It has often been noticed that - of the two great dystopian novels of the mid-20th century - modern Western society more closely resembles Aldous Huxley's Brave New World - where the population is bought-off and tranquillised by drugs, sex and distractions; than George Orwell's 1984 where the population is under 24/7 surveillance and violently repressed by secret police.
In a more nuanced fashion, there are elements of both dystopias - for example, the surveillance is now far more comprehensive than Orwell could have imagined; yet that surveillance is actively sought and paid for by the population - which is much more like BNW...
Anyway, there is a major difference between either, or both, the societies envisaged by Orwell and Huxley and our own society; and that is stability.
Most imaginative dystopias have a leadership class that places social stability as the highest value; whereas our dystopian society here-and-now has a global leadership class that - in so far as they are able - inflicts permanent revolution and circumscribed chaos upon the whole world.
This is observable at almost every level; but perhaps most obviously in the highly successful, colossally ambitious strategy of mass migration that has been imposed upon the world for the past couple of decades. This entails unneccessary and deliberately perpetuated wars forced upon some parts of the planet (eg. the Middle East, Africa, Asia), used to create violent and chaotic displaced populations, that are forced upon the Western nations in vast and open-ended numbers.
On the face of it, such de-stabilisation (at least, up to a point) is a much higher and more urgent priority for the global and Western elites than is stability; and this is a error in pretty much all the dystopias I have come-across. Much the same applies to the economy - where the great bulk of elite initiatives (such as those rationalised by feminism, antiracism, diversity, environmentalism, equality etc.) massively (and potentially lethally) damage the economy, science, technology, engineering capability - and in general damage social efficiency and effectiveness.
In Western social life, the sexual revolution has been aggressively supported and driven by the ruling elites, is continuous, and accelerating. The result has been half a decade of confusion, as new possibilities emerge, then become taboo; as groups and identities move in and out of favour; as resentments and entitlements are encouraged... Clearly, stability is not the goal.
The reason for the recurrent dystopian error about stability is simple enough. The dystopias were written by materialists, and non-Christians and they envisage evil as being merely selfish short-termism. Thus their idea of an evil society is one in which there is a selfish-, short-termist elite who run society for their own pleasure, prosperity and power.
Whereas real evil is the opposition to Good, and Good is the objective of God, the creator, and our loving father. So when a society is run by really evil persons (both mortal and supernatural persons), then its long-term goal is not the elite's own selfish interests, but the damnation of the majority.
A really evil elite does not act strategically to sustain the stability of the society which sustains and rewards it; instead, such an elite does whatever best serves the goals of damnation - even when this destroys stability; even when this cumulatively immiserates, disempowers and destroys the elite itself; even when it makes that society un-sustainable.