Is a Utopia possible?

[Burning Zeppelin]

But anarachism is not a society without government.

Anarchism is a persons belief that society can exist without a government or a heirachy of power. It derives from the word "anarchy".

[placidchap]

That is what I said.   Anarchism is the belief or theory of that kind of society. Anarchy is a society without laws.  There is a difference...

[teaflower]

God, this makes me think of when we read 'The Giver' in 8th grade! (one of my reading teacher's favorite books to read)

I think that if a utopia were possible, it would happen. For a while. There would be a lot of manipulation of peoples minds and ideas, but I think eventually the whole thing would cave in on itself.

If I were to make a utopia, it would probably benefit EVERYONE. Um... *pulls out folder from 8th grade* It would be on a remote tropical island, probably somewhere in the pacific. Um... computerized teaching (no changes to the arithmetic this way), a bunch of DNA editing (make everyone color blind; when you know a color, you can say you like that color, and that is an opinion. also, make everyone look... at least similar), a heck of a lot of killy-killy (anyone, and I mean ANYONE, with a severe mental disability [autism, retardation, bipolar, etc.] would be killed.), and... I don't know what else.

But, as I said before, one small mistake could lead to the collapsing of the utopia I've created.

[Burning Zeppelin]

No point getting into semantics.

[Chrono Master]

No, in order for one to experience true happiness, there must be a conflict. If no conflict exists then there is nothing to over come, with that comes no self-satasfactionin your acivements, because there will be nothing to achive.

[Burning Zeppelin]

^ That is true, although if, for example, I somehow create a society where everybody is happy, then everybody IS happy. The way they become happy is irrelevant. They are happy.

[BROJ]

No, in order for one to experience true happiness, there must be a conflict. If no conflict exists then there is nothing to over come, with that comes no self-satasfactionin your acivements, because there will be nothing to achive.

I agree, without balance between conflict and peace there can be no true happiness.

[Kebrel]

I agree, without balance between conflict and peace there can be no true happiness.

Thats why they created the gladiator games.

[BROJ]

I agree, without balance between conflict and peace there can be no true happiness.

Thats why they created the gladiator games.

True, yet sad. People cared more about entertainment, than their own destitute living conditions. Hey wait! that sounds familiar.   

[placidchap]

No point getting into semantics.

You are right, there is no point getting into semantics, as the meaning of these words are fixed at this point in time.  There is not much room to smudge the meaning of either one.  If enough people use anarchism to define a state of society rather than the belief of said society, then I will retract my statements.

I somehow create a society where everybody is happy, then everybody IS happy. The way they become happy is irrelevant. They are happy.

That society would not last more than a generation.  Without sadness there is no happiness.  How can one be happy if one has never felt sad?

[MsBlack]

Endorphins?

[Thought]

That society would not last more than a generation.  Without sadness there is no happiness.  How can one be happy if one has never felt sad?

Quite easily. One doesn't need to know the opposite of something in order to know the original itself. I've never been dead but I can feel quite alive, for example. I've never been female but I am a man. Never been suicidal but quite content with life. At worst, such a society would have no concept of sad, but they could still easily be happy. However, personally I wouldn't want to be happy all the time. That would get tiring. And there are some things in life in which sadness is proper.

[Burning Zeppelin]

No point getting into semantics.

You are right, there is no point getting into semantics, as the meaning of these words are fixed at this point in time.  There is not much room to smudge the meaning of either one.  If enough people use anarchism to define a state of society rather than the belief of said society, then I will retract my statements.

To an anarchist, they are completely different words. To the brainwashed capitalist, the two words are synonymous, because in their eyes, anarchism equals a chaotic society.

I somehow create a society where everybody is happy, then everybody IS happy. The way they become happy is irrelevant. They are happy.

That society would not last more than a generation.  Without sadness there is no happiness.  How can one be happy if one has never felt sad?

The means are irrelevant - the people in the Utopia will be happy. That's that.