How would you Create a Utopia?

[ALine]

I'm starting to feel as if Utopia is an unachievable dream created by hippies who think everyone in the world can live in the same place regardless of who they are. And I feel it is also used to develop forms of government and it is a starting point to try and make everyone equal. I also feel as if the definition of the society I have given is defendable in a debatable situation. The question of "if this then that" kind of becomes irrelevant in a society that has the capabilities to land on the moon with a pencil and some paperclips due to its continued intellectual development. I am not saying the society would be free of any problems what so ever. This would be absolutely improbable on the account of human nature. What I am saying is that this society would know if something is going wrong and will fix it before anything worse begins to happen. And you all are correct, not everyone would be allowed in, this would be a form of border control. Those who are allowed in must undergo extreme analysis to determine if they would socially benefit the society as a whole. An argument can be made where because it based upon the first people who made the system then it is as immoral as them. This idea has some flaws being that there are real-world examples where the united states were founded on the principles of maintaining the rights and liberties of the individuals. And one could say that the founding fathers were moral people, well half or more of those founding fathers were slave owners at the time; I would not consider that being moral. So if the society is founded by individuals who are by the standards of humanity moral individuals then it can be said that the society will evolve over time to become moral. 

There are also billions of problems with the society besides the one of separating children, however, every form of government has billions of problems. There is even a problem with America right now separating families at the border. The society would not be free of problems, problems are a part of what it means to be human. It is how we address these problems which dictate how the society would evolve and grow.

[Bender]

13 hours ago, ALine said:

it is designed to make everyone THINK together as a collective versus everything thinking by themselves.

You want a hive mind. Your "utopia" would seriously be a good start for the Borg collective. The only difference is that they replaced the test with forced assimilation, which is a lot more reliable. It would be perfectly rational to eliminate everyone who is not part of the collective.

You claim it would be based on morality, but morality is subjective. How can you expect to ever reach total agreement on subjective questions without total indoctrination? 

[ALine]

2 minutes ago, Bender said:

You want a hive mind. Your "utopia" would seriously be a good start for the Borg collective. The only difference is that they replaced the test with forced assimilation, which is a lot more reliable. It would be perfectly rational to eliminate everyone who is not part of the collective.

You claim it would be based on morality, but morality is subjective. How can you expect to ever reach total agreement on subjective questions without total indoctrination? 

 

9 minutes ago, ALine said:

I'm starting to feel as if Utopia is an unachievable dream created by hippies who think everyone in the world can live in the same place regardless of who they are. And I feel it is also used to develop forms of government and it is a starting point to try and make everyone equal. I also feel as if the definition of the society I have given is defendable in a debatable situation. The question of "if this then that" kind of becomes irrelevant in a society that has the capabilities to land on the moon with a pencil and some paperclips due to its continued intellectual development. I am not saying the society would be free of any problems what so ever. This would be absolutely improbable on the account of human nature. What I am saying is that this society would know if something is going wrong and will fix it before anything worse begins to happen. And you all are correct, not everyone would be allowed in, this would be a form of border control. Those who are allowed in must undergo extreme analysis to determine if they would socially benefit the society as a whole. An argument can be made where because it based upon the first people who made the system then it is as immoral as them. This idea has some flaws being that there are real-world examples where the united states were founded on the principles of maintaining the rights and liberties of the individuals. And one could say that the founding fathers were moral people, well half or more of those founding fathers were slave owners at the time; I would not consider that being moral. So if the society is founded by individuals who are by the standards of humanity moral individuals then it can be said that the society will evolve over time to become moral. 

There are also billions of problems with the society besides the one of separating children, however, every form of government has billions of problems. There is even a problem with America right now separating families at the border. The society would not be free of problems, problems are a part of what it means to be human. It is how we address these problems which dictate how the society would evolve and grow.

 

[Bender]

Unachievability is one of the defining features of a utopia.

My argument is that the utopia you advocate would be a horrible place, regardless of how realistic it is.

[ALine]

Just now, ALine said:

You want a hive mind

No, I do not, I have never made this claim nor have I ever stated that this was my primary objective. You are making general assumptions through comparisons made and then jumping to conclusions while also cementing those conclusions through the process of creating a meme. You are then further propagating this meme forward as your primary argument when there is little evidence that I am trying to "create a hive mind." I have not fully stated exactly how the society would run, however, I have only made a few key points on how the society would run. 

Just now, Bender said:

Unachievability is one of the defining features of a utopia.

My argument is that the utopia you advocate would be a horrible place, regardless of how realistic it is.

In what way would my eutopia, changed it to make it more plausible, would be a horrible place?

9 minutes ago, ALine said:

It would be perfectly rational to eliminate everyone who is not part of the collective.

How is it rational to kill people if they are not apart of the "collective." It would be irrational on the account of; they are people, they are conscious, they can maybe help us, why would we kill them? In what universe is it rational to kill someone?

[Bender]

9 minutes ago, ALine said:

No, I do not, I have never made this claim nor have I ever stated that this was my primary objective.

You want everyone to agree about everything so the entire collective can make unanimous decisions in minutes. Personal preferences are out of the question, because with slightly different preferences, people will never reach the same rational conclusions.

Sounds like a description of a hive mind to me.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Bender

[ALine]

Just now, Bender said:

You want everyone to agree about everything so the entire collective can make unanimous decisions in minutes. Personal preferences are out of the question, because with slightly different preferences, people will never reach the same rational conclusion.

Sounds like a description of a hive mind to me.

I do not want everyone to agree on everything, this would no longer be a democracy nor would it be a good place to live. What I said was that I want everyone to think rationally in respect to empirical evidence which keeps into consideration morality. It would be a hive mind if everyone just "confirmed" to new ideas. What I said was that every idea should be challenged and questioned and when I said that it would take 5 minutes I said not a few sentences before that was that as the intelligence of the society would increase the general IQ would slowly increase which would allow for people to reason faster and faster. This would not mean that they are agreeing faster but because they are becoming more efficient in there agreeing on a process ( Thinking empirically rationally and questioning everything/time). And again I did not say that I want everyone to agree on everything you are taking words out of context.

On 7/1/2018 at 10:26 PM, ALine said:

The idea is that in order for a new rule or regulation to be added to the main constitution then everyone needs to be in agreement for it. This is the reason for all of the examinations beforehand. Because you would want only individuals who are swayed by only rational empirical evidence instead of personal belief systems which are not based in reality to vote in order to make a society that they all would adhere to. Also, this process would take a long time yes, however it is not simply about voting "yes or no" on an idea. It is about making the idea available, having everyone come up with there own rationalities for why something should go through and then decide on there own to determine if it is in the best interest for the society. They also have to rationalize there vote onto why they made it so that everything is based upon reality and facts. So for example, if you were apart of this society and someone posed the idea to "kill everyone and end everything in a fiery hailstorm of fire and brimstone." You would want to know that your singular voice out of the masses is being considered and if you decide "hey I do not like that idea, let me pose a different solution" then you can. The system is designed to make you as an individual of that society less lazy or dependent upon others for making decisions for you. 

Also the longer the society goes the more streamlined the process will become so, in the beginning, it would take say a 4-5 year to make a single vote, it will take 4-5 minutes for future generations. What is the rush to make changes to the constitution? If the basic rules are extremely grounded in reality and every idea no matter who it comes from is continuously tested into the ring then it would be equivalent to someone creating a scientific paper and having peer-reviewed by everyone in the society. It would not be good if something that is not proven by experimentation to be accepted as being absolute truth. This gives everyone a voice and gives everyone a chance to challenge it.

1

 

I cannot find that I want everyone to agree with everything in my previous posts.

Is it possible that you can search through and find where I might have mistakenly said this?

[Bender]

What is the difference between agreeing and reaching the same rational conclusion based on identical preferences? 

A hive mind is also democratic, btw.

[ALine]

 

5 minutes ago, Bender said:

What is the difference between agreeing and reaching the same rational conclusion based on identical preferences? 

A hive mind is also democratic, btw.

So the united states and the rest of the world is headed toward a hive mind then. You are saying that every society and form of government is just destined to head toward a hive mind. That every form of law is just one hive mind.

You want everyone to eventually become a hive mind society then? 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, ALine said:

I do not want everyone to agree on everything, this would no longer be a democracy nor would it be a good place to live. What I said was that I want everyone to think rationally in respect to empirical evidence which keeps into consideration morality. It would be a hive mind if everyone just "confirmed" to new ideas. What I said was that every idea should be challenged and questioned and when I said that it would take 5 minutes I said not a few sentences before that was that as the intelligence of the society would increase the general IQ would slowly increase which would allow for people to reason faster and faster. This would not mean that they are agreeing faster but because they are becoming more efficient in there agreeing on a process ( Thinking empirically rationally and questioning everything/time). And again I did not say that I want everyone to agree on everything you are taking words out of context.

Your idea seems to be the opposite of what a theoretical utopia would realistically look like; a benign/compassionate dictator is the best bet IMO. Unfortunately, it will only ever be a theory because while "power corrupts" may not be true, "power attracts the corruptible" certainly is, so who do we trust for a one time vote with no backsies?

[dimreepr]

But if I had to make a choice, the current pope is a contender since Nelson is dead.

[Bender]

22 hours ago, ALine said:

 

So the united states and the rest of the world is headed toward a hive mind then. You are saying that every society and form of government is just destined to head toward a hive mind. That every form of law is just one hive mind.

You want everyone to eventually become a hive mind society then? 

So everyone in the US agrees? I must have missed something...

I thought it was obvious that I dislike the idea of a hive mind, although I must admit anecdotes in fiction often describe the experience as blissful. 

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your idea seems to be the opposite of what a theoretical utopia would realistically look like; a benign/compassionate dictator is the best bet IMO. Unfortunately, it will only ever be a theory because while "power corrupts" may not be true, "power attracts the corruptible" certainly is, so who do we trust for a one time vote with no backsies?

Yup

[ALine]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

So everyone in the US agrees? I must have missed something...

I thought it was obvious that I dislike the idea of a hive mind, although I must admit anecdotes in fiction often describe the experience as blissful. 

Nope, no one agrees on anything. It would be basically the same thing except the society teaches there young to think for them selfs, to not think emotionally but to think rationally, and that is pretty much the difference.

[gwb]

it seems to me that a better question would be how do we go about creating a better world for everybody. and the answer to that question is to ask science: anthropology, sociology  and psychology. see what they have to say about the problem of creating a better world.

I should think too that the first question they should examine is what constitutes a better world?

[YaDinghus]

17 minutes ago, gwb said:

it seems to me that a better question would be how do we go about creating a better world for everybody. and the answer to that question is to ask science: anthropology, sociology  and psychology. see what they have to say about the problem of creating a better world.

I should think too that the first question they should examine is what constitutes a better world?

I think what you are asking is implicitly at the core of this thread. Utopia is a model of a better world, like a platonian idea of what we imagine to be the perfect world to live in. So it's not entirely useless to imagine how we would design such a Utopia.

You name some important branches of science to look into for knowing what Utopia might look like. I've often torn down economics for not being a real science, mostly because economy students are stereotypically interested in making money, and not for scientific ambition. Economics also get a bad wrap among intellectuals because it is (or more aptly: the people in this branch of science are) predominantly concerned with justifying and refining a system that enriches the few at the expense of the many. But really economics are concerned with resource rationality, and determining how an individual or a small collective can get the most out of a pool of a scarce resource, or a set of scarce resource pools, while contending with a large amount of competitors. Economics also describes how the conditions need to be in order to be favourable to all individuals when they act altruistically. It is not a stabile configuration, which doesn't mean it doesn't work, but that upholding these conditions requires a constant input of work, and that purely and unfettered market forces will tear such a system apart faster than an angry grizzly your neck.

What I just wrote suggests that a Utopia would have to make Altruism so favourable that it is equal to Egotism. I don't believe this is the case. I do believe that Utopia shouldn't be neoliberal dog-eat-dog cut-throat capitalism, but a society where neither (financial) Altruism nor Egotism are punished. If you love money, then you shall have it, if you don't care about it, you should still be able to live a decent life doing exactly what you think is important.

If scarcity is removed, I believe this can be achieved. I wouldn't go so far as to guarantee it, however...

[gwb]

10 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

I think what you are asking is implicitly at the core of this thread. Utopia is a model of a better world, like a platonian idea of what we imagine to be the perfect world to live in. So it's not entirely useless to imagine how we would design such a Utopia.

You name some important branches of science to look into for knowing what Utopia might look like. I've often torn down economics for not being a real science, mostly because economy students are stereotypically interested in making money, and not for scientific ambition. Economics also get a bad wrap among intellectuals because it is (or more aptly: the people in this branch of science are) predominantly concerned with justifying and refining a system that enriches the few at the expense of the many. But really economics are concerned with resource rationality, and determining how an individual or a small collective can get the most out of a pool of a scarce resource, or a set of scarce resource pools, while contending with a large amount of competitors. Economics also describes how the conditions need to be in order to be favourable to all individuals when they act altruistically. It is not a stabile configuration, which doesn't mean it doesn't work, but that upholding these conditions requires a constant input of work, and that purely and unfettered market forces will tear such a system apart faster than an angry grizzly your neck.

What I just wrote suggests that a Utopia would have to make Altruism so favourable that it is equal to Egotism. I don't believe this is the case. I do believe that Utopia shouldn't be neoliberal dog-eat-dog cut-throat capitalism, but a society where neither (financial) Altruism nor Egotism are punished. If you love money, then you shall have it, if you don't care about it, you should still be able to live a decent life doing exactly what you think is important.

If scarcity is removed, I believe this can be achieved. I wouldn't go so far as to guarantee it, however...

the basic idea of a utopian society is a 'perfect' society, whereas working toward a better world is perhaps in pursuit of a 'perfect' world but it is more concerned with fixing the problems relating to the present situation. and I think that we should turn our attention to science, primarily the humanities which also includes economics, business management, political science and ever religious studies.

I wonder what political scientists would discover if they were free to experiment with different political systems. I also wonder what religious scientists would discover if they were free to experiment with the issue of human spirituality. I could be wrong about this, but I am not aware of either group experimenting with questions relating to their fields.

returning to the question of utopia, if we are to create a better world, the first big challenge is defining a utopian dream everybody can accept. however we describe a better world, we would be wise to seek advice from multiple sources. the distribution of resources is one factor but so is the distribution of power, the application of justice, the development of children, the state of families, the appreciation of art and entertainment, etcetera, etcetera.

another concern is that whenever we try to create a better world, or we try to improve something in one area, we typically have unexpected consequences in another area. a quick example is the use of fertilizers and pesticides, they worked wonders for helping farmers improved and protect their crops but they had undesirable consequences on the environment.

I also dislike the notion of a utopian society because of the connotations of perfection. simple things can be perfect but complex things are incredibly difficult to be perfect. for example, a line can be perfect or near absolute perfection, but a metropolis of ten million humans will never be perfect though we can work toward making it a better city by tackling problems as they arise.

[YaDinghus]

24 minutes ago, gwb said:

the basic idea of a utopian society is a 'perfect' society, whereas working toward a better world is perhaps in pursuit of a 'perfect' world but it is more concerned with fixing the problems relating to the present situation. and I think that we should turn our attention to science, primarily the humanities which also includes economics, business management, political science and ever religious studies.

I wonder what political scientists would discover if they were free to experiment with different political systems. I also wonder what religious scientists would discover if they were free to experiment with the issue of human spirituality. I could be wrong about this, but I am not aware of either group experimenting with questions relating to their fields.

returning to the question of utopia, if we are to create a better world, the first big challenge is defining a utopian dream everybody can accept. however we describe a better world, we would be wise to seek advice from multiple sources. the distribution of resources is one factor but so is the distribution of power, the application of justice, the development of children, the state of families, the appreciation of art and entertainment, etcetera, etcetera.

another concern is that whenever we try to create a better world, or we try to improve something in one area, we typically have unexpected consequences in another area. a quick example is the use of fertilizers and pesticides, they worked wonders for helping farmers improved and protect their crops but they had undesirable consequences on the environment.

I also dislike the notion of a utopian society because of the connotations of perfection. simple things can be perfect but complex things are incredibly difficult to be perfect. for example, a line can be perfect or near absolute perfection, but a metropolis of ten million humans will never be perfect though we can work toward making it a better city by tackling problems as they arise.

I'm not sure if your agreeing or disagreeing with me

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, gwb said:

the basic idea of a utopian society is a 'perfect' society, whereas working toward a better world is perhaps in pursuit of a 'perfect' world but it is more concerned with fixing the problems relating to the present situation. and I think that we should turn our attention to science, primarily the humanities which also includes economics, business management, political science and ever religious studies.

I wonder what political scientists would discover if they were free to experiment with different political systems. I also wonder what religious scientists would discover if they were free to experiment with the issue of human spirituality. I could be wrong about this, but I am not aware of either group experimenting with questions relating to their fields.

returning to the question of utopia, if we are to create a better world, the first big challenge is defining a utopian dream everybody can accept. however we describe a better world, we would be wise to seek advice from multiple sources. the distribution of resources is one factor but so is the distribution of power, the application of justice, the development of children, the state of families, the appreciation of art and entertainment, etcetera, etcetera.

another concern is that whenever we try to create a better world, or we try to improve something in one area, we typically have unexpected consequences in another area. a quick example is the use of fertilizers and pesticides, they worked wonders for helping farmers improved and protect their crops but they had undesirable consequences on the environment.

I also dislike the notion of a utopian society because of the connotations of perfection. simple things can be perfect but complex things are incredibly difficult to be perfect. for example, a line can be perfect or near absolute perfection, but a metropolis of ten million humans will never be perfect though we can work toward making it a better city by tackling problems as they arise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

Quote

The word comes from Greek: οὐ ("not") and τόπος ("place") and means "no-place", and strictly describes any non-existent society 'described in considerable detail'. However, in standard usage, the word's meaning has narrowed and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society.^[5] Eutopia, derived from Greek εὖ ("good" or "well") and τόπος ("place"), means "good place", and is strictly speaking the correct term to describe a positive utopia.

 

[YaDinghus]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

Quote

The word comes from Greek: οὐ ("not") and τόπος ("place") and means "no-place", and strictly describes any non-existent society 'described in considerable detail'. However, in standard usage, the word's meaning has narrowed and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society.^[5] Eutopia, derived from Greek εὖ ("good" or "well") and τόπος ("place"), means "good place", and is strictly speaking the correct term to describe a positive utopia

It doesn't help that "Utopia" and "Eutopia" are ponounced exactly the same in English

[gwb]

On ‎09‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 3:21 AM, dimreepr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

 

amazing what one learns from the history or words,

 

thanks for the information

On ‎08‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 6:32 PM, YaDinghus said:

I'm not sure if your agreeing or disagreeing with me

possibly neither, I am not really interested in a utopian dream because I think it is essentially impossible unless you have an incredibly simple community on a tropical island with plenty of food, no diseases and no predators. however, I do think that we can make this world a better place for humanity and other species, but that would require knowledge which we could gain from science. so, I am disagreeing if we are talking about a perfect society like heaven but I am agreeing if we are talking about simply trying to make this world a better place for everybody including the poorest people.

[gwb]

On ‎08‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 5:39 PM, YaDinghus said:

I think what you are asking is implicitly at the core of this thread. Utopia is a model of a better world, like a platonian idea of what we imagine to be the perfect world to live in. So it's not entirely useless to imagine how we would design such a Utopia.

I always had the impression that one of the implicit attributes of a utopian society is that it is a completed project, a perfection solution requires no changes, no improvements, because it allegedly has no flaws or problems.

and I have a personal history of pursuing perfection to no avail so to me it seems futile though if I concentrate more on improving a few problems, I have a chance of creating a better life for myself. if I was to try to imagine a utopian self or a utopian society, it would not have growth because most growth comes from tackling our problems. and a perfect self or a perfect society could not have problems otherwise it is not perfect and possibly not very utopian

[YaDinghus]

3 hours ago, gwb said:

amazing what one learns from the history or words,

 

thanks for the information

possibly neither, I am not really interested in a utopian dream because I think it is essentially impossible unless you have an incredibly simple community on a tropical island with plenty of food, no diseases and no predators. however, I do think that we can make this world a better place for humanity and other species, but that would require knowledge which we could gain from science. so, I am disagreeing if we are talking about a perfect society like heaven but I am agreeing if we are talking about simply trying to make this world a better place for everybody including the poorest people.

 

2 hours ago, gwb said:

I always had the impression that one of the implicit attributes of a utopian society is that it is a completed project, a perfection solution requires no changes, no improvements, because it allegedly has no flaws or problems.

and I have a personal history of pursuing perfection to no avail so to me it seems futile though if I concentrate more on improving a few problems, I have a chance of creating a better life for myself. if I was to try to imagine a utopian self or a utopian society, it would not have growth because most growth comes from tackling our problems. and a perfect self or a perfect society could not have problems otherwise it is not perfect and possibly not very utopian

My whole point is that Utopia, being virtually impossible, is the idea we need to work towards. To know what we want to change about society, we need an idea of what we want society to be. For this reason we need to imagine our Utopia. Whenever you make something, there is an idea of what it should be, and the better you are at the skills required to make what you want, the closer your project will come to the 'real deal'. 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, gwb said:

I am not really interested in a utopian dream because I think it is essentially impossible unless you have an incredibly simple community on a tropical island with plenty of food, no diseases and no predators. however, I do think that we can make this world a better place for humanity and other species, but that would require knowledge which we could gain from science. so, I am disagreeing if we are talking about a perfect society like heaven but I am agreeing if we are talking about simply trying to make this world a better place for everybody including the poorest people.

1

Just because utopia is unattainable shouldn't hinder our efforts to strive for eutopia.

[Lyudmilascience]

I think the key would be to have the most moral people in it so I would have to set starting point rules that everyone has to follow, thoes how don't with have to be in a different society. 

I dont know this is a lot to think about.