isn't appropriate for children, however, is purely subjective. Proponents for having LGBTQ+ books available to children argue that having access to different perspectives and thoughts allows them grow and become more knowledgeable, while opponents argue that these books are “grooming” and confusing children.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it's clear the children supposedly being affected aren't making the decisions to challenge or ban books. And that alone has led to accusations of violating student civil rights.

The Book: 1984 (1949)

What It's Like: Caught in a perpetual war between three superstates, Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia, the dystopian world of 1984 is run by fear and paranoia. Airstrip One, a portion of Oceania formerly known as Great Britain, is dominated by the dictatorial presence of the superstate's leader, “Big Brother.” Through the use of mass surveillance, propaganda, and secret police, the government of Oceania fabricates truths and persecutes individuality in order to maintain power through repression while vilifying its international enemies and those they claim are traitorous to the state.

But What About In The Real World? “Big Brother” may be one of the most prominent and widely used metaphors in modern politics, and for good reason. Surveillance and intrusion into the personal lives of individuals has long been an issue, whether that was due to physical, in-person surveillance by secret police, or citizens willing to rat out others, or perhaps phone-tapping or reading communications through mail or telegraph. The system present in George Orwell's Oceania was meant as an extreme example of mass surveillance, and “Big Brother is watching you” was meant to be a sinister threat of something that could happen to all of us - not at open invitation. 

In recent decades mass surveillance has become far more intrusive and prevalent than anything Orwell mentioned in 1984, yet rather than fearing or fighting it like Winston and Julia, we willingly open our arms to it and give out our data for free. We have smart phones, smart speakers, smart cars, smart doorbells, and even smart refrigerators, all capable of surveilling and analyzing data that we provide either unwittingly or sometimes with the hopes of making daily tasks easier. We have apps that spy on us, surveillance cameras that use facial recognition technology, and devices that listen to our every word. And if that wasn't bad enough, the companies who collect our incredibly valuable personal data sell it to data brokers, ad networks, and aggregators for everyone to profit from, except you - the subject of all the collected data.

“Thought police,” however, may be the most prevalent and direct 1984 reference in modern politics. You don't have to go very deep into any political news article or conversation to see claims that political opponents are using “thought police” as an “attack on free speech.” Senator Rick Scott (FL-R) claimed President Joe Biden uses the Department of Homeland Security as a system of thought police to censor people on social media platforms. New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman has claimed “freedom is under attack” by Governor Ron DeSantis (FL-R) and his “Right-Wing Thought Police” due to the campaign against teaching Critical Race Theory and “wokeism.” So, the question really isn't “are there really thought police?” but rather “which thought police force do you support?” 

The Movie: Idiocracy (2006)

What It's Like: Following trends of anti-intellectualism and dysgenics, the population in the United States becomes increasingly stupid. By the year 2505, the United States is so dumb they've crippled their economy, created a social system reliant on commercialism and consumerism, and caused a nationwide food shortage by watering their crops with Brawndo sports drink because “Brawndo's got what plants crave.”

But What About In The Real World? According to a recent Northwestern University study, American IQ scores saw a general decrease between 2006 and 2018, which has been titled a Reverse Flynn Effect in reference to a previous 1984 study by James Flynn that concluded there was a general increase in IQ scores since the early 1930s. But does that mean the entire population is getting more stupid? Not necessarily. 

IQ scores dropped in three categories: verbal reasoning (logic and vocabulary), matrix reasoning (visual problem solving and analogies), and letter and number series (mathematical and computational abilities). But it was accompanied by an increase in spatial reasoning (the ability to think about and manipulate 3D objects), leading researchers to hypothesize that it's not “a dumbing down” but rather a change in social priorities. “It doesn’t mean their mental ability is lower or higher; it’s just a difference in scores that are favoring older or newer samples,” said one author of the study, Research Assistant Professor Elizabeth Dworak, in a press release. “If you’re thinking about what society cares about and what it’s emphasizing and reinforcing every day… there’s a possibility of that being reflected in performance on an ability test.” 

Others have suggested other hypotheses for the trending decrease in IQ, but regardless, the only clear conclusion is that more research is required.

Now, that's not to say everything in President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho's America isn't possible. In fact, we don't need to be incredibly stupid for large corporations like Brawndo to own huge amounts of political influence. After a controversial US Supreme Court Decision in 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, many campaign finance laws from the previous century were overturned, enabling corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. 

Now, wealthy donors can spend unlimited amounts of money on the campaigns of the candidates who benefit them. In fact, in the 2018 election cycle, about 78% of the $852 million worth of political spending was contributed by the top 100 donors. 

There's also the fact that Subway claims some 10,000 people would willingly change their legal names to “Subway” in order to get free sandwiches. Suddenly, a name like “Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho” isn't quite so far fetched.

The Movie: The Hunger Games (2012)

What It's Like: Born from the collapse of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Panem is a dictatorial police state. While the majority of Panem's citizens are distributed across the 13 outlying districts of North America, all political and economic power resides in the Capitol. Each district's prosperity is heavily defined by their designated industry and the economic demand from the nation's elites. 

Following a failed rebellion instigated by the district responsible for Panem's military industry, District 13, the Capitol instituted a “bread and circuses” system (panem et circenses in Latin) called the Hunger Games. The spectacle serves as both entertainment and a means to administer power and control over districts. Each year, every district (except District 13) must submit two representatives to fight to the death in a televised gladiatorial game. 

But What About In The Real World?: The phrase “panem et circenses” was first coined by the ancient Roman poet Juvenal in Juvenal's Satire X. It was both a lament for the loss of the Roman Republic and a satire on the upper class's contempt for the masses, whom they claimed were easily swayed by large spectacles, sports events and entertainment, and free food. He wrote:

They shed their sense of responsibility

Long ago, when they lost their votes, and the bribes; the mob

That used to grant power, high office, the legions, everything,

Curtails its desires, and reveals its anxiety for two things only,

Bread and circuses. 

The phrase has since been used as a metaphor for “political distractions through the use of spectacle,” and still comes up in political discussions almost 2,000 years after it was first written to criticize modern political trends.

That is not to say the criticism is not valid. In 2023, Saudi Arabia spent millions of dollars to entice PGA players into their golf league. The nation's courtship of the PGA has been criticized as an effort to sportswash their human rights abuses, the murder of reporter Jamal Khashoggi, and the country's role in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The idea that a state would use sports or spectacle to distract from the fundamental issues of its government system isn't dystopian - it's very real. (If you want to see more cases of sportswashing, check out this list all about the history of the practice.) The dystopian part of Panem is the institutionalizing of teenager death matches, but there really is no reason for a government to go to that extreme when they can get the same result from televising people hitting a ball into a hole 400 yards away.

The Show: The Handmaid's Tale (2017)

What It's Like: Following a second civil war, the US government is overthrown by a theocratic, totalitarian state called Gilead. In an effort to deal with global problems of infertility, Gilead uses Christianity as a means to justify a strict class system led by an oligarchy of elite religious figures. Women are subjugated to men, with very limited economic and social roles. 

While women within Gilead are not allowed to own property or have careers, those who are still fertile are effectively enslaved. As Handmaids, they are assigned to the homes of elite men and forced to breed their offspring.

But What About In The Real World? One of the major tenants of the United States during its founding was the "Separation of Church and State." Found in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and the interpretation of that clause has been fairly clear for the majority of United States history. Within recent years, however, through decisions made by the US Supreme Court, the line has become blurrier.

According to a Pew Research Center Poll, 45% of Americans say the US should be a “Christian nation” and a whopping 60% of Americans believe the United States was originally intended to be a “Christian nation.” These statistics are slightly deceptive, however, since there isn't a consensus on what a “Christian nation” ought to be. Some respondents to the poll believed it means the government should be influenced by Christian values but should not create laws based upon Christian beliefs. Others, however, believe the nation's leaders should be Christian and that they should make, enforce, and interpret laws based upon the tenets of Christianity.

Those who endorse the latter interpretation of a “Christian nation” are relatively low. Seventy-seven percent of US adults believe that churches and other houses of worship should not endorse political candidates, and 67% believe religious institutions should keep out of politics altogether. However, that does leave about 20% to 30% of American adults (i.e., 77.4 million people) who believe the opposite, including prominent politicians who have made Christian Nationalism a part of their platform, and have even suggested the separation of Church and State is a myth. 

From a purely statistical standpoint, 30% of Americans shouldn't have the power to dictate law to the other 70%, since in a Democratic Republic like the United States you would theoretically need the support of a majority of US citizens to agree. But according to the Public Religion Research Institute, Christian Nationalism poses a major threat to US democracy as a whole, most obviously through the waging of a culture war, but also through the dangerous views that often intersect, including:

white identity, anti-Black sentiment, support of patriarchy, antisemitism, anti-Muslim sentiments, anti-immigrant attitudes, authoritarianism, and support for violence.

Christian nationalists in the United States have advocated for religious prayer and education in school, and conflated issues of sexual orientation into a culture war based on religious morality. But the most pertinent to The Handmaid's Tale and Gilead has been the suppression of women by controlling reproductive rights. 

In the summer of 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed abortion rights to women across the nation. Since allowing state governments to decide upon whether or not women can have access to abortions, 20 states have instituted bans or restrictions on the procedure earlier than the standards set by Roe v. Wade. While some do include exceptions, most in practice aren't granted. Furthermore, some states have criminalized (or allow civil cases against) aiding others in receiving an abortion.

The Movie: Escape From New York (1981)

What It's Like: In the wake of a national crime wave, the United States establishes Manhattan Island as a Maximum-Security Prison. Walled off and isolated from the mainland, the 3 million criminal inhabitants are left to fend for themselves in the lawless wasteland of New York City.

But What About In The Real World? Mass incarceration is a major issue in the United States. The country incarcerates more people in total population and per capita than any other nation in the world. One in 99 American adults are behind bars, and one in 31 are in some form of correctional control including prison, jail, parole, or probation. 

While the country has had its fair share of law enforcement issues throughout its history, including racism, excessive violence, and outright vigilantism, the incarceration of a huge percentage of its population hasn't been a “standard practice” in the United States until relatively recently. In fact, since 1970, there has been a 700% increase in incarceration rates due to many factors, including the privatization of prisons, the use of police in non-emergency situations that do not require police action, and an over-reliance of punitive policing in response to low level crimes.

Now, with more prisoners per capita in the South than the rest of the country - would New York really be the prison city? Possibly. Geographically, it could make sense, but if it's based solely on current incarcerated population and proximity to non-incarcerated populations, Texas would probably make the most sense, take the least amount of work, and still be geographically viable.