What is your model for Utopia?(RAR)

[spooky spice]

First off, why goats?

You got a problem with goats?

I missed this part. I guess joke post.

*gold star*

[StarSword]

And of course, the main tenant of such a society will be based around this phrase...

Um, minor pet peeve. The word you're looking for is "tenet", not "tenant". A "tenet" is a rule. A "tenant" is a renter.

Freaking homophones...

[Imperial528]

Sorry about the typo, I was on my ipod. Can't fix it now.

[StarSword]

Sorry about the typo, I was on my ipod. Can't fix it now.

It got past the Washington Post's editors on at least one occasion.

[Rabid]

A "functional Utopia" today ? Too easy.


Create a world agency or whatever having the authority and the coercive power to enforce the following things :

- Reform worldwide agricultural practices so that nobody dies of hunger anymore. Subsidize basic food products. Cure chronic hunger and malnutrition problems.
- Raze all the shantytowns and unhealthy buildings worldwide and set people to work to build clean, modern, hygienic housing. Possibly energy efficient, if you have the means to do so.
- Generalize free, state/authorities-sponsored modern healthcare practices to anyone in need and willing.
- An universal minimal income for everyone to cover all basic needs and promote growth in the poorer parts of the world, financed by income taxes and special taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations.
- Fight corruption of government officials, civil servant, cops, etc... that could hinder the application of the three previous measures
- Take steps in order to preserve as much endangered species, plants, insects and animals alike, as possible, in the hope of being able, in the future, to restore their habitat and save them from extinction.


In short, try to cure :

- Hunger.
- Housing problems.
- Diseases arising from a lack of access to modern practices.
- Poverty.

And to prevent :

- Mass worldwide extinction event.


With the Universal Income, you also help fight most environmental problem in third-world countries that come, basically, from peoples trying to survive as best as they can with that they are given (it's to say : the nature around them). Two birds with one stone.



The world don't need any fancy revolution in human nature or whatever. All things like that are just chimera, unattainable and unrealistic goals.

No, what the world need is just Food, Healthcare, Equality and Justice. Guarantee Freedom and Education, and Progress will naturally flow from there.


You will surely hit peak overpopulation at around 13-16 billion people around 2080 from all the third-worlder that did not die and had children themselves, but with responsible policies (which will be taken, as we are in an utopia here), you can reduce the impact on the environment while ensuring that there will be no famine, and that population will return to a more manageable 7-9 billion around 2150.

[spooky spice]

What I'd want is a world where we don't just take care of the old and infirm, but rather we take care of everybody. There might be additional programs for the old, sick, disabled, etc., but the baseline is there for everyone.

Medicare for all, social security for all, that kind of thing. Hopefully, it will be safe from politics shits, like the programs are today.

I'm coming to live there.

(can I bring some goats? )

[StarSword]

What is it with you and goats?

[Broomstick]

Hey, man, he likes goats, alright? No one is giving you a hard time about your kinks likes and dislikes.

[StarSword]

Hey, man, he likes goats, alright? No one is giving you a hard time about your kinks likes and dislikes.

Case of me having a bit of a twisted sense of humor, I'm afraid. I've got no problem with goats or people who like them, it's just that's the (third?) time he mentioned them in this thread. *shrug*

[madd0ct0r]

After decades of cautious experimentation - Hobbe's Leviathan becomes a real existing being.

[Sycrus]

I'm a little bit alarmed about the sugestions on this thread that are so much about banning things, or having control over things, and so on and so forth. As long as your goal is to create some Utopia, this goes exactly against what you're trying to do. An utopia is all about fulfilling everyone's needs. Banning something you consider inconvenient will only alienate people who are used/need that, which is really a big no-no on utopias.

Of course, the very definition of what is a "need" and what is just a superfluous "want" will be your first great challenge and also give you the answer of if it's even possible to "fulfill everyone's needs" with currently available resources. However, the case is moot, I'm afraid, as just about any authoritative definition would certainly alienate a lot of people, which would crash your utopian dreams pretty fast...

Personally, I don't believe the classic utopia is really possible. Even if you solve all of the ideological and logistical conundrums (and if you do, kudos for you, because I'm not confident that's even possible) a society with no dissatisfaction would stagnate, which would leave it vulnerable to outside interference or even it's own weight.

I'd personally aim somewhat lower than "functional utopia" and try to solve some more "mundane" problems. For an example, any society that manages to create a government with true, REAL accountability to the people it rules (or, MUCH better said, serves) would be a long way into solving the most perennial societal problems. If such a government could maintain Rule of Law, Universal Education and Healthcare, I'd dare say that they've done their job. There would be problems and dissatisfaction, yes, but people would have the best tools possible to solve their grievances in a fair and reasonable way (and that's where I expect someone will point all the glaring flaws in my reasoning and demonstrate how my own sugestion is as unrealistic as everyone else's, if not more. Ah, well...).

At any rate, I have some misgivings about the whole "Free Food for the Famished" thing, except on temporary emergency situations. Frankly, any society with any number of people who are perennially unable to get enough food to live is ALREADY too fucked up to even think about Utopia. To me, a really utopian society is one in which everyone is able to maintain their living by their own merits, instead of constantly relying on charity. "Teach a man to fish", indeed.

[Sycrus]

To me, a really utopian society is one in which everyone is able to maintain their living by any means they like, regardless of their own, or anyone else's, merits.

Maybe. I personally prefer not to contemplate Post-Scarcity as a real possibility...

[Sycrus]

Well... You could be right. I'm not really knowledgeable about life and economy in America to tell either way.

However, I just can't really settle well with the notion of people inside a specific population getting a relatively confortable baseline income as a guaranteed right "regardless of their own, or anyone else's, merits", as you said previously, while so many people outside that particular population are still struggling for survival.

[Sycrus]

Of course, the solution there is to make sure there are no other populations - develop the entire world so there are no more poor (absolutely speaking).

Better to bring everyone up than to hold someone down.

...which brings us back to Square One. As I said before, as it is, I'm not really seeing world-wide (maybe I should have specified this before) Post-Scarcity as a feasible possibility.

[Sycrus]

Keep in mind that I'm not really saying post-scarcity in the sense that everyone has everything. I'm saying modest baseline for all, which we've already done, to some extent, over 1/6 of the world or so.

Making it world wide is a matter of development across the world, not any tech breakthrough. This is the direction we've been heading naturally.

Again, maybe. Personaly, I'm sorta skeptical, I'm afraid. World economics being the complicated matter that it is, I'm not confident enough in my knowledge to make a decisive statement on this, but can't really share your optimism.

Of course, I might add, no utopia, or even anything remotely approaching Post-Scarcity, will ever be possible unless we somehow beat out of every human being this unfortunate capability we all seem to have of developing some ridiculous and absurd sense of self-entitlement...

Unfortunatelly, this would be changing basic human nature, and, thus, against this thread's rules...

[Faqa]

More importantly, what DXIII is describing is basically "welfare for all". Britain has that. How's that working out for them?

There's several reasons for this, I think:

- Even if we accept the position that it's an end to wage slavery, it's still not an end to "idle young men with no prospect of anything better". Some people who don't want a job don't need one. Cool. But plenty of people who want a job - or material wealth - won't have it. Nor will they have the prospect of it, really.

- And it's not really an end to wage slavery, either - not if you were employed at any point. Because while this society beats "stay at this job or you will die of starvation", you'll still have "stay at this job or you'll have to move away from this area to a shithole neighborhood full of parasites on society". Anything that requires monetary upkeep will tie you to a job. It's not all about life-or-death.

- Aaaaaaaaaand then we get to class warfare - this society will have to take in quite a bit in taxes to be handing out all that money. You don't think the employed will have a problem with the idea that they're supporting a class of people who don't work for a living? As is happening today, there will be a large stigma against those who do not work.

In short, while I sympathize with DXIII's position - humans will screw it up.

[K. A. Pital]

A "functional Utopia" today ? Too easy.


Create a world agency or whatever having the authority and the coercive power to enforce the following things :

I'd second Rabid's suggestion. It does require a very functional, powerful and benigh government - and these characteristics are rarely if ever combined.

[Rabid]

If you can't change human nature, in the end, there is a very high probability that any "functional utopia" you'll end with will be, in fact, nothing but benevolent dictatorships - with freedom of speech, a bit of democracy, all basic human right fulfilled ; but a dictatorship nonetheless as you'll have to end with a stable and unmovable "Leader" at the top of the pyramid assuring guidance and continuity of action in the long run for any such system of "world governance" to be viable. After all, for everybody to walk in the same direction, you'll to have to have someone or something giving direction in the first place.

The question, then, is how could you ensure the benevolence of this dictatorship, and the quality / competency of its guidance ? Well, barring a radical change in human nature, the most obvious course of action end being removing the human part of the equation altogether.

I, for one, welcome our new AI Overlord.


------------------


There is quite a number of problem, however, when trying to create any form of World Governance, on any subject (economy, ecology, etc...), with power over the various countries of this planet ; in that those same counties have to accept to be governed in the first place, or at least be made to comply with any request being made by you, World Overseer.

You can see the example of this with the United Nations, which arose from a World War, nothing less, and which has only the power the members Nations accept to give to it. And even then, as long as the member Nations can get away with shit that displease the others, they do. This is why sometime the UN has to call its members to send troops somewhere because nothing will do the job but brute force.


So, for any form of world governance to exist, you'll have :

- To benefit from special circumstances making Country Leaders of the world believe it is a good things to cede a part of their Power to this Government / Agency / whatever in the first place.
- To have the power to coerce the Nations under your Rule into a Carrot-and-Stick approach (be it by economic regulations, contributions and sanctions ; or with police/ armed forces under your jurisdiction).


------------------


In short, I don't believe there will ever be a World Government, but it seems to be the most efficient way of creating a functional utopia on a worldwide scale

So then the logical course of action is to begin in one or several countries, and from there on to preach the gospel to the rest of the World.

...

Today Europe ! Tomorrow, the World !

[Skgoa]

I am going to address a couple of points that came up:

- Meritless basic income: at least thats what its called in Germany. Yeah, its actually a great idea that is making its way through the state parties towards the federal level in at least two of Germany's major parties. (the greens and the socialists) It has many advantages, such as freedom from existencial angst, freedom from child (or any) poverty, reduced power to arguments like "those dirty underclass people are getting MY money!" since everyone gets the same, increased economic activity since people are sure they will have money in the future, greatly increased upwards mobility, since people now have the freedom to try to something other than being a minimum wage labor drone, empowering people to decline jobs that they deem not worth the money... The number being thrown around over here are most is 650 Euro, since thats currently the average "minimum for existence" in Germany. Fun fact: its affordable without raising the average tax rate, you would just have to remove the tax brakes for the rich. If anyone cares, I can try to find an english language source for that, but it has been verified by several indipendent experts. (And I have done the figures 1.5 years ago, myself, though thats bad debating style. )

- Welfare creating the british riots: Actually, it was the dismantling of welfare efforts and upwards mobility that created the disillusioned youth we find in many countries nowadays. They want to improve their live, but they have it just that much harder than those who were lucky enogh to be born into a higher class.

- Only 1/6 of the world has risen beyond the fulfillment of basic needs: Thats wrong. Unfortunately, almost nobody in The West knows or cares. Its best if I just shut up and link you to this video: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_o ... rowth.html

[Simon_Jester]

- Meritless basic income... It has many advantages, such as freedom from existencial angst...

Nitpick: "existential angst," at least in English, refers to something a bit different. It's not the fear that one will stop existing. It's the fear that one's life lacks purpose or meaning, more or less- to Kierkegaard, the fear of having failed in one's responsibility to God. To later philosophers the term adopts different meaning, but it stays within that general type of meaning: conflict between one's principles, one's obligations to oneself, and one's obligations to others.

- Welfare creating the british riots: Actually, it was the dismantling of welfare efforts and upwards mobility that created the disillusioned youth we find in many countries nowadays. They want to improve their live, but they have it just that much harder than those who were lucky enogh to be born into a higher class.

It's the combination of that and the death of manual labor (especially agriculture and manufacturing) in those societies.

In 1900, a young man could look forward to a long career of being gainfully employed at some kind of hard physical work: farming, assembly lines, things like that. It wasn't pleasant work and his life expectancy wasn't all that long, but he could be pretty sure of being compensated well enough to support a family assuming he wasn't foolish, lazy, a drunkard, or otherwise 'messed up.' He could also be pretty sure that he'd have valuable intangibles like a concrete sense of his accomplishments like "yeah, I dug enough coal today to warm the houses of forty families."

If the young man was extraordinarily gifted, or born to the upper classes, white-collar jobs were open to him- more opportunity. But most people just weren't in that position.

Today, access to education is somewhat better, so a somewhat larger percentage of the population can go into white-collar work. And there's a lot more 'drone' white-collar work than there used to be, which can be performed by people of purely average intelligence and a fairly mediocre education. But even that office-drone work is gradually being phased out, and the manual-labor sector has shrunk enormously.

So now the average young man, looking at his future, sees a lot more uncertainty. Even if he's gifted enough to get advanced degrees in complicated, esoteric subjects, his employment prospects are far from certain these days. His profession may be made obsolete in a matter of a decade or two no matter what he does. And he certainly can't count on getting steady employment simply by virtue of having a strong back and an uncomplaining will.

[Skgoa]

- Meritless basic income... It has many advantages, such as freedom from existencial angst...

Nitpick: "existential angst," at least in English, refers to something a bit different. It's not the fear that one will stop existing. It's the fear that one's life lacks purpose or meaning, more or less- to Kierkegaard, the fear of having failed in one's responsibility to God. To later philosophers the term adopts different meaning, but it stays within that general type of meaning: conflict between one's principles, one's obligations to oneself, and one's obligations to others.

Thanks.

- Welfare creating the british riots: Actually, it was the dismantling of welfare efforts and upwards mobility that created the disillusioned youth we find in many countries nowadays. They want to improve their live, but they have it just that much harder than those who were lucky enogh to be born into a higher class.

It's the combination of that and the death of manual labor (especially agriculture and manufacturing) in those societies.

In 1900, a young man could look forward to a long career of being gainfully employed at some kind of hard physical work: farming, assembly lines, things like that. It wasn't pleasant work and his life expectancy wasn't all that long, but he could be pretty sure of being compensated well enough to support a family assuming he wasn't foolish, lazy, a drunkard, or otherwise 'messed up.' He could also be pretty sure that he'd have valuable intangibles like a concrete sense of his accomplishments like "yeah, I dug enough coal today to warm the houses of forty families."

If the young man was extraordinarily gifted, or born to the upper classes, white-collar jobs were open to him- more opportunity. But most people just weren't in that position.

Today, access to education is somewhat better, so a somewhat larger percentage of the population can go into white-collar work. And there's a lot more 'drone' white-collar work than there used to be, which can be performed by people of purely average intelligence and a fairly mediocre education. But even that office-drone work is gradually being phased out, and the manual-labor sector has shrunk enormously.

So now the average young man, looking at his future, sees a lot more uncertainty. Even if he's gifted enough to get advanced degrees in complicated, esoteric subjects, his employment prospects are far from certain these days. His profession may be made obsolete in a matter of a decade or two no matter what he does. And he certainly can't count on getting steady employment simply by virtue of having a strong back and an uncomplaining will.

IMO its even worse: many people (often double digit percentages of a country's youth) simply can't get a job. Because there is not enough work around, even for highly qualified people. And for the disenfrenchised youth its often a perfect certainty that they will not gain worthwile employment ever, no matter how good they do in their shitty underfunded 5th rate schools.

[Multiverse]

I tend to enjoy thinking about this kind of thing so I felt like I should post something. Discussing current political issues or policies in various countries is probably not useful as a means of talking about utopia because there are other threads for many of these issues, the issues are really complicated, and most of us, myself included, probably don't have access to data/expertise to discuss more than one or two issues in detail. Below are some thoughts on the issue of a utopia:

1. The first topic to consider in working toward a utopia or society that is qualitatively better than any present society would be to design a form of representative government in which all stakeholders are willing to accept it as fair when they lose a given issue. By stakeholders I mean anything from large groups such as women to more specific groups such as Star Trek fans. How an issue is decided would probably depend on the issue and there are many issues that might be decided without any particular involvement from the government. I don't know what such a form of government would look like or how to know it when I see it.

2. The second topic would be to identify problems that should be substantially solved. For example a "utopia" should probably have very low crime rates and almost everyone should have their basic needs met through some system or other. I think it is probably best to leave defining basic needs and the system for meeting those needs to the citizens of the hypothetical utopia.

3. Third, I tend to think that most people in a "utopia" should feel that their lives are basically satisfying/meaningful. By this I mean something beyond meeting basic needs but I don't necessarily think this means that everyone would need to live in a mansion. As I said above, part of living in a utopia means accepting the fairness of not being able to get everything you want. For example, I'm a nudist. I would want any utopian society I lived in to allow me to be a practicing nudist. The details of where, when, etc. could be worked out in the hypothetical utopian society.

[Multiverse]

I really think one of the important things with utopia is to avoid a fully unitary government and protect freedom of motion.

State's rights!


There's arguably a danger of people separating into their own groups and being intolerant of individuals from others, but the advantage is that people who very strongly disagree with a decision doesn't necessarily have to live with it - they might be able to move to a neighboring state with more acceptable rules.

I think you've identified one of the biggest difficulties in establishing anything like a utopia. A utopia would need both shared values among all groups and a way for minority groups to live, more or less, how they want. As with my previous post, I leave defining the shared values and how they relate to minority groups for the citizens of a hypothetical utopia.

[Dark Hellion]

[Note I am just getting back on my meds so prepare for an odd pathos-fueled experience]

For the most part I am going to agree with the sentiment that humanity is incapable of utopia without changing human nature. In the end people are people and they will be callous, short-sighted and selfish. So my answer will probably seem trite and in general disagreement with my attitude as a cynical bastard. However, accepting that we can change all of humanities attitude on one thing I would choose love. I would change it so that the idea of loving your fellow man (as in humanity) is not just some piece of ancient feel-goody bullshit that people pay lip-service to but the aspiration of every person on earth. They may not be able to succeed but the desire to do so would supersede the desires for wealth and fame.

I believe this falls within the rules laid out in the OP as human nature will remain unchanged. Instead, we simply change peoples mentality so that the human capacity for love is the defining virtue that people try their hardest to achieve.

As for why, there are several reasons:

First, is personal experience: living in Chicago near Lincoln Park I do not go a single day were I don't walk by dozens of homeless. Many of them I see so often that they have become more like landmarks than people. And every time I walk by I can't help but feel a tinge of guilt; not because I don't help them because honestly I barely care about that. No, I feel guilty that I don't actually feel guilty about the fact that other human beings that I see everyday are suffering and I couldn't give a damn about it. Now I am sure most of this guilt can be attributed to being raised Catholic (fastest path to atheism I know of ) but I can't help but think that if I wanted to care I couldn't allow myself to stand by and do nothing.

Second, is a rather pathetic appeal to history: when we look at some of the most brutal and heinous actions that humanity inflicts upon itself we see people, individual men and women, push back with acts of altruism or contrition that almost defy belief. We see the enactment of the cliche that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. To see this most clearly we can look at one of the most terrible acts in all of human history; the Holocaust. Wholesale mechanized slaughter of an entire people, simply for who they were. An event to which all concepts of sin pale. Yet in this greatest of tragedies we also see humanity's greatest capability for compassion. We see people who acted for no promise of money or renown, knowing that in all likelihood they would probably never even be thanked for what they had done and the only reward they could expect if found was death. We saw communist and westerner; catholic, jew, protestant and atheist; Axis and Ally including a Japanese man and Nazis all risked everything to save people that they didn't know, and many didn't even like, from suffering. This amazes me as I am honest enough to doubt that I have this much bravery within me. To admit the terrible truth that if given the choice between my life and that of an innocent family I did not know that my self-love would win out and I would take the coward's path. But I cannot help but imagine what if children did not want to grow up to be Michael Jordan or Bill Gates or Beyonce and instead wanted to be Anton Schmid or Chiune Sugihara.

Finally is a variety of reasons that can be classified as my own sappiness. That little part inside that hopes that 10,000 years from now someone will listen to What a Wonderful World and decide that evolution's little experiment called Homo Sapiens was actually worth it. This sappiness is why I felt that love could be the only foundation upon which utopia could be built. Love is such an infinitely complex emotion, it can make us feel the highest elation and the deepest sorrow. And it is so intimately tied to hatred, for to hate something we have to care about it deeply enough to build such vitriol. And if we care enough to hate then perhaps we could care enough to love. I leave with the words of Queen and David Bowie, "...love's such an old fashioned word and love dares you to care for the people on the edge of the night and love dares you to change our way of caring about ourselves." Because in the end it will not be religion or racism or nuclear warfare that destroys us, but our apathy and our self-absorbed refusal to give even the slightest dignity to each other that damns us.