I have been wondering about this in one way or another for the better part of a year. A comment on another blog caused my mind to focus on it this way today...
Why are people clamoring for a dystopia?
I could see if you worshipped the elder gods and prayed to be eaten first or some such. I could see if you were a dedicated nihilist (although those seem rarer than the first group of people).
I can see being ideologically wound up in bringing about a utopia. Who doesn't want it to be all good? Really, the big problem with utopias is that people can't decide on what is 'good'.
Here you have a large amount of the population who believe that things are jacked up. Ask around. People will tell you about how this is wrong or that is bad.
Now ask them about doing something differently than the way it is currently done.
Sure you'll get some resistance, people generally like their habits; but when you explain the changes and the need for changes, many people accept the change and move on.
Not some people.
Remember these people are a part of the same group that agrees that things aren't right, and yet will strive to their utmost to preserve the status quo.
Now obviously you have some Uberman denizens of fantasyland who think: "I've got mine, screw you", or at least, "I'll get mine, so screw you". Those folks are further around the bend than I'm willing to deal with right now.
You also have the resistance to change I mentioned before, but even if those people don't like the change proposed, they come up with counter proposals and then you can reach some sort of compromise or consensus.
The remainder though, the "I'd rather die than change" people, where do they get their impetus? They don't have any counter proposals, all they have is NO.
I think it is easier to be for something than against something. What do they get out of it? Attention? Some inner joy from being miserably contrary?
My mother gets that way about certain things. You can discuss all of a subject to a certain point and she is right there with you until a certain point. Then I can see that she doesn't like where the conclusion is heading so she'll try to backpedal, but since she was right there agreeing with everything it is easy to get her to realize that she still agrees with you. Then I see her features set into a certain grim determination like she is mentally holding on for dear life. At his point we've been at every point around the conclusion and she agrees with every premise, but refuses the conclusion.
The only analogy I can think of right now is looking at a map with someone; showing them the path and watching them trace out the route's destination and agree to it. Walking on that same path with the person and coming to a bridge and the person doesn't want to cross the bridge. You show them structural engineering books (that they agree with), bridge design manuals (that they agree with). Even pictures of them on other bridges (that they enjoyed being on). But they won't cross this bridge. You cross the bridge, you drive a car across the bridge, you stampede a herd of bison across the bridge, you drive a damn tank across the bridge. They still won't cross it. You blindfold them and lead them across the bridge, and when you take the blindfold off they agree that they are on the other side of the bridge. But (to them) they still didn't cross the bridge. You ask how they got to this side of the bridge and they'll come up with some ridiculous answer that you know they don't even believe, or they'll shrug and say, "I don't know, but what I do know is that I didn't cross that bridge."
How do you even talk to people in this circumstance?
Now, what if you had some people who stood to benefit by encouraging what I can only call the denial of reality. And, those clowns aided and abetted the reality deniers, taking away even your last ditch ‘desire for social primates to conform to the standards of the group’ solution.
Now how would you get through to them?