Something I question about society

[Rocshi]

Why do people demand more and more money and respect for working?

I mean, I understand people wanting these things for doing what they do, but is it really necessary?

In my opinion, it's completely detrimental to the world's advancement.
The world's unemployment is rising, and it is mostly because people want more and more money, because they need it to support their family, which is completely understandable.

But why can't the world accept secular morality and try to help everyone?
Why can't people decide to advance society as a whole, and all people in it, instead of focusing on self-advancement?

The idea that our society promotes this, and then rewards the people that have succeeded in self-advancement, is sickening.

A utopian society would be one with no reliance on currency, or even value of things, which would promote omni-advancement (fancy words yay!)

However, our current society has prevented anything like this to possibly occur.



Discuss.

[Goremancer]

Simple. Not enough resources for everyone. Some will be better off than others. So it really boils down to overpopulation. Man sounds like I'm spamming a religion.

[Rocshi]

What if everyone was put to work creating those resources instead of consuming them?

Google search "Ladakh"

Ladakh was a society on the Indian-Tibetan border that had no contact with the outside world. It sustained itself, had no carbon footprint, and was self-subsistent without ANY resources from outside. The people there were very happy, and there was no "rich" or "poor". There was basically an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" policy in place of currency. People had complete trust in each other.

Then they built a pipeline through it and a highway and then a city came up (STORES OPENED FOR SELF-ADVANCEMENT AS A PIT STOP ON THE HIGHWAY) and it now has one of the highest crime rates in India, and is considered one of the poorest regions of the world.

*Using things learned in school in real conversation like a boss*


Anyway, we could be like pre-highway Ladakh, sustainable and self-subsistent.

[Nick]

Ladakh was a society on the Indian-Tibetan border that had no contact with the outside world. It sustained itself, had no carbon footprint, and was self-subsistent without ANY resources from outside. The people there were very happy, and there was no "rich" or "poor". There was basically an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" policy in place of currency. People had complete trust in each other.

A semi-utopia. Will be good enough if the world is like this.

Too bad it only last until disruption by outside influences. Which is why this practice is dying out. For this practice to last, it need a closed system. If not, they need to be strong enough not to be affected by outside influences. If whole world is to be a semi-utopia, to continue to be one, we only need to watch out for alien/other-planar being/rising species contact or invasion.

Question now, how to make the world into a semi-utopia?

[Goremancer]

Ok then. The people are happy. Everyone has the same amount of resources. WE ALL OWN A CAR. Now try calculating how much carbon dioxide that would produce.

[Rocshi]

Since if this will happen at all, it will be in the distant future, we probably won't have to worry about, as it will probably already have been solved or destroyed the world already.

[Goremancer]

At the rate things are going, the latter. Look at the people now. Selfish. Very selfish. And no one cares about the future. A lot of people don't even believe in global warming. So yea. Latter it will be.

[Rocshi]

However, our current society has prevented anything like this to possibly occur.

Yup.

Just putting the idea out there.

[Goremancer]

Then wait and see. :/ Damn. This world has so many problems man. And it's all caused by humans. Oh well... I hope you are right Rocshi. It's not like I'm really psyched about armageddon.

[Sumikoko]

I have thought about the creation of a utopia many times. Dystopian literature is amongst my favorite genres.

We can discuss this from several angles. Philosophically, whether humans are innately good or evil, and whether they are capable of all being completely selfless and helpful to others without an incentive. Psychologically, whether some people simply have the mindset of needing to be "better" than everyone else and will work toward that goal until completed, or any other mindset that will deviate from your "normal masses." Economically, the concept of limited goods to satisfy unlimited needs. I mean, there are so many approaches as to why utopias won't work that simply being selfless and looking out for the welfare of others is but a drop in the bucket of problems. And there are even different definitions of morality depending on your own values, what country/government you're in, the religion you choose to believe in...

Your only hopes of creating a utopia from the world we have now is pretty much to mass-eradicate all people above the age of 5 and start brainwashing all the children to believe in the same morality you do. And even then, how will you teach them to be selfless? Through reward and punishment. And your cycle starts again with self-satisfaction: the children doing good to receive praise.

To word it bluntly: Utopias have an astronomically high chance of existing compared to a world with no self interest. It simply isn't possible.

[Goremancer]

I have thought about the creation of a utopia many times. Dystopian literature is amongst my favorite genres.

We can discuss this from several angles. Philosophically, whether humans are innately good or evil, and whether they are capable of all being completely selfless and helpful to others without an incentive. Psychologically, whether some people simply have the mindset of needing to be "better" than everyone else and will work toward that goal until completed, or any other mindset that will deviate from your "normal masses." Economically, the concept of limited goods to satisfy unlimited needs. I mean, there are so many approaches as to why utopias won't work that simply being selfless and looking out for the welfare of others is but a drop in the bucket of problems. And there are even different definitions of morality depending on your own values, what country/government you're in, the religion you choose to believe in...

Your only hopes of creating a utopia from the world we have now is pretty much to mass-eradicate all people above the age of 5 and start brainwashing all the children to believe in the same morality you do. And even then, how will you teach them to be selfless? Through reward and punishment. And your cycle starts again with self-satisfaction: the children doing good to receive praise.

To word it bluntly: Utopias have an astronomically high chance of existing compared to a world with no self interest. It simply isn't possible.

And with the eradicating the people above age 5, that alone is an evil act. You have to seal up history and therefore seal up freedom of speech. Which is not a utopia. Yes Utopia is impossible. There is no perfect government that is both fair and incorruptible.

[Sumikoko]

And with the eradicating the people above age 5, that alone is an evil act. You have to seal up history and therefore seal up freedom of speech. Which is not a utopia. Yes Utopia is impossible. There is no perfect government that is both fair and incorruptible.

I disagree with this statement. There is supposedly no perfect government, but I daresay you view democracy as the "more perfect" government than say, an authoritarian government, am I right? This is the result of propaganda spread by your top tier countries. There is no rule of the world saying that free speech and free will in general needs to be guarded. We are only taught since we were little to believe this is thus. Literature is also something the "educated" people in society have established as necessary to "enrich the soul" or whatever.

Fact is, besides food, water, and shelter, there really is nothing else necessary or inherently "good."

I mean, I'm definitely not saying that I disagree with free speech, lolz. But if I were to be dictator of the world attempting to create a utopia, free speech is probably high on my list of things to get rid of. Because a utopia cannot exist in the presence of voices of dissent.

[Muso]

Fact is, besides food, water, and shelter, there really is nothing else necessary or inherently "good."

What about healthcare?

See how far your sustainable and subsistent town gets without that!

[Rocshi]

It's true, you can't change people, and creation of a utopian society is impossible based on what we have already done.

And "doing good" could be helping other people, not for yourself at all.

But then, this establishes a chain of I MUST HELP PEOPLE MORE THAN DERP OVER THERE


Basically, Sumi is right.
I never said that it could be created, I was pointing out how far we are from it and what we could do.

[creedkingsx]

The problem is that with a utopian world where everyone is equal, same status, same everything, it provides no room for advancement in our species. If we paid all the intelligent people who have come to invent the things we have today, find cures for diseases, figure out ways to reduce our carbon footprint; the same that we pay someone who filters the grease in the frier at McDonald's, what motivation would there be to do any of those things. We, as humans, are very selfish creatures. When we get something we want, we want more. In order to prevent this selflessness, society has to halt advancement that allows our race to live longer. That Utopian society you mentioned didn't live long against the rest of the world that sought advancement, did it?
It is an unfortunate way of looking at it, and I understand questioning the concept of classes towards people like actors and lawyers, but we have advanced extremely far extremely quickly. Think about it, just over a hundred years ago, the car was invented.

[Rocshi]

If the entire world was like Ladakh, there wouldn't be a need for advancement, would there now?

I have tried to argue in the past that humans are inherently good, but I run out of arguments very fast, so I'm not going to bother.


Sumi's idea of eradicating all people except infants or w/e would really be the only way of obtaining a mindset similar to Ladakh, since they lived primitively, and if that was the entire world, they would never spread bad influences of highways and pipelines, or seek advancement in general.


Again, these are just crazy visions here that I do not expect to be acted upon in any way ever.

I really hope I don't become the next fascist leader to bring this...

[creedkingsx]

If the entire world was like Ladakh, there wouldn't be a need for advancement, would there now?

I have tried to argue in the past that humans are inherently good, but I run out of arguments very fast, so I'm not going to bother.


Sumi's idea of eradicating all people except infants or w/e would really be the only way of obtaining a mindset similar to Ladakh, since they lived primitively, and if that was the entire world, they would never spread bad influences of highways and pipelines, or seek advancement in general.


Again, these are just crazy visions here that I do not expect to be acted upon in any way ever.

I really hope I don't become the next fascist leader to bring this...

The problem is we would effectively become a dying race without advancement. You could make all humans have this similar mindset, but we aren't the only race on the planet. Certain animals might start evolving in ways we wouldn't be ready for, certain diseases can cause a wildfire plague. It has happened and we weren't ready for it those times. I do agree with your humanistic view that we are all inherently good, and I agree with the idea that I assume you share that this society we have creates the bad energy or behavior inside us, because we wind up needing it to protect ourselves from the rest of our own race.

[Rocshi]

But Sumi, if free speech is not allowed, people would have to control it, and people would then seek control of it.

[Sumikoko]

But Sumi, if free speech is not allowed, people would have to control it, and people would then seek control of it.

I mean, generally, if you treat your citizens well, they won't have a reason to need free speech. If you don't teach them the concept of free speech, they'll never want it, you know? Especially if you don't give them a reason to want it.

It's like, if you've never been exposed to foreign languages, or something like ice cream even, you wouldn't know its existence nor desire it.

[Rocshi]

Well, the people of Ladakh didn't need advancement.

The key here really is that:

Peaceful self-subsistence where peolpe trust each other=closest to utopian society we can possibly get

If you want to have a giant house and lots of food, make a giant house and grow lots of food.

If you want to give someone food in exchange for something, give them the same thing in return. Trust them.


The evolving animals is beyond our control, we can't change that.

[Rocshi]

Well, it of course depends on what your speech limitations actually limit.

What happens if someone breaks this rule?

Certainly not something considered Utopian, as I don't think you were considering a ruler to the hand...

[Necrolord]

Rocshi, here's a HUGE part of the problem. Me and an old girlfriend once discussed something like this, and I said that the world's wealthy should give a lot of it to the poor and lower classes to make things more even for everyone. She says "They earned that money, they should be allowed to keep it." I think people who think like this shouldn't be allowed to vote. Implying that the wealth divide is A-okay means that you won't really look into the candidate you elect, and you will most likely elect someone who will end up hurting you. I use Herman Cain as a strong example: "If you're poor and have no job, it's your own fault." Being a black man, did he really hope to connect with African Americans on that note?

There is a lot of wealth that is not being USED right now, and could do wonders for the world. It could pay for a lot of necessary surgeries that people are delaying for financial reasons. It could get gas-guzzlers off the roads. It could retrofit millions of American/Canadian homes to be more environmentally friendly, since households are actually greater polluters than cars. It would basically improve the lives of millions if the wealth divide was more even.

But that is socialism, according to the trolls on CNN's boards. The concept of even wealth distribution so everyone can be happy is a threat to North America. "Let them die."

We will let the wealthy die if they ever need our help. Or we will make them our slaves.

[ajkei]

Rocshi, here's a HUGE part of the problem. Me and an old girlfriend once discussed something like this, and I said that the world's wealthy should give a lot of it to the poor and lower classes to make things more even for everyone. She says "They earned that money, they should be allowed to keep it."

I agree with your gf about keeping money that they DO earn. However, most of the wealthy are wealthy from money passed down from what their family did in the past, not what they themselves earned. A person's money that they themself earned should not be taken away from them. If they have money just because their parents had money, they did not earn the money and should not keep it. In my opinion people's money should go to the government when they die to help lower taxes and provide public services, education, health care, etc. This motivates people to either spend their money before they die, which helps the economy, or to basically donate their money to the government and save money for the people who do need it.
- rants from my trains of thought while showering -

[Blazer]

I agree with your gf about keeping money that they DO earn. However, most of the wealthy are wealthy from money passed down from what their family did in the past, not what they themselves earned. A person's money that they themself earned should not be taken away from them. If they have money just because their parents had money, they did not earn the money and should not keep it. In my opinion people's money should go to the government when they die to help lower taxes and provide public services, education, health care, etc. This motivates people to either spend their money before they die, which helps the economy, or to basically donate their money to the government and save money for the people who do need it.
- rants from my trains of thought while showering -

Who are you to determine what happens to the money earned by others? If I leave my money to my son in my last will, I earned that money and I should be able to determine where it goes. Just because my son didn't work for it literally doesn't mean he shouldn't get it. It's the same concept as if I'm alive and want to spend my money somewhere or give it to someone.

But if you had known no other form of government, and the dictator was not corrupt and worked for the benefit of the people, would you really have any problems with it? You would assume that you would want to have some power and representation in government, but if the government allowed and protected this utopian society, why would people have a problem with it?

But i agree that it is impossible for an Utopian society can not realistically exist (at least i think that was the point you were making)

In reality we have had other forms of government so for realities sake, that point is useless. However, if by some chance that were the case, people will always fight for freedom and the ability to make their own decisions. If it were for the betterment of mankind I would be willing to give some freedoms, however those are circumstantial and there's a limit to what would we sacrificed. It's hard to explain in abstract terms. But if it were a Utopian Society, a dictator would be unnecessary. It would not be "true" or "real". It's like in the movies when you see the masses manipulated and controlled to have a Utopian Society, there may be peace inside of the society but it is not real. People themselves are not making the Utopian Society. It is someone manipulating them so what he/she thinks it would be. In a Utopian Society I would assume all would have free will and their respective rights, which would be non-existent under such circumstances.

And yes, I was stating that in reality a Utopian Society is impossible.

[Nick]

I mean, there are so many approaches as to why utopias won't work that simply being selfless and looking out for the welfare of others is but a drop in the bucket of problems. And there are even different definitions of morality depending on your own values, what country/government you're in, the religion you choose to believe in...

On being selfless. Agreed with that what you think is good for others might not be good for them.

To word it bluntly: Utopias have an astronomically high chance of existing compared to a world with no self interest. It simply isn't possible.

Heaven does not exist. At least the ones which requires any interaction with other real individuals.

The problem is that with a utopian world where everyone is equal, same status, same everything, it provides no room for advancement in our species.

Complete equality is impossible to achieve the world we are living. No room for advancement if there is pseudo-equality is a lie spouted by capitalist. Advancement that benefit ourselves, and others can still be achieved.

If we paid all the intelligent people who have come to invent the things we have today, find cures for diseases, figure out ways to reduce our carbon footprint; the same that we pay someone who filters the grease in the frier at McDonald's, what motivation would there be to do any of those things.

You call this equality? Unequal amount of contribution for equal amount of benefits?

Fact is, besides food, water, and shelter, there really is nothing else necessary or inherently "good."

Preservation of life is the only good? In fact, preservation of life, either your own or others is an impediment to utopia. Preservation of our own lives is the sole cause of competition and all the mess in this world.

I mean, generally, if you treat your citizens well, they won't have a reason to need free speech. If you don't teach them the concept of free speech, they'll never want it, you know? Especially if you don't give them a reason to want it.

It's like, if you've never been exposed to foreign languages, or something like ice cream even, you wouldn't know its existence nor desire it.

Quoted for truth. Psychologically, if they don't know about it and don't have a reason to need it, they won't desire it.

[Sumikoko]

What about healthcare?

See how far your sustainable and subsistent town gets without that!

Lol, healthcare as in, doctors and medicines in general, or healthcare as in, the complex structure built around promoting the general welfare of the people by allowing the poor to have access to doctors? Cause I can tell you the latter isn't doing America much good right now, heh.

Jokes aside, people back then wouldn't have imagined the future generations to live to upwards of 100 years old. Their best max was 40-50, depending on how far back you go. So living to that age was considered lucky. Having no medicine at all is probably not preferable, as you probably at least need basic herbs and such. But a high life span is not completely indicative of how successful a civilization will be (while it is a main indicator when comparing one civilization to another occurring at the same time). If you start a utopia from scratch with no healthcare, there's nothing that says you, as ruler, can't set the ideal age to survive as 20, and citizens will thus believe that living to that age is indeed lucky.

Are you worried about losing your job once I take over the world and eliminate everything except the bare minimum? Kufufu.

Preservation of life is the only good? In fact, preservation of life, either your own or others is an impediment to utopia. Preservation of our own lives is the sole cause of competition and all the mess in this world.

I agree to an extent, at least, with the last sentence. It's how the survival of the fittest arose in the first place. However, food and water and such are factors that cannot be compromised in any way for an ideal society. I wouldn't say that the factors that sustain life are an impediment to utopia. I would say utopias exist when these factors can be easily met with no need for competition, not lack of competition from lack of the drive of "wanting to live."

[Muso]

Lol, healthcare as in, doctors and medicines in general, or healthcare as in, the complex structure built around promoting the general welfare of the people by allowing the poor to have access to doctors? Cause I can tell you the latter isn't doing America much good right now, heh.

Jokes aside, people back then wouldn't have imagined the future generations to live to upwards of 100 years old. Their best max was 40-50, depending on how far back you go. So living to that age was considered lucky. Having no medicine at all is probably not preferable, as you probably at least need basic herbs and such. But a high life span is not completely indicative of how successful a civilization will be (while it is a main indicator when comparing one civilization to another occurring at the same time). If you start a utopia from scratch with no healthcare, there's nothing that says you, as ruler, can't set the ideal age to survive as 20, and citizens will thus believe that living to that age is indeed lucky.

Are you worried about losing your job once I take over the world and eliminate everything except the bare minimum? Kufufu.



I agree to an extent, at least, with the last sentence. It's how the survival of the fittest arose in the first place. However, food and water and such are factors that cannot be compromised in any way for an ideal society. I wouldn't say that the factors that sustain life are an impediment to utopia. I would say utopias exist when these factors can be easily met with no need for competition, not lack of competition from lack of the drive of "wanting to live."

But all you need is a virus/ other kind of infection to ravage your community then everybody dies. Every time somebody gets injured in an accident their wounds get infected and that person dies. Half the mothers and babes die in childbirth. Cholera and food poisoning and malaria all kill you. Life would be uber shit.

[Nick]

But all you need is a virus/ other kind of infection to ravage your community then everybody dies. Every time somebody gets injured in an accident their wounds get infected and that person dies. Half the mothers and babes die in childbirth. Cholera and food poisoning and malaria all kill you. Life would be uber shit.

Life in the past is less convenient. They suffer from more diseases and life expectancy is short. Life is less predictable.

But are they any less happy than us?

[Muso]

Life in the past is less convenient. They suffer from more diseases and life expectancy is short. Life is less predictable.

But are they any less happy than us?

Yes! People who live in unimaginable suffering and pain every day are not happy!

[creedkingsx]

As for trying to imitate an ancient civilization, why would you do that? Does that nation still exist? No. Why? Because an unjust, unbalanced, non-redistributionist group invaded and took over. Why would you want to recreate a society with a high birthrate, high mortality rate and low life expectancy. The West's current economic model has created more wealth that any other system in Earth's history. Maybe if any of you cocksuckers had actually finished school you would have something to show for being born into a privileged society. U lazy fucks disgust me. I don't have a problem with left wing ideology, but to hear this garbage on these forums makes me mad. I'M MAD BRO! COME AT ME!

This was kind of the point I was kind of the point I was going with. The society you mentioned had no such advancement and because of that, another society completely took it over. Even if you create a global ideology, another species might evolve out of the primitive state and take over. There is too much of a chaos theory that can be implied to be able to ever achieve it. In theory, Utopia is a perfect society. In practice, it would never last. Something will advance beyond it and it will die, because another greedy society wanted it to. Hell, there are potentially billions of alien races out there far more advanced than we are that could come one day and build an intergalactic highway right through us and we would be finished.

[Rocshi]

Well, the semi-utopian society could be created if the entire world was like Ladakh, then no society would be taking it over

Well, Trollzor, I live in the middle of New York City, the most left-wing place in the world.

But you're right, it can't happen. I'm privileged, I shouldn't care.

But that exactly is the theory of omni-advancement, priviliged people actually giving a fuck instead of not posting this because I'm a city teenager that's basically set financially for a while.

I give a fuck though, and if you don't, that's fine, you can focus on your self-advancement for our current society.

[CmG]

Lol derp where is this thread comming from? The Human mind is made for hirarchy systems. He needs other Humans who are better or worse then him. Since we have that many people and cultures we need more measures to seperate us from the rest to feel better. Euqality doesnt work.

Just google Karl Marx, Siegmund Freud and Feuerbach and read their ideology about the Human being. It could help you to answer your questions if you are really interested in it.

[Nick]

Just google Karl Marx, Siegmund Freud and Feuerbach and read their ideology about the Human being. It could help you to answer your questions if you are really interested in it.

Those ideologies are the general truth about human beings. But do they signify our limits? Can we possibly achieve something different from their observations? Or can we design policies based on their observations to nudge human behaviour towards another equilibrium?

[Rocshi]

Again, this thread is questioning why we are so far and continue to move away from it.

[Nick]

Again, this thread is questioning why we are so far and continue to move away from it.

Humans have limited lifespan. And people do not learn from history and published wisdom. Education sums it up I guess.

Corrupt old world order might also be a contributing factor. We need to exterminate all the old hoots in power. And their stooges and apprentices.

[Nick]

By the way, I'm lost. Each have their own definition of ideals and utopia.

Is it
1) perfection?
2) peaceful coexistence?
3) sustainability and subsistence?
4) equality?
5) no need for competition?

Who wants a poll?

Again, this thread is questioning why we are so far and continue to move away from it.

Now I don't think we as a whole are anywhere near it in the first place. Small scale Ladakh is easier to create than worldwide Ladakh. Means to create worldwide Ladakh have been discussed earlier. Someone need to get their hands dirty if you want it fast.

[Blazer]

tl:dr

But end the end. People = people. We are flawed by default and always will be. We are imperfect and will never be able to exist in a "perfect" world with each other as "perfect" beings. From a strictly scientific point this stands firm as well as from a religious point of view. There will always be those more fortunate than others, those who are greedy, those who want to be on top- towering over everyone, etc.. history is the best example to show this.

So it seems that a utopia that is man-made is impossible. We are flawed and create flawed entities through our own faults. Don't get me wrong, a Utopian Society would be great. For everyone to co-exist and get along without any problems is great. It is definitely something that we can constantly strive towards and improve ourselves upon, but to reach that "perfection" there would have to be no other errors, which is impossible. Perfection would mean that there is no room for improvement, no room for expanding, no room any more creativity, everything would exist in a "perfect" order and change would be unnecessary and only cause the "perfection" to disappear. The very essence and definition of perfection is impossible. (Doesn't mean you can't come pretty darn close tho.)

So to sum it up.
We have People=People: simply stated a flawed being (which isn't a bad thing. humans can be improved upon which leaves room for us to do good, etc..)
Therefore: People+World=Imperfect World
Imperfect World=Everything that happens today/happened in the past
Utopian Society= ((People * Zero)= No people)

[Ash]

for something to be a Utopia, it needs these qualities:
1) No racism/crimes/hatred towards others, especially our same kind.
2) Try to keep those with mental disabilities apart to aid them.
3) No need for armies, or Cops, or any other enforcement.
4) No pollution, people HAVE to walk/ride bikes/use hybrid cars.
5) Everyone has to go to a monthly city meeting, so their Mayor talks to them on how things should be done and etc. Any problems the city has can be discussed there and shit. No corruption.

Any ideas?

[Sumikoko]

for something to be a Utopia, it needs these qualities:
1) No racism/crimes/hatred towards others, especially our same kind.
2) Try to keep those with mental disabilities apart to aid them.
3) No need for armies, or Cops, or any other enforcement.
4) No pollution, people HAVE to walk/ride bikes/use hybrid cars.
5) Everyone has to go to a monthly city meeting, so their Mayor talks to them on how things should be done and etc. Any problems the city has can be discussed there and shit. No corruption.

Any ideas?

1. Prejudice is one of those things that can never be eliminated. Everyone is prejudiced somehow, and naturally separate themselves into groups based on perceived social standings. This is why your "cliques" form in school. Racism is but a larger scale of "cliqu-ing." Even in your utopian books, prejudice isn't eliminated. In fact, some books encourage standing prejudice to keep the society from trying to force change. It sounds like the opposite of what it should be doing, but surprisingly, it works.

2. A utopia would ideally not have disabled people.

3. Armies is needed to put down rebellion in utopias. Because there will always be deviants. Of course, ideally, there ought to be no rebellion in utopias, though. As for whether you want a police force or not is up to the ruler, I suppose.

4. Hehe, pollution isn't usually something I think about, but you generally perceive utopias to be a highly advanced technological society, so I would think pollution is eliminated with the high tech.

5. I don't know about a monthly meeting. I don't think it would necessarily prevent corruption, as one usually associate corruption with underhanded, secret dealings.

[Kony]

3) No need for armies, or Cops, or any other enforcement.

Impossible?

[Nick]

To twist your words, your utopia is a

1. A racist,

2. eugenics practicing

3. police state

4. which neither care about pollution

5. nor consensus.

Jokes aside, is your utopia really all about dictatorship? Or you think that it's the only possible way to be implemented...

[Sumikoko]

Hehehehe, that is a pretty funny interpretation. Though I can't say it's not technically true in some sense.

I really do think Utopias can only function under a dictatorship. As -insertnameofpoliticaltheoristHobbesorLockeorsometh ing- once said, you can only rely on vice to check vice. Not virtue to check vice. In other words, I don't believe a government of common rule by the masses, where people collectively try to choose the "best" for others will truly act in a manner for the common good, and thus not retain the Utopia's ideal state. I am not a Romantic. I believe people are inherently evil.

What do you think?

[Blazer]

Hehehehe, that is a pretty funny interpretation. Though I can't say it's not technically true in some sense.

I really do think Utopias can only function under a dictatorship. As -insertnameofpoliticaltheoristHobbesorLockeorsometh ing- once said, you can only rely on vice to check vice. Not virtue to check vice. In other words, I don't believe a government of common rule by the masses, where people collectively try to choose the "best" for others will truly act in a manner for the common good, and thus not retain the Utopia's ideal state. I am not a Romantic. I believe people are inherently evil.

What do you think?

I'm not sure about inherently evil or inherently good...that's a debate itself. People are certainly dealt challenges in everyday life and how we react or respond to those determines whether we are "good" or "evil", based on the perception from others. I think everyone has the opportunity to be/do good or be/do evil.

You say a Utopia can only be run by a dictator. Well it could be perceived as a Utopia for the dictator...but what about the people? Would the masses be happy? I don't want someone to have "absolute power" over me because he/she claims that he/she is my dictator and I must obey him/her because he/she is the law. That's not Utopia for me...so this begs the question what is Utopia? What is it to each person? What if my view of Utopia is different than yours?

So the question is not how a Utopian society would exist, but can it exist?

If it can exist, please tell me how it can exist.

[ajkei]

You say a Utopia can only be run by a dictator. Well it could be perceived as a Utopia for the dictator...but what about the people? Would the masses be happy? I don't want someone to have "absolute power" over me because he/she claims that he/she is my dictator and I must obey him/her because he/she is the law. That's not Utopia for me...so this begs the question what is Utopia? What is it to each person? What if my view of Utopia is different than yours?

But if you had known no other form of government, and the dictator was not corrupt and worked for the benefit of the people, would you really have any problems with it? You would assume that you would want to have some power and representation in government, but if the government allowed and protected this utopian society, why would people have a problem with it?

But i agree that it is impossible for an Utopian society can not realistically exist (at least i think that was the point you were making)

[Ash]

but the majority of dictators are communists.

[creedkingsx]

but the majority of dictators are communists.

The majority of Communists in history are men. Oh wait.

[CmG]

Happyness is highly overrated. Where i was young. People feared the hell thats why they kept going on. Peasants had to go to war if they didnt were happy or not. nobody cared. Oh look my lord wants a new piece of land or his brother had sex with his sister. LETS GET TO WAR!

Son you life in Merica. You have fucking won d00d! Now spend like 10 Dollars at xmas for some pesky little aid foundation for the 3. world or Australia for your conscience. :P

Without Gene modification and a drastical reduction of the human population there will never be something like an Utopia. Basicly we are not much more socially inteligent then 1000 years ago. humanity just got more heavy into trading instead of mass extinction. Well in most parts of the World.

Rid humanity of desires and genders. Maybe then ...

[Alex E. Jones]

Happyness is highly overrated. Where i was young. People feared the hell thats why they kept going on. Peasants had to go to war if they didnt were happy or not. nobody cared. Oh look my lord wants a new piece of land or his brother had sex with his sister. LETS GET TO WAR!

Son you life in Merica. You have fucking won d00d! Now spend like 10 Dollars at xmas for some pesky little aid foundation for the 3. world or Australia for your conscience. :P

Without Gene modification and a drastical reduction of the human population there will never be something like an Utopia. Basicly we are not much more socially inteligent then 1000 years ago. humanity just got more heavy into trading instead of mass extinction. Well in most parts of the World.

Rid humanity of desires and genders. Maybe then ...

Learn to spell you dirty Kraut.

[creedkingsx]

Learn to spell, you dirty Kraut.

Learn to grammar.

[ajkei]

As for humans being inherently good or evil, it depends on what you define as good and evil. Personally, i would define good loosely as generally acting in such a way that makes others happy, and evil as deliberately acting in such a way that makes others sad. Most people (in my experience, at least) would fall into the first category, and thus be "good" individuals.
However, just because people are generally good does not mean that they know what would make others happy, especially on a large scale as deciding how to govern a country. People's ideas on what is the best for the general populace vary greatly throughout different circles and belief systems.