What is your vision of "Utopia"?

Cicerone's got a point, but I still think that even if a society can never achieve perfection, making people less selfish would definitely solve a lot of our problems.

But I've also thought about how selfishness is the main cause for humans to strive for growth.

Eryejil, Utopia as a community is impossible to achieve, but as an individual, we can control some of our own destiny. Nothing is perfect in this world - including us. Some of us who have achieved some financial success try to share some of our gains through contributions to nonprofit organizations that benefit society. We can't do it alone; we just do what we feel is reasonable and responsible under individual circumstances. Beyond that, we try to enjoy life by being responsible to family, friends and the larger community. Selfishness and resposibility go hand in hand.

I've always imagined the closest to perfection we can achieve is if we break everyone down into tribes. If we separate, I doubt anything wrong can happen.

I've read "Brave New World" and if a friend of mine comes through, "1984" as well. Brave New World shows how creppy an utopia can be, I think its impossible. Mainly because if we do achieve and prosperity, things will get too boring...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/?focuswin

fresco, Your link doesn't work - for me. However, I would like to posit a question. Is the organization of the European Union some sort of goal to achieve a utopia?

cicerone imposter

The link should get you to a BBC page from which you can tune in to a 45 minute "learned discussion" of concepts of Utopia and Dystopia.

As for the EU, I doubt whether its proponents had any Utopic vision other than a vague concept of "post war unity", and the creation of an economic rival to the US or the Far East. However, some cynics have argued that it is a German conception which will achieve by stealth and gemutlichkeit that promised utopia of German Domination which the Nazis failed to deliver.

Interestingly,along this line of argument, the BBC link reveals the essential relationship between concepts of Eugenics and Utopia and implies that we should now have concern about the potential purchase of "genetic advantages" by a Western elite leading to a bifurcation of society into the Dystopia of a two tiered species.

The German Nazis lost the war.

The American Nazis won.

As German Nazi fanatics claimed their twisted cosmology as a panacea for the world, so the American Nazi psychotics push their abysmal ideology on humanity by force. Both are dangerously utopian in their convictions of infalibility and virtue.

I think we have Utopia.

The universe produced intelligent life, and I am here to experience it.

To ask for more is just being greedy.

To pick up one point:

"I've read "Brave New World" and if a friend of mine comes through, "1984" as well. Brave New World shows how creppy an utopia can be, I think its impossible. Mainly because if we do achieve and prosperity, things will get too boring..."

Surely utopia, by definition, couldn't be boring? I wouldn't consider a boring world to be utopian...

Eorl: I very strongly disagree. When you look at the events of today(bombs, dying, removal of civil liberties/rights), I don't see how one can assert that we have even a good society, let alone a perfect one.
Now, that being said, I can agree that your description is really all we should need...but people seem to be greedy(imagine that :wink: ), and a Utopia(in my opinion) would have a fail-safe to control these destructive impulses, so we could appreciate "intelligent life".

I guess we can remain blind to the atrocities still being practiced in this world, but I would prefer to live in "reality." When this administration consumes all of our energy in Iraq and forgets it's own people and the sufferings of people in Africa, there isn't much to be happy about.

I like this. It brings up an interesting point about what a Utopia is...and why Utopia is preceded by "a", not "an". :wink:

I like to define Utopia as a place where everyone's differences are celebrated, yet there is a stronger identity of similarity that holds us all together. I was reading Frank Herbert's Dune series, and I have a way for a Utopia to be realized in small groups, but not in large. Basically, there would be one rule. If anyone thought someone else had done something wrong, then the whole community would elect [insert number here] people from the community who they thought were morally superior to decide right from wrong. After the "trial", punishment would be meted out, and the tribunal would go back to their everyday lives. No laws, just morals.
On a larger scale, though, it breaks down. Why is it that we an only achieve Utopia in small groups? Any thoughts?

One could argue that it is ever achieved, but I'll not take up that banner at the moment.

It seems to me that Utopia requires perfect execution and application of the rules (be they law or morals).

There are not an unlimitied number of individuals who could mete out justice in this way without corruption. So, as the size of the group increases, we have to settle for lesser examples of King Solomon to rule on cases of justice/morality.

In other words, it works when one, truly benevolent and wise person is exercising some control. When we get mob rule or corrupt executors, the practice degenerates into something less than Utopia.

One important aspect is that of specificity vs. generalization. In a Utopia, each case would be judged solely on its own merits. On the other hand, laws are made to help generalize, grouping infractions together and categorizing them. This is because we don't trust each judge or jury to mete out justice fairly without the benefit of some guidelines.

However, in a very small group, we don't have to generalize as much. More attention is paid to the specifics of each situation and moral judgement is applied to each action a priori.

Maybe that's part of the answer to the question.

Nice post, Waldo.
I'm interested in the logical implications of that: since we would, therefore, need a specific, human approach to the problems, one could argue that laws are wrong, since laws are dependent upon strict rules(Justice is blind...to the individual).
That's why I like the idea of judges so much; they bring a human touch to an cold, rigid code.

I voted no. 3, because I believe in personal utopias. I consider myself so blessed, because the overwhelming majority of my adult life, I got paid doing things I loved. And the sweet part is I didn't have to realize it in retrospect, Ialways knew I was at the time!

Sounds good, booman, but I'm more interested in a perfect society, rather than an individual life.


Maybe there's a better way to do this: What is your idea of a perfect government system? Be as elaborate as you want. I'll read it.

Funny you should ask that. In the last few days while reading about Iraqs attempt to shape a new government, I've been wondering...... Why don't any countries try copying the U.S. constitution? Think about it. what has lasted longer,and been more formidable?

Boo: I'd have to disagree with you there. While I like many things about our current system, it's the worst sort of hubris to assume that it's perfect, or even suitable, for other countries. There are a lot of systems in place(first and foremost the Texas constitution ) that need to be done away with, but haven't(the law that requires assault before restraining orders can be issued, for example).

What parts of the Constitution do you regard as "formidable", and how would you enhance/improve them? Thanks.

I look at the whole thing as formidable. just because it's lasted so long, and survived so many fools. I never said perfect ,because as a matter of fact the very prudent Mr. Jefferson, allowed for the imperfections with the amendment portion.
And of course I was nowhere in the neighborhood of hubris, as I was simply pondering. Tell me my learned friend, just how many governments have lasted longer?
Here is something more specific for you on formidability. As an African- American, I have marveled at how we were able to come out from under the yoke of slavery, with it's overwhelming ecomomic, and cultural ramifications, without overthrowing the government. Under the parlimentary system, I don't believe Lincoln would have stayed in office long enough to be our ally, with a position so unpopular in the north and south.

I'm sure you realize that the charter of the United Nations begins with the words...We, the peoples of the United Nations....

...and that it contains other elements of our Constitution.

Our Constitution was FAR from perfect (especially to women and African slaves)...but on balance...it is one hell of a document.

Other countries could do much worse than to borrow from it freely.