Author Topic: Is a Utopia possible?  (Read 3144 times)

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2008, 03:10:43 am »
Devo rocks.

And Zeality's grim look on the future reminds me a movie I've heard about called Idiocracy. Look it up.

Ironically even though its a comedy, it sounds more along the lines of a tragedy, and unfortunately it *is* a realistic possibility if society keeps going the way it has been in the past century... (although some parts *are* dramatized for comedic effect.)  :(

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2008, 10:48:18 am »
After reading some reviews and synoposis on Idiocracy, I'd have to say that future is far more likely than Utopia and now I have to track it down...

Little OT, BROJ,  I see you are a fan of Dak'kon and the Zerth.  ha ha.  edit: nvm, you changed that quote.

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2008, 01:48:05 pm »
After reading some reviews and synoposis on Idiocracy, I'd have to say that future is far more likely than Utopia and now I have to track it down...

Little OT, BROJ,  I see you are a fan of Dak'kon and the Zerth.  ha ha.  edit: nvm, you changed that quote.

I was just playing around with different quotes, doing a little experimentation, changed it back, though. (I always thought PS:T was a good game, anyways. :mrgreen:

On a related note I pretty much replaced all of my stuff over the past few days. (I got bored, what can I say... :) )

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2008, 02:53:06 pm »
Quote
PS:T was a good game

Man, it was a great game.  In my top 5 games of all time, for sure.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2008, 10:27:07 pm »
Once again I violate my embargo for a Burning Zeppelin topic. You should start a journal or a blog, so that I can interact with you someplace else.

Quote
* What is your Utopia like?
* What would need to be altered to achieve it?
* Is your Utopia good for everyone equally, or just you?
* Is it possible to achieve in this world?

I spent a good deal of creative energy over the years rassling with the question of paradise. My thought is that paradise derives from one’s state of mind more so than from any physical place. In fact I define it in terms of human experience: Paradise is to be able to say of one’s own life, “I could not have asked for better.”

Just so I make myself clear: Paradise must satisfy our creature comforts, but it must also leave room for our restless urges. For human beings to be happy, we must have adversity in our lives, and we must be able to conceive of ways to triumph over that adversity. True satisfaction mustn’t simply pamper the body. It must delight the mind, too.

Therefore: What paradise is not is a land of undiminished luxuries. What paradise is not is a state of continuing happiness. Luxury alone does not placate the mighty human mind, and happiness is hardly the limit of our emotional power—for no single emotion, even if applied constantly, can make up for the permanent absence of all the others.

Of course, the prospect of a paradise that is even briefly devoid of luxuries and happiness raises some interesting questions about the nature of satisfaction, which I leave for another time, while the notion of what exactly some of us might get in our heads to ask for before reaching the point of “I could not have asked for better” raises the possibility that, in a world of finite resources and time—not to mention the sometimes contradictory human mind—not everyone can achieve paradise…for not all of our desires can be realized.

As these desires change with time, along with our judgments as to what is satisfying, so too does the condition of paradise. This is consistent with the idea that paradise depends heavily on one’s state of mind, and is not tied to any specific material situation.

By subordinating the condition of paradise to the subjective judgment of a single human mind, it deserves mention that one person’s paradise is not necessarily another’s. That brings us to the larger issue of Utopia, a society where everybody lives in a state of paradise.

At first it might seem that a utopia would be impossible to build, because of the problem of contradictory paradises. For instance, my paradise would have no Christianity or Islam in it. However, the problem is not quite that intractable. From a societal perspective, people can be changed. In particular, they can be formed, shaped, from a young age, so that some desires never arise. A utopia in this generation would be impossible, but the next generation is full of potential—as children always are. To go with my religious example, if parents were not to teach their kids about the mighty skygod, and instead gave them an education that emphasizes critical thought, free of faith-based interruptions, then religion would be reduced to the fringes of society and many of the problems that come with it would simply disappear.

My thinking is that a utopia must be preceded by three social pillars:

1) Education
2) Liberty
3) Justice

And then a fourth pillar, separate but just as important:

4) Environmental stewardship

Which speaks for itself.

Education will help to direct all human passion into the arts and sciences, and away from the social games that have plagued our civilization since its inception. Liberty gives us the means to carry out our passions. Justice protects us from the undue influence of others. With all three pillars in place, we shall have educated citizens who are free to pursue their enlightened interests in peace, on a lush and vibrant world.

In this way, the work of building Utopia is the work of getting humanity to a point in its evolution where many of history’s longstanding ills, and their enablers, are gone. Utopia, like Rome, will not be built in a day, and construction may never be entirely finished. But it is a goal worthy of our pursuit.

How can society be tinkered with to produce and ideal setting? How can the human condition be manipulated to bring about the end of destructive passions? I don’t have those answers—or, rather, the answers I do have are so long and complicated that I wouldn’t dare write them down here, and in any case they are a work in progress. In fact, they are the basis of my Imperial model. Needless to say, the work of building a golden civilization is neither simple nor swift.

So it is that most of us are closer to paradise than we know, while Utopia is distant as it seems. What we should do is work toward satisfaction in our own lives, using these considerations as the basis for intelligently advocating key social progress. The good news is that, as a utopia flourishes, paradise for all of us becomes that much easier, because in a greater society we are all given better opportunities right from the beginning.

Or, as ZeaLitY put it, “Paradise is just four pips away.”

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2008, 02:15:20 am »
Woah, epic post as some would say. However, I have a small problem. From what I read, or rather, from what I understood, this would not need a radical change in human behavior, amirite? Therefore, it is interesting when you have Justice and Liberty as two of the "pillars" of the J-esq Utopia. Where will liberty stop? Can everyone be happy with limited liberty? Isn't one mans justice anothers injustice? Although, to be fair, your utopia is far more realistic than the rest of ours.

And I think I spend too much time on the internet already to start a blog :-P

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2008, 04:27:02 am »
You are correct that my institution of a utopia requires no change in human nature itself. However, a change in human behavior is essential. People must become more aware and more responsible. This can only be achieved universally by educating the young. Education, in its broadest sense, is how we are able to make better decisions for ourselves. Better decisions will lead to a better society, and a better society will help people make better decisions in turn. Education is the key to everything else.

Now, the contradiction between liberty and justice persists only as long as “liberty” is taken to mean “anarchy.” Liberty gives us freedom within the law, not freedom from the law altogether. I interpret liberty as the legal affirmation that the individual is the basic unit of civilization, which justifies the provision of opportunities to us.

That probably sounds like gobbledygook. Just think of liberty as “that which sets us free.” Healthcare can do that. So can quality-inspected food. Trains set us free. Newspapers do too. If a society recognizes the importance of providing its citizens relief when they are sick, confidence that their food is uncontaminated, the mobility to travel to other places, and the means to follow current events, then by protecting and guiding the development of these institutions, the society will thereby grant many opportunities to its citizens. When enough of these opportunities come together, educated people become able to pursue their interests.

Justice only comes into the picture when legitimate conflicts of interest arise. I am sorry to speak in so many abstracts thus far, so here is a concrete example to address what I think you are talking about when you ask where liberty “stops.” Here in Washington, the eastern half of the state is heavily reliant upon river water for agriculture. Also reliant upon that same water are millions of salmon, who are a cornerstone of the regional ecosystem, and are also heavily overfished. There is only so much water to go around, and never enough to give the farmers and the salmon all that they need. Those who draw their economic livelihood by farming are at odds with those who draw their economic livelihood from fishing, and in either case the end product of their labor feeds the people. This is a legitimate, a real, and an ongoing conflict of interest.

The state’s response has been to assign water quotas. Farmers are given a certain amount of water, and the rest is left for the fish to swim in. In dry years, everybody gets a little parched. In wet years, we throw water balloons at Idaho. Behold, the glory of justice.

This issue highlights the importance of resource limitation in establishing a viable utopia. A farmer who endures many years of drought will certainly look back and say, “I could have used more water.” If that constraint has reduced his or her satisfaction in life, then their paradise is that much further away.

Compare that example to the conflict between religious bigots who want women to stay at home, and the women who want to decide for themselves how to live. That isn’t a case of competing liberties; it is a case of poor education on the part of the bigots. Justice steps in to guarantee women the same standing as men, thus providing them with the liberty to carry out their wish of self-determination. The bigots are not deprived of their liberty, for that would imply their position has some merit. It has none. Again, freedom within the law—not freedom to do whatever you please.

So, you see, what you supposedly perceived as a contradiction between liberty and justice, is usually just a failure in education. Utopia can only be attained as people like, ahem, like certain, unnamed, holier-than-thou folks around here, are phased out of existence by the advance of social liberalism. Thus I end where I began, by reiterating the importance of shaping human behavior by providing all children with a thorough education from the beginning of life. Utopia cannot work with just any bunch of humans.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2008, 04:36:01 am »
Good reply, though I'm still a bit wary of the whole thing. The liberty I was talking about was not quite "anarchy" (which is just chaos), but the persons right to do whatever he or she pleases. There are many people who feel that as an individual, born biologically without any universal sense of good and evil, is allowed to whatever they want. And then there is the whole deal about educating children about a certain way of life from a young age. I guess where I am going at is that to me, a utopia is where there is no human capacity for evil (I have argued in another forum that this can only really be achieved if emotions are destroyed, as if everything was done rationally, then there would be no evil), while what I see your "utopia" as is just a very good place to live.

Also, does anyone know of any good artwork or advertisements which portray a world where everyone is equal, there is no difference between people, and there is no evil?

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2008, 05:52:04 am »
Quote
The liberty I was talking about was not quite "anarchy" (which is just chaos), but the persons right to do whatever he or she pleases.

It’s the same thing, if you think about it.

Quote
I guess where I am going at is that to me, a utopia is where there is no human capacity for evil (I have argued in another forum that this can only really be achieved if emotions are destroyed, as if everything was done rationally, then there would be no evil), while what I see your "utopia" as is just a very good place to live.

That is a fair philosophical distinction.

For your utopia to exist, as you mentioned, the human condition would have to be changed, depending on how you define “evil.” I define it as ignorance, and especially willful ignorance; so the “capacity” for evil is the evil itself. To have no capacity for it would require an omniscient population. Thus, under my definition of “evil,” your utopia would be impossible in all plausible scenarios.

Most people define evil differently than I do. You should make sure you have a definition that you are thoroughly satisfied with, before attempting to postulate Utopia, if indeed you deem this lack of capacity for evil a prerequisite.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2008, 07:44:08 am »
Yeah, I'm still confused about the whole idea of good and evil.

Being able to do whatever you want isn't necessarily anarchy, though it usually leads to it. Of course, my utopia has altered human behaviour, which will allow voluntary social harmony.

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2008, 09:38:44 am »
Doing whatever you please would imply that there are no consequences, which in turn implies there is no law to be broken.  Having no laws would equate to having no government.  A society with no government is the definition of anarchy.  I believe everything we do is voluntary...we don't need to alter human behaviour to achieve that much...

Destroying the capability of emotion and eliminating all differences between one another is basically taking a human and turning it into a robot.  Quite the opposite of Utopia...

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2008, 11:10:34 pm »
If it comes to the point where people are able to justly resolve conficlts between themselves on their own, there will be no need for government. So there would be liberty, justice, and anarchy. That they can go together doesn't make them the same thing.

For what it's worth, I think that that is a precondition of a utopia, that is to say, that people are forward thinking, just, educated and patient enough that education, liberty, justice and the environment can be maintained and advanced without the need for governments.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2008, 03:50:10 am »
Actually, an anarchy is a period or state of chaos and confusion. Anarchy can exist under a society with a government or ruler. Anarchism is a society without laws.

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2008, 10:41:03 am »
I will have to disagree with some of that.  If you choose anarchy to mean a state of confusion or chaos, then yes it can happen with or without government.  But anarachism is not a society without government.

Anarchist is the person.
Anarchism is the person's belief.
Anarchy is the state of society.

BROJ

  • CC:DBT Dream Team
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1567
    • View Profile
Re: Is a Utopia possible?
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2008, 02:30:37 pm »
Actually, an anarchy is a period or state of chaos and confusion. Anarchy can exist under a society with a government or ruler. Anarchism is a society without laws.

I'm going to have to concur Burning Zeppelin's conclusion.

Destroying the capability of emotion and eliminating all differences between one another is basically taking a human and turning it into a robot.  Quite the opposite of Utopia...

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but rather using the context; isn't it true that its the law's intention to suppress emotions "to maintain order", and if taken to an extreme, forcefully turn said subjects of said laws into robots as you put it?

Yeah, I'm still confused about the whole idea of good and evil.
My definition of good and evil, in my opinion, is one of neutrality; where good represents selflessness and evil represents selfishness. Obviously, there can be no *extreme* for sake of survival of oneself and one's society so a balance *must* be achieved for a productive society or "utopia to exist.