How would you Create a Utopia?

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Were Southern Whites cold, in danger, and hunger in 1861?

They did feel in danger of losing what they had ie. not safe, do you imagine someone who is actually cold, hungry and vulnerable, complain at being fed, heated and sheltered?

Edited June 30, 2018 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They did feel in danger of losing what they had ie. not safe

So then safety as you are using it is a purely relative thing?

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

do you imagine someone who is actually cold, hungry and vulnerable, complain at being fed, heated and sheltered?

A billion people in the world to live in poverty. Over 5 billion people if we correct for Western concepts. Those (poorest among us) aren't the people dropping bombs and rolling tanks into town squares. Far as I can tell it is seldom the vulnerable who are violent. As bodies wash up in the Mediterranean it would be grossly inaccurate to call those refugees rebels.  

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So then safety as you are using it is a purely relative thing?

We can only 'feel' safe.

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

A billion people in the world to live in poverty. Over 5 billion people if we correct for Western concepts. Those (poorest among us) aren't the people dropping bombs and rolling tanks into town squares. Far as I can tell it is seldom the vulnerable who are violent. As bodies wash up in the Mediterranean it would be grossly inaccurate to call those refugees rebels.  

How is that an answer to the question you quoted/I asked?

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

No-one rebels because they're warm, safe and well fed.

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They did feel in danger of losing what they had ie. not safe, do you imagine someone who is actually cold, hungry and vulnerable, complain at being fed, heated and sheltered?

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How is that an answer to the question you quoted/I asked?

You said no one rebels because of X, then used part of X as a reason  for the Civil War, then asked about how people might feel about X. My response was to say X isn't why people rebel or go to war. 

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

You said no one rebels because of X, then used part of X as a reason  for the Civil War, then asked about how people might feel about X. My response was to say X isn't why people rebel or go to war. 

1

No, I said no one rebels because of X, Y, and Z, it's you that bet on a high card against a set.

[Ten oz]

I read no one's rebels because they are warm, safe, & fed to imply they rebel because they are in cold, in danger, and hunger which is what I stated with my with my Civil War question. You answered that question by saying the Confederates did indeed feel in dangered which I read as comformation of my understand of the initial point about why people rebel. 

How about we start again? Can you rephrase "no-one rebels because they are warm, safe, and well fed"? Because to my eye that is who typically does rebel. It is often people who already have but simply want to have more.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

How about we start again? Can you rephrase "no-one rebels because they are warm, safe, and well fed"? Because to my eye that is who typically does rebel. It is often people who already have but simply want to have more.

1

A UBI wouldn't stifle those who want more, it would encourage them.

[ALine]

Ok, sorry about that. I was not able to comment for 24 hours. Ok, so the Utopia I was thinking about was one that constantly increased the well being of all of the individuals by "not" forcefully slowly increasing the general intelligence of the individuals apart of the utopia. This would be achieved by helping any student no matter the age go to school and fully pay for there schooling while also giving them as many resources as they need to succeed. They would also be given individual or group learning depending on where they are in there learning and also who they are; some people like learning by themselves vs. being in a group. The intellectual property would be fully expressed and free for anyone who is in the society can build upon the idea fully without worrying about anything. There would be no rules or government because everything is fully automated and only people who pass a test is allowed into the nation. Because there is no government there is no one to fight against so if anyone tries's to come to power people would be smart enough to see it. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

A UBI wouldn't stifle those who want more, it would encourage them.

I started a thread in Speculation to specifically discuss UBI. Those far I have restricted my view of UBI to its ability to create a Utopian society considering that is what this thread is about. My points have been about UBI's inability to change behavior or create happiness. Arguments about UBI's viability as a public well being and social safety net system in general are not what this thread is about. 

1 hour ago, ALine said:

increasing the general intelligence of the individuals apart of the utopia. This would be achieved by helping any student no matter the age go to school and fully pay for there schooling while also giving them as many resources as they need to succeed. They would also be given individual or group learning depending on where they are in there learning and also who they are; some people like learning by themselves vs. being in a group.

I don't fully agree that acquiring more knowledge through education increases intelligence. I am sure in many cases it certainly can but I don't believe it is a given that it does. If we use other animals as an example a wolf which has been trained by humans to perform different tasks isn't any more intelligent than  a Wolf in the wild which hasn't. 

1 hour ago, ALine said:

The intellectual property would be fully expressed and free for anyone who is in the society can build upon the idea fully without worrying about anything.

I like this idea. Sharing information openly is very important to the progress of knowledge. 

1 hour ago, ALine said:

There would be no rules or government because everything is fully automated and only people who pass a test is allowed into the nation.

Test, what kind of test? 

1 hour ago, ALine said:

Because there is no government there is no one to fight against so if anyone tries's to come to power people would be smart enough to see it. 

What about the people who fail the test? They will have govts still right?

[ALine]

26 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Test, what kind of test? 

It is like an entrance examination to determine who would be allowed into the country and once you pass it then you are free to stay or leave as long as you wanted.

26 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What about the people who fail the test? They will have govts still right?

If they fail the test then they would not be allowed into the country. It's fine if you are born there because you are able to grow with the system.

 

26 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't fully agree that acquiring more knowledge through education increases intelligence. I am sure in many cases it certainly can but I don't believe it is a given that it does. If we use other animals as an example a wolf which has been trained by humans to perform different tasks isn't any more intelligent than  a Wolf in the wild which hasn't. 

The form of education that we are currently using does not allow for both creative and strict learning process. The education would be designed so that all students would be encouraged and given everything they would need to succeed. But they will not be helped to succeed. It would be like they will be given the legos to play with but they must build whatever they want to build with or without an instruction manual. 

Edited June 30, 2018 by ALine
Had to add something

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, ALine said:

It is like an entrance examination to determine who would be allowed into the country and once you pass it then you are free to stay or leave as long as you wanted.

Serial killers are often highly intelligent. What qualities would the exam look for? Also if your utopia is surround by other govts would your utopia need a formal govt as well? 

 

17 minutes ago, ALine said:

The form of education that we are currently using does not allow for both creative and strict learning process. The education would be designed so that all students would be encouraged and given everything they would need to succeed. But they will not be helped to succeed. It would be like they will be given the legos to play with but they must build whatever they want to build with or without an instruction manual. 

Do you have a study or some research which shows this increases intelligence? 

 

[ALine]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Serial killers are often highly intelligent. What qualities would the exam look for? Also if your utopia is surround by other govts would your utopia need a formal govt as well? 

It would be a morality examination to determine if you are swayed by rationality or reason. If they pass then they pass, once you get in then your past does not matter. If you mess up then everyone would know because data is shared with everyone so everyone would know what you did. If you are off the grid then something is presumed to have happened if another person goes off the grid. Also, health data is known because that is apart of data as well.

 

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do you have a study or some research which shows this increases intelligence? 

Yep, you need to study, intelligence is shown passively the more the country produces in medical research, scientific research, and the arts and engineering. The society and research centers could develop a method to determine intelligence gain.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, ALine said:

It would be a morality examination to determine if you are swayed by rationality or reason. If they pass then they pass, once you get in then your past does not matter. If you mess up then everyone would know because data is shared with everyone so everyone would know what you did. If you are off the grid then something is presumed to have happened if another person goes off the grid. Also, health data is known because that is apart of data as well.

Isn't morality relative though? To some people mixed race marriages and atheism are examples of immorality. Seems your society would be limited to the beliefs of its founder. 

6 minutes ago, ALine said:

Yep, you need to study, intelligence is shown passively the more the country produces in medical research, scientific research, and the arts and engineering. The society and research centers could develop a method to determine intelligence gain.

Citation,  can you provide a link which empirical reflects this? 

[ALine]

47 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Isn't morality relative though? To some people mixed race marriages and atheism are examples of immorality. Seems your society would be limited to the beliefs of its founder. 

Yes, this is true, however, if morality is determined and based upon purely rational and logically thought which coincides with empirical data taken from observed instances of general actions being played out then you should be fine. Like, say having an intimate relationship with a child. This is considered to be immoral due to a proven empirical evidence that a child is not mentally developed to be able to comprehend the action that is being performed. This would be an example of basing rational morality on defensible evidence. This is how all rational thought would be based upon, if there is a "rational thought" based upon non-provable empirical evidence then it is not rational and based in reality. Also, its beliefs would be dependent upon those who initially began the society and not just a single individual. It is similar to how America began with certain beliefs like the right to be free and singular. But over time it grew and grew until it reached the point of where it is today. They still rely on the constitution which was created by the founding fathers however things were added in order to consider new possibilities that were not considered.

47 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Citation,  can you provide a link which empirical reflects this? 

I do not have any empirical evidence to support this claim. I am making the presumption that the more research papers being submitted and the more detailed they are along with the more art and engineering designs that are being submitted the more "intelligent" or more developed the society is. It would not be about quantity however it would be about quality.

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by ALine
Needed to add a t to the "it" next to would.

[Ten oz]

38 minutes ago, ALine said:

Yes, this is true, however, if morality is determined and based upon purely rational and logically thought which coincides with empirical data taken from observed instances of general actions being played out then you should be fine.

Everyone has some sort of logical and ration for their morality. Empirical data has limits. Data has no judgement, feels no pain, and lacking feeling. There are simply too many intangibles to assume empirical data will consistently produce equitable results.   

45 minutes ago, ALine said:

This is considered to be immoral due to a proven empirical evidence that a child is not mentally developed to be able to comprehend the action that is being performed. This would be an example of basing rational morality on defensible evidence. This is how all rational thought would be based upon, if there is a "rational thought" based upon non-provable empirical evidence then it is not rational and based in reality.

My wife's grandmother (whom is 93yrs of age) gave birth to my father in-law when she was 16yrs old. The man, my grandfather in-law, she married to was 22yrs old. They remained happily married till his death in 2014. Likewise my father's mother had my father when she was 16yrs old. My father was her second child. My grandfather's age was never known for sure because he was born on family property and no records of his birth exist. He was raise poor not celebrating birthdays. So his age was always a guesstimate of plus or minus a year or two. That said he must have been approaching 30yrs of age when my father was born. While my father's parents did not remain married for long they did remain friendly their whole lives. 

I do not advocate men in their 20's dating teen age girls. It is not something I ever did. However I do understand that it's social norms which definition of adulthood and determining who is and is not a child. I am not aware of any empirical evidence that shows all 15yr olds are less mentally mature than all 18yr olds. Maturity doesn't respond to birth dates. Our laws defining adulthood are based on our judgments and not empirical data. Ultimately the brain isn't fully developed till ones mid 20's. That said evolution hasn't selected for it as until very recently ones m teenage years were the most common for reproduction. 

Quote

 

Throughout history there have been biological benchmarks of maturity. For example, puberty has often been used as the transition point into adulthood. As societal needs have changed, so too have definitions of maturity. For example, in 13th century England, when feudal concerns were paramount, the age of majority was raised from 15 to 21 years, citing the strength needed to bear the weight of protective armor and the greater skill required for fighting on horseback [8]. More recently, in the United States the legal drinking age has been raised to 21, whereas the voting age has been reduced to 18 years so as to create parity with conscription [9]. Similarly, the minimum age to be elected varies by office in the U.S.: 25 years for the House of Representatives, 30 years for the Senate, and 35 years for President. However, individuals as young as 16 can be elected Mayor in some municipalities. The variation evident in age-based definitions of maturity illustrates that most are developmentally arbitrary [9]. Nonetheless, having achieved the legal age to participate in a given activity (e.g., driving, voting, marrying) often comes to be taken as synonymous with the developmental maturity required for it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/

 

 

[ALine]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Everyone has some sort of logical and ration for their morality. Empirical data has limits. Data has no judgement, feels no pain, and lacking feeling. There are simply too many intangibles to assume empirical data will consistently produce equitable results.   

You are correct, there are way too many different intangible elements which must be considered in order to make appropriate rational arguments, however even if there are billions of them to consider they must all be considered in order to allow for the understanding of the well being of all individuals apart of the society within this "utopia." And it is because data lacks any "feelings or pain" that we can start developing appropriate rational models for how to go about each individual, keeping into account all of there thoughts, beliefs, and rationals. This is to determine if they can become integrated into the society. Starting off there will have to be a large number of philosophers and logic reasoner and rational minded individuals in order to come up with the very basic building blocks of the society. They would need to go through ALL possible encounters and possible interactions to create the "articles of foundation" which would be the seeds to grow the society.

 

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Maturity doesn't respond to birth dates. Our laws defining adulthood are based on our judgments and not empirical data. Ultimately the brain isn't fully developed till ones mid 20's. That said evolution hasn't selected for it as until very recently ones m teenage years were the most common for reproduction. 

Yes, however in this society maturity would be based mainly upon empirical data which in turn would grow using rational and logical arguments which would have a basis in that empirical data. It can not be assumed that everyone in today's society would be accepted into this society. It would be like creating an entirely new society so all previous understandings would be considered and ones that are not grounded in reality and reason which is rooted in reality are saved as a part of history but would not be in the main articles of foundation. Also because this society is constantly increasing in creativity and intelligence it would eventually be able to fully analyze the brain to give an exact date to when a person is old enough to have children while also understanding the consequences of having children. Also because it is such an intelligent society it would be able to quite possibly remove the need for having children in the conventional sense and could just have automated systems perform the actions for them. And if it is determined that maturity levels are fluid, depending to be different for everyone then the society would form around this idea. Having an age limit for when an individual is out of school and then go into their specific field of choice.

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, ALine said:

And it is because data lacks any "feelings or pain" that we can start developing appropriate rational models for how to go about each individual, keeping into account all of there thoughts, beliefs, and rationals. This is to determine if they can become integrated into the society.

You don't see the irony in your data position? You want a society based on it yet I asked for a citation you had none. 

13 minutes ago, ALine said:

Yes, however in this society maturity would be based mainly upon empirical data which in turn would grow using rational and logical arguments which would have a basis in that empirical data. It can not be assumed that everyone in today's society would be accepted into this society.

Using this data, which you don't have and are sure exists, would you separate families? What if I pass the test but my nephew doesn't?

[ALine]

27 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You don't see the irony in your data position? You want a society based on it yet I asked for a citation you had none. 

The idea for this is to create a hypothetical philosophical utopia which does not and possibly will not exist. I am going off of general presumptions to attempt to build up and create a new society based upon ideas that I am producing. I do not have any evidence for such a society to exist because a society like this has never existed. I am defining "data" as being information gathered and obtained as an individual is within the society. Data such as health and fitness. If say someone were to be having a heart attack the automated system running the society would see this and would be there within seconds to help.

27 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Using this data, which you don't have and are sure exists, would you separate families? What if I pass the test but my nephew doesn't?

This data or information would be collected over the period of time you would be apart of the society. Ok, I see what you are saying if both you and your nephew take the test at the same time and only you pass the test but not your nephew then you are worried about a separation between your loved ones. The test can be taken at any time for as many times as you want. So if you were to pass the test but not your nephew was not then your nephew can take it as many times as he wants. Also, it would not be a written test, but instead a test which over a period of time would determine your morality with respect to societies morals.  Eventually, it would be so advanced and well tuned that it would be able to determine if you would either mane or harm another individual the system would fully know. So if your nephew were a person who would harm another individual, I am not saying that he is, then yeah he would not be apart of the society. Also, those who want to take the test would be treated with the utmost respect and they would be provided for fully having all there wants and needs to be met until they would eventually pass the test. The test would also be designed for fully planning out all possible instances and situations that an individual would get into based upon the individuals currently present in the society. The system would plan for how they would interact or act in the society with respect to where they should live, who they would meet, etc. You do not want people who would endanger the lives of those within the society to be apart of the society. There would be first a virtual integration and then a physical integration. And after a long period of time, those who continue trying to take the test would have in essence passed the test because they have shown a very large willingness to stay and learn the information. However, they still will need to have passed the examination. Think of the exam not as a "sit at a desk and use a number 2 pencil" but as a creative and intelligence exercise to determine how you are swayed by rationality and reason based upon your actions. So waiting to take the exam is apart of the exam. 

Edited June 30, 2018 by ALine
I have changed "have" to "am"

[Bender]

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

UBI won't make people happy. Countless studies have been done and there are many philosophical theories out there about.

Citation required. The studies I read about come to different conclusions.

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What I think can be definitively stated is that there is no empirical link between income and happiness.

Yes there is. It just flattens out after the basic needs are covered.

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

It is not the board majority of people I am referencing as liars and cheats. Rather it is just a small minority just as today only a small minority are billionaires. Look at the level of manipulation and control that small minority has though. Again, I believe any number of economic and governance systems could work. Communism could work, Socialism could work, a Monarchy could work, a Theocracy could work, and etc. What undermines all systems is the corruption and loathing towards each other. Reinventing the bucket won't fix a sinking ship. 

Evil corporations will have a hard time exploiting people and making them unhappy when they can simply quit their job without risk.

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Far as I can tell it is seldom the vulnerable who are violent.

Then why are our prisons filled with poor and/or dumb people?

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, Bender said:

Citation required. The studies I read about come to different conclusions.

Yes there is. It just flattens out after the basic needs are covered.

Evil corporations will have a hard time exploiting people and making them unhappy when they can simply quit their job without risk.

Then why are our prisons filled with poor and/or dumb people?

I started a thread in Speculations to discuss UBI.

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, ALine said:

The idea for this is to create a hypothetical philosophical utopia which does not and possibly will not exist. I am going off of general presumptions to attempt to build up and create a new society based upon ideas that I am producing. I do not have any evidence for such a society to exist because a society like this has never existed. I am defining "data" as being information gathered and obtained as an individual is within the society. Data such as health and fitness. If say someone were to be having a heart attack the automated system running the society would see this and would be there within seconds to help.

You don't have to have evidence to have ideas but certainly evidence should be informing your ideas especially if your idea is for a evidence based society.

12 hours ago, ALine said:

Ok, I see what you are saying if both you and your nephew take the test at the same time and only you pass the test but not your nephew then you are worried about a separation between your loved ones. The test can be taken at any time for as many times as you want. So if you were to pass the test but not your nephew was not then your nephew can take it as many times as he wants. Also, it would not be a written test, but instead a test which over a period of time would determine your morality with respect to societies morals.  Eventually, it would be so advanced and well tuned that it would be able to determine if you would either mane or harm another individual the system would fully know. So if your nephew were a person who would harm another individual, I am not saying that he is, then yeah he would not be apart of the society.

The chance to re-take a test is not a guarantee one will pass a test. You are talking about potentially separating families: spouse, parents from children, siblings, and etc. 

12 hours ago, ALine said:

Also, those who want to take the test would be treated with the utmost respect and they would be provided for fully having all there wants and needs to be met until they would eventually pass the test. The test would also be designed for fully planning out all possible instances and situations that an individual would get into based upon the individuals currently present in the society. The system would plan for how they would interact or act in the society with respect to where they should live, who they would meet, etc. You do not want people who would endanger the lives of those within the society to be apart of the society.

History is full of society creating tests for citizens Purity, Loyalty, Theological,and etc have all done used. It always leads to oppression. The moment a test is instituted an us vs them is created. Us vs them is always divisive. I do not believe Utopia can be created by dividing people.  

[Bender]

No offense, ALine, but your Utopia sounds like horrible place with little freedom, no privacy and lots of judgement.

The idea of a morality test is rather "utopian". Having people redo a test as often as they like makes it completely pointless,  and a psychopath could pass simply by lying.

[YaDinghus]

On 6/30/2018 at 3:35 PM, Ten oz said:

Were Southern Whites cold, in danger, and hunger in 1861?

They were in danger of losing part of their privilege over other humans who differed from them in a totally superficial manner, and their entire economic system was built on this privilege. We would usually just say 'deal wit it and pick your own damn cotton' but they thought it was worth fighting a war over not having to do any manual labour themselves...

Anyway a lot of the discussion seems to be heading toward 'Utopia' being a post-scarcity-society. Who here follows SFIA (Science and Futurism with Isaac Arthur) on youtube? He has a nice series of videos on that particular topic

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

They were in danger of losing part of their privilege over other humans who differed from them in a totally superficial manner, and their entire economic system was built on this privilege. We would usually just say 'deal wit it and pick your own damn cotton' but they thought it was worth fighting a war over not having to do any manual labour themselves...

Anyway a lot of the discussion seems to be heading toward 'Utopia' being a post-scarcity-society. Who here follows SFIA (Science and Futurism with Isaac Arthur) on youtube? He has a nice series of videos on that particular topic

Correct, White Southerns felt threatened which is an example of how purely relative the idea of being safe is. It is why Marlow's hierarchy of needs, two-factor theory, Freud's theory of personality, and etc all fail to provided much more that philosophical carrots to keep us thinks about people's motivations. Most things are relative to an individual. What provides me a sense of comfort, satisfaction, and safety might not do the same for you.  

[ALine]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You don't have to have evidence to have ideas but certainly evidence should be informing your ideas especially if your idea is for a evidence based society.

The basis for this idea " an evidence-based society" is rooted in the argument or claim that " An evidence-based society can work if individuals are raised to think critically and rationally about there environment." This would be the starting point for the society so if a new society of humans were born tomorrow in this society then they would grow up and develop into "empirically rational minded, meaning that they are taught to thought based upon the morals depicted to them which would allow for them to do whatever they wanted without harming anyone else. At this stage in hypotheticals, the best evidence that I can give for such a society to work would be that of a company like a google except instead of making people work they would instead be able to relax, do whatever they wanted and to eat and sleep whenever they wanted. However, if you have anyone who would eat or sleep work for you that always slept and always did not work then they would be detrimental to the society. Also, there will be others who would want to work there but there is a position being taken up by someone who does not care to work there but is getting paid a lot so they stay there.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The chance to re-take a test is not a guarantee one will pass a test. You are talking about potentially separating families: spouse, parents from children, siblings, and etc. 

By letting those members of your family inside of the society you could risk having those individuals who would otherwise fail the "morality exam" kill anyone and everyone. Just because they are your family does not mean that they will not want to harm others. You might believe that they are nice, kind and innocent however they may be someone who would kill others when they are sleeping. Your family would be protected but other families in this society would not be. The morality exam would be created by everyone within that society so that those entering that society would know who they would like to let in to become apart of that society. It would be unwise to let someone in who would simply start collecting resources in order to eventually cause mass hysteria and rioting and murder. Please note that the morality exam would not be a static examination. Calling it an exam is like calling bread a "meat carrier." It would be constantly changing in order to fit the needs of the individuals of this society so that they would select who would be apart of this society. There is no one person who decides whether or not people are allowed in or not.