u/Ambitious-Taro211

I'm currently writing a sci-fi novel but am bogged down in notes constant subplot ideas and everything, from the start I had a clear end goal of the world building and character development and I definitely struggle with it. Reading back on my chapters I feel as if the characters reflect whatever mood I was in at the time of writing and don't stay consistent. Also dialogue is a struggle with the conversations either boring or giving away too much of the plot and I feel this is a sci-fi problem because I don't just wanna makeup random words.

So I guess my real question is how can I actually write sci-fi and the conversations pretending we are 1000 years in the future? I keep on having to write entire thousands of words worth of notes alone on just the world, cities, history and ideology that shapes the whole reason why the system of government is plausible.

Also I hate writing space scenes idk ahhhhhhhhhhhh.

TLDR: I want to know if the Lee Kuan Yew authoritarian model actually possible?

I like the idea of an authoritarian capitalist developmental state and that a technocracy and meritocracy (in theory) leads to industrialization, education, and economic development (like under Lee Kuan Yew's governance). I think it is better than communism and fascism because it choses statistics over pure ideology.

It seems however in the real world while the system works extremely well for development, but becomes harder to sustain as the sole legitimacy system once a society becomes rich, complex and politically educated. In the real world it seems this idea eventually hyrbidises:

• South Korea → liberal democracy with strong technocratic bureaucracy (competitive elections + powerful civil service + industrial policy legacy). It “opened politically” but kept a very state-capable economic system.
• Singapore → dominant-party technocracy (elections exist, opposition exists, but long-term ruling party + heavy emphasis on meritocratic bureaucracy and state planning).
• China → single-party state-capitalist technocracy (no electoral competition, but highly professionalized governance + performance legitimacy + market economics inside state control).
• Vietnam → single-party socialist-oriented market economy (similar to China but more institutionally cautious and less globalized).

Are there ways to have this model work after multiple generations, my current view is that it will still cause class inequality after generations and even tho freedom is possible it will come at the consequence having less opportunity's.

And even if class inequality wasn't an issue people who choose not to pursue high contribution roles such as doctors or engineers may feel that the system is unfair, because rewards are closely tied to perceived usefulness, whereas in democracy people just blame that as a result of individual freedom and personal choices?

TLDR: I want to know if the Lee Kuan Yew authoritarian model actually possible?

I like the idea of an authoritarian capitalist developmental state and that a technocracy and meritocracy (in theory) leads to industrialization, education, and economic development (like under Lee Kuan Yew's governance). I think it is better than communism and fascism because it choses statistics over pure ideology.

It seems however in the real world while the system works extremely well for development, but becomes harder to sustain as the sole legitimacy system once a society becomes rich, complex and politically educated. In the real world it seems this idea eventually hyrbidises:

• South Korea → liberal democracy with strong technocratic bureaucracy (competitive elections + powerful civil service + industrial policy legacy). It “opened politically” but kept a very state-capable economic system.
• Singapore → dominant-party technocracy (elections exist, opposition exists, but long-term ruling party + heavy emphasis on meritocratic bureaucracy and state planning).
• China → single-party state-capitalist technocracy (no electoral competition, but highly professionalized governance + performance legitimacy + market economics inside state control).
• Vietnam → single-party socialist-oriented market economy (similar to China but more institutionally cautious and less globalized).

Are there ways to have this model work after multiple generations, my current view is that it will still cause class inequality after generations and even tho freedom is possible it will come at the consequence having less opportunity's.

And even if class inequality wasn't an issue people who choose not to pursue high contribution roles such as doctors or engineers may feel that the system is unfair, because rewards are closely tied to perceived usefulness, whereas in democracy people just blame that as a result of individual freedom and personal choices?