What is your vision of "Utopia"?

Welcome, binnyboy!

I look forward to reading more of your posts.

And please don't kill yourself anytime soon, if only because I find you entertaining.

0 Replies

Yes, thanks, Binnyboy, for an interesting post. But it brings to mind the notion that one man's heaven may be another man's hell. Consider Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

0 Replies

That's why I think the communication afforded by mechanization of the brain is the key; the hope is that we can dissolve most of our disagreements before we proceed

0 Replies

Besides, Brave New World does not appeal to me. Huxley is steeped in what he thinks is good, like art, free thought, not being addicted to Soma, and whatever else. I'm not sayinging these things aren't desirable--they seem to be on the surface, and maybe they are. I'm just saying our perception of what is desirable is completely warped, and we should try to find a more objective way to establish our goals.

0 Replies

BB, what do you mean by "we should try to find a more objective way to establish our goals." Do you mean more scientfic ways?

0 Replies

I mean we should establish our goals as well-informed cyborgs Smile

rather than as pin-headed golfing porn-watching drug-doing video-game-playing slaves to our own desires.

I think we should put most of our differences on hold and pursue a major thrust in technology that would end in enhanced human life in the way I described. Because then, you get the uniformity of thought of Brave New World by simple logical discourse. Everybody agrees not because they're forced into it, but because we've got it right for a dern change!

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

I mean we should establish our goals as well-informed cyborgs rather than as pin-headed golfing porn-watching drug-doing video-game-playing slaves to our own desires.

Jeez, Binny, you hit on three of my favorite pastimes...and dissed them without so much as a "by your leave."

I like people with spunk!

You are gonna be lots of fun in this forum!

Quote:

I think we should put most of our differences on hold and pursue a major thrust in technology that would end in enhanced human life in the way I described. Because then, you get the uniformity of thought of Brave New World by simple logical discourse. Everybody agrees not because they're forced into it, but because we've got it right for a dern change!

Well, Binny, earlier you wrote:

Quote:

Call me goofy or whatever you will...

Okay.

You are goofy, my friend.

One of the goofiest I seen posting here recently.

But I think I like you.

We seem to have read the same science fiction in our day.

0 Replies

I've never read any science fiction! Smile

But I guess I've watched plenty. I'm too lazy. It's because of the nihilism :/ Outer Limits, BTW, is the best show on TV.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

I mean we should establish our goals as well-informed cyborgs rather than as pin-headed golfing porn-watching drug-doing video-game-playing slaves to our own desires.

Dang! I guess that means I have to give up all my hobbies, become an evangelical, and join the Republican party. I just knew my life was screwed up.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, thanks, Binnyboy, for an interesting post. But it brings to mind the notion that one man's heaven may be another man's hell. Consider Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Or consider the Bush administration. Imbalance seems to lead to fanaticism.

"Brave New World," as I recall is a utopia that went wrong like Marx's utopia went wrong as manifested in the communist states. Huxley wrote another utopian novel, "The Island" that balanced itself between the first and second worlds but met its downfall by a corrupt influence from the first world of capitalism and not from within.

0 Replies

I think I told you, Coluber, that I gave Huxley a ride in L.A. (he was waiting for a bus on Franklin Ave.). This was a year or two before his death in 1963. In our conversation he recommended "Island" to me, saying (as I recall) that even the perfect (Neo-Buddhist) society would be doomed by international corporate greed and violence. It is a fundamentally pessimistic work, like Brave New World.

JLNamedropper

0 Replies

Wow! So you're my connection to greatness, JL. No, I had no idea you met Huxley.

Yeah, pessimistic in the end, but "The Island" was killed from without and the "Brave New World" from within. I think "The Island" was optimsitic because the utopian system was created by the people rather than the people being created by the system. You can't have a utopia with neurotic people because neurotic people turn utopias into autocracies. I think "The Island" presumed that its inhabiants were mentally healthy, but in the "Brave New World the inhabitants were forced into the "utopian" mold.

Does this make any sense? It's been many years since I read these books.

0 Replies

Yes, I think that's right. It's been years since I read them as well. BTW, a month later I gave Huxley another ride (this time on Wilshire Blvd), and, as I recall, the title of the book is simply "Island" (without "The"). The success of Island society was, as I recall, based on the psycho-spiritual health of the people because of their spiritual practices. While the social order of Brave New World was the result of tyrannical impositions--that's your interpretation, more or less?

0 Replies

How could slowly becoming cyborgs be viewed as imbalanced? Smile

Anyway, though it sounds science-fictioney, I think it is the natural course; I just wish we could speed it the heck up and get all the stupid disagreements of the world (republican/democrat, god/no god, shi'ite/sunni, free Ireland/UK, communism/capitalism/socialism, chocolate milk/strawberry milk) out of the way.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

How could slowly becoming cyborgs be viewed as imbalanced?
Anyway, though it sounds science-fictioney, I think it is the natural course; I just wish we could speed it the heck up and get all the stupid disagreements of the world (republican/democrat, god/no god, shi'ite/sunni, free Ireland/UK, communism/capitalism/socialism, chocolate milk/strawberry milk) out of the way.

here, here!

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Bo: I've always thought the best way to make a good civilization is to re-draw the political landscape every generation, so I identify very strongly with your "primitive instincts" argument. There are so many laws that are based on the views of a century ago (just look at the Texas Constitution...grrr... ) if we just made everything anew every generation, this would involve people in the process more, lead to more cooperation, and just make the world better.

[Just catching up here]

Excellent idea; all laws should have an 'expiry' date, (and maybe a best before, as well Rolling Eyes

), and they would all need to be debated, and considered by the current government before being either repealed, or reinstituted.

[oh, oh; wait a minute - lets wait another four years before this takes hold in the U.S.! Shocked

]

0 Replies

Bo: A friend of mine told me about an idea that I think has a lot of merit. Instead of voting on one of two candidates, where we have to decide which of our views matter the most to us, since they almost never represent all of one demographic, we instead vote on ideas/issues, and elect someone who represents that idea, forming a sort of council comparable to the joint chiefs of staff. All you'd have to do is get a petition signed to examine an issue, and then the issue is voted on nationally, and we have a big debate on each issue, people vote, and the majority's opinion is upheld. You can re-examine an issue every, say, 5 years, thus keeping the laws consistent with the people.

0 Replies

With mandatory voter turnout? Because othervice you would get a lot of oddball laws passed.

I think switzerland has something similar to this though.

0 Replies

Taliesin, I think the institution of the political party platform is supposed to be a way for voters to support or reject the ideas of a party and its candidates. With computers it may be possible some day for all voters to vote on specific legislation. This would be democracy in its purist or most extreme form, like the referendum.

0 Replies

JL: I agree, but "supposed to" has obviously taken a turn away, into the Economic Theory, where everyone takes the least possible stance on an issue, all with the intent of doing the smallest possible work.

Quote:

With computers it may be possible some day for all voters to vote on specific legislation.

If you think about it, it's already a possibility, and an actuality. When you vote on "Proposition #", that's what you're doing. My (or, more specifically, my friend's way) would be to still elect people, but based on only one ideology, and mix-match the issues you want, so that the greater majority is happy. There could even be a "Minority rights" kind of deal where if the vote was close, you'd only have partial enforcement. What do you guys think?

0 Replies

What is your vision of "Utopia"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know