What is your vision of "Utopia"?

doyouknowhim: It's interesting that you bring up telepathy, since i've thought for a while now that, after an initial adjustment, it would eliminate crime, poverty, starvation...basically all problems.

Frank: While both you and Cicerone seem to have enviable lives, as (In my opinion) I do as well, I meant "Utopia" in a more societal sense, not individually, though if everyone lived in a personal Utopia, that might create a societal Utopia. Hmm...

Utopia can never be achieved for the society at large. Only individuals can seek their own utopia, because it's subjective to each individual.

Good point, cicerone, but I still think we could find some sort of baseline structure that appeals to everyone. I refuse to believe that we're all so disconnected from each other that we can't even live in the same society without strife. Now, that being said, I have no idea what society would satisfy everyone, which is why I proposed small group "Utopias" first.

Huh. what do you think would be a good government style in a small group, cicerone?

Taliesin, As a matter of fact, I have friends all around the world. It depends upon what you consider your "society?" My society is the world society to which I respond by friendships and charity. Even the richest country on this planet cannot take care of our own, and in a capitalist environment, there will always be the have's and havenot's. "Small group" concepts are impossible to control within a democratic republic where freedom of speech and movement are preconditions. If you're looking for a socialist republic, the negatives will always outweigh the positives. Can't be done.

WRONG!!

I'm not sure if this has been brought up in this debate yet, and I need to leave very soon, so I'm posting without reading first.

More chose the name Utopia because, borrowing from two Greek roots, it literally means "no place" or "not a place." Make of that what you will.

I thought that the "u" in utopia meant good (place), as in euphony or eufunction (good sound, good effect), but, as I posted earlier, utopia means, in practice, "no place" because it contains the unrealistic assumption of a place that is static, a place without history. Utopias are generally thought of as the end of historical struggle, as in Marx' sense of the classless society or communist paradise.

ou is the Greek word for "not" or "no," and topos means "place," but I should have known that I would not have been the first to post the definition of Utopia. But, yes, I agree with you on the characteristics of Utopia, JLN.

That's what I was taught as well.

My own personal utopia would simply be a description of some sort of wish fulfillment and not 'utopia' as a concept.

So what if you had control of what you wanted?

What if you could change your cravings for expensive food to a craving for really cheap healthy food?

What if you could change your love of bowling to a love of making stew at a homeless shelter?

What if you could change your secret admiration of the beauty of the skanky slut BSpears or JLo or whoever to the repulsion proper to someone of her personage?

Would you do it?

I submit that the things most people want or envision as part of their "personal utopia" are pathetic and ill-conceived. I submit that given the chance, many would change the things they want through brain manipulation. I submit that these changes in desires would cause the individual to want to change other desires. This process would eventually translate the set of wants and desires into a very different set. For some time, I considered the complete devaluation of everything and then the choosing of a new set of values (wants). But given no set of values to work with, one would be hard pressed to name other wants (values) that would be the "proper" ones to choose. These wants... these values... are at the very core of what we are. To end these values are to end more than it seems at first. To end these values is to end our desire to live, to end our quest for anything, to end the reason for anything. I envision this as the nirvana I have heard a scarce little about. Philosophically, that is. Practically, it seems to me that it would be a lot like death.

I think the obvious choice for us is to gain control of our own desires (probably through the robotics and the nanotechnology and the brain implant technology I'm so big on) and then migrate our desires to wherever they drift. Once they start to focus in and stop drifting, we have probably found our "utopia".

I think you are talking about things people are socialized to prefer. That happens through the media (movies, ads, magazines and so on).

Do you honestly want to remove our humanity through robotics, brain manipulation, etc., or are you yearning for a more altruistic, healthy world population?

Binny, where there is life, control is an illusion.

:wink:

I agree, Graffiti. Binny, I think we need to make a distinction between interests/desires, on the one hand, and values/morals, on the other. Sometimes my desire/interests conflict with my values/morals. If it were not so for most of us (psychopaths excluded), we would never suffer the pangs of shame and guilt. This would be because we would always WANT to do what we believe we SHOULD do.
I think our values should reflect our philososphically defensible interests and our society's moral code should reflect our collective interests.

-edited

Cicreone said:


Why not, cicerone? I must be missing a step in your thought process, because I can't see why a small-group Utopia wouldn't work. A hundred or so people, of all ages and nationalities, handpicked for their cognitive aptitude, start a new government unencumbered by the "sins of the fathers", so to speak. After said government has been set up for a generation or so, you can begin to introduce more and more outsiders, expand the scope outward, and end up with an place where very few things are illegal, and people are ruled by their consciences, not society's laws.

I say that if we had people who are morally superior(I link this with intelligence, but I suppose that's not necessarily so) to start this society, and then bring in outsiders at an overwhelming ratio(20 citizens to one outsider, for example) then the laws of conformity would modify the outsider into a perfect moral specimen.

But that's just my opinion. Why are you of the view that this wouldn't work? Thanks.

Binny: I'm still fuzzy on some aspects of what you were trying to communicate, but based on what I understand, I'll have to side with Graffiti and JL. If I've misunderstood, however, please tell me so. Thanks.

I think the likelihood of a utopian existence among humans is an unlikely prospect, humans are competitive by nature and systems of Hierarchy seem to be a vital part of the human condition (Like George Orwell said "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.").After all it is our competitive nature which has caused vast leaps in technology and all aspects of human existence from the first cave man picking up a bone or a branch as a defense against an enemy to the A bomb and so on. Although Hierarchy causes war it also encourages a far greater rate of progress for man kind.

Sorry if that all sounds a bit vague and broken but if i don't leave it at that for now i'll end up waffling on for ages and i feel like i am loosing the thread of what i was trying to say already

Footloose, that's cool. Just get it out and then refine it with all the necessary qualifications and corrections in response to the comments of other A2Kers. That's the nature and virtue of dialog.

graffiti,

I honestly, truly want to remove our humanity. Furthermore, I think others want to as well and don't realize it.

Consider:

Would you extend your life a year or two if you could do it and ensure good heath?
That's not natural! You want to end our humanity!

Would you accept a few extra IQ points if you could have it free and it wouldn't change your personality?
That's not natural! You want to end our humanity!

Would you wear super-duper clothing that would give you amazing strength? Hmmm... Then would you accept very tiny implants that would give you amazing strength if they were free and normal for everybody?
That's not natural! You want to end our humanity!

Would you replace your desire to go bowling (insert something useless you like to do here) with a desire to help a homeless guy scavenge for cans? Would you make it so that you got a kick out of the latter rather than the prior?
That's not natural! You want to end our humanity!

All I'm saying is, I want control over what I like. You can do what you want. But THAT's what I want. And I think my conception of the world, right and wrong, good and bad, what should be, and so on will change every time I change what I like.

JLN, I think our morals/values DEPEND on our desires. You said our values should reflect our philososphically defensible interests and our society's moral code should reflect our collective interests. But what is philosophically defensible? I've heard some defenses for a LOT of things. And, what I am saying is, if people changed their desires, their interests would change. What is an interest, anyway? Can anyone be said to know what's best for another? Certainly we can throw around examples with a temporarily deranged person or a parent and a child. But the bottom line remains that "interests" are a function of desires. And I say we change our desires. So where does that leave our interests? It seems that they would change along with our desires. I dunno... input?

binny, do you know what projection is? You might very well want to remove our humanity, however, stating that you 'think others want to as well and don't realize it' is either a projection or, at least, a disparity in terms.

You want control over what you like? Fine.

You think your concept of the world will change every time you change what you like? I believe it will.

what I mean when I say people want to end our humanity is

People want things.

Those things they want aren't always things one would consider "human".

X-Ray vision would be nice for the mechanical design process.

If someone wants people to be better in a certain way, does that person want to end a certain aspect of humanity?

Your anwer may be no, but my answer is yes.

humanity is just the embodiment of our limited present.

My answer is that people want to improve our humanity; help it evolve; not remove it.

In recalling posts of yours concerning robotics, I don't find that helpful at all.

Why do you see the answer in diminishing our humanity in favor of becoming mechanical? Is it something to do with an aversion to emotionality?