How to Start a Utopia; Purely Hypothetical

[The Dryad]

If a Utopia was possible, what would it look like if you made it? Do you think there is one possible Utopia or many possibilities? Would smaller Utopias exist or would there just be one big one?

 

Looking at Auroville, which failed, and Asgardia (which isn't exactly marketed as Utopian) I'm suspicious of it's future failure. 'Utopias' can be cult-like or just plain cults in general- and they tend to be sexually and/physically abusive. 

 

But, the idea of Utopias is fun isn't it?

 

I once read a book (that I can't remember the title of) where technology and nature were in harmony- like some type of Garden of Eden mixed with tech, and I think I read that most people were vegetarians, and as a vegan, that's a dream. I don't remember if the book was a singular place or if they had outside enemies- but in reality I think having a group of outsiders, enemy or not, is plausible, even Heaven will have outsiders.

 

Speaking of Heaven (another Utopia) I was randomly watching a David Jeremiah stream, and he analyzed heaven and translated it into modern day language- and Heaven is going to be undoubtedly beautiful but also surprisingly 'technologically' advanced. I think Heaven will have to be my Utopia- after all it will be a vegetarian place

 

 “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together; the lion shall eat straw like an ox; but the serpent—its food shall be dust! They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain.” —Isaiah 65:25

 

and it'll be a really cool, updated Garden of Eden. 

 

As an afterthought, has anyone else seen the Tree of 40 fruit and thought that the Tree of Life will look something that that.

[NickyTannock]

Personally, what I would do is create two types of law, Elemental and Derivative.

 

Elemental Laws couldn't be added, ignored, altered, repealed or circumvented.
Derivative Laws can be added, altered or repealed, but can't contradict an Elemental Law, which takes precedence.

 

The first of the Elemental Laws would be a "Veil of Ignorance law" intended to prevent or at least severely limit the potential for corruption.
The law would be something like "Any new law that is created, must affect those who created it in the same way that it would affect everyone else".
Cakes are always fun, so here's a cake analogy to explain how this law works: Let's say you have a party, and you need someone to cut the cake. The problem is that anyone you choose to cut the cake will cut it unevenly, and get the larger slice. So, you give someone the knife, ask them to cut the cake, and tell them that they get the last pick. This guarantees that they will do their best to cut the cake evenly because there's a "veil of ignorance" over who will get the larger slice. And it won't be them.

[Alejandrogynous]

The concept of Utopia skeeves me out, since the only way we could ever achieve one is by removing so much of our fundamental natures that we cease to be ourselves at all. Because of this, a true Utopia is impossible. The closest we can get is through control and manipulation, cults at best and sci-fi nightmares at worst, and no matter the good intentions at the start, the underpinnings will always be rotten. 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

There can't ever be just one utopia, because no one would agree with what it's like. If I made it there'd be no money, just a favour bank, so every time you did a good thing or a job that needed doing you'd get points, and then you could trade things with strangers. Everyone would be fed (veggie of course), housed and cared for by their actual need (no humans to bias things, a machine would dole stuff out). There would be none of this production for production's sake, or infinite growth or destruction and exploitation; stuff would be made according to need. There'd obviously have to be petrols, diesels and steamers (and thus industry, roads, railways) around though or it wouldn't be much of a utopia for me and other petrolheads/trainspotters/etc. Hence, we'll never all agree, as some people are ridiculously anti-hydrocarbon.

[uhtred]

Can you tell heaven from hell? Can  you be happy without a challenge, and the possibility of failure?  Can there be joy without suffering?  Heroism without risk? 

 

I think utopia is something that can and should be worked towards, but I don't think it can ever be achieved. 

 

 

[21LAUR21]

I recently listened to an interesting Ted Talk that talked about appointing politicians via random chance. At first I thought, "but what if we elect an idiot"...but then I was like, "how is that any different than some we have today?" There would be representation for all ages, genders, sexualities, classes, and professions. Like could you imagine having actual real people in the room when deciding on legislation, opposed to career politicians. Also people tend to perform when given responsibility. I understand is completely impractical, but an interesting thought to entertain never the less. 

[Epitaph]

Well, it's a fun concept, but that's all it'll ever be now. As it stands in at the present, we no longer have the resources to create anything remotely utopian. Or at least, in the upcoming years we won't. We've squandered the time we have to change things enough to make a livable world for the future. Barring human nature from the equation, even without that recurring pattern, the concept of utopia created by us just isn't feasible. Maybe something more advanced than us, sure, but certainly not us.

 

The only idea I've ever had about a utopia was granted to me by a friend. He spent a lot of years studying and a lot of years writing a detailed compilation of his work. And even then, both he and I acknowledged that it wasn't utopia in the slightest, it was a system designed to overwrite what we have in place today. 

 

The gist of it was as follows.

 

Take money and the functionary transaction that it stands as a replacement for, remove it. The currency of the system is time. Time invested and spent into work or jobs grants you access to everything the system offers. This applies to every person. The wealth gap is eliminated this way. Crimes related to theft are eradicated since you no longer need a sum of money to buy anything. You can simply acquire it by working at your job no matter what it is.

 

My pal decided that the best way to combat the unemployment rates was to shorten job hours. Instead of working people to the bone, all work would be shortened to four, maybe five hour shifts once per day per person at the maximum. The shifts create more job openings for people to fill in after somebody's shift has ended, and the shorter work hours means that people can actually have time to enjoy their lives.

 

One of the potential flaws he acknowledged was overconsumption. If everybody can afford to eat the fanciest food and get the best cars and this and that, then obviously demand for certain things will surge. But he believed that wouldn't be the case to a certain degree and careful management. There would be high demand for certain things, yes, but just like today, when there is a shortage of something, what do people do? Most of them suck it up and wait. His second line of reasoning was that people can be rational. If you or I had the opportunity at this very moment to obtain a billion dollar sailboat, would you take it? The answer I and my friend gave was "no."

 

His third line of reasoning was a return to older business practices. Today's corporate business models and engineering departments build everything like a piece of shit. By the time it hits the store shelves it's obsolete. And when you buy it, it won't last you a lifetime. It'll break within a year or two and you won't be able to fix it unless you throw it out or go to specialist repairs which charge the same or more for buying another model of something.

 

Older technologies existed in the past that were utilitarian and didn't cheap out in their engineering. They were built with ergonomics and accessibility in mind to every day people, and most of them were built to last. With the right care and maintenance you could make these machines and technologies last a lifetime which is a massive boon on the table considering the resources needed to create them and the waste products their production creates. As it stands today, there is massive monetary benefit in building and selling a piece of shit that'll break down in a year or be obsolete the next, and this is what's killing our world, not overpopulation. It's gross doubling of the overconsumption of resources in comparison to the population and the loss of the ability of our world to absorb these blows any longer.

 

He had so very much more to his theory and his work, but I'll leave it at that at the moment. My pal figured that you didn't need to change much of the system as it exists today to make something that's worthwhile. You just needed to tweak it. Human nature will never permit utopia and he knew this. So what he opted in believing was building a system that played to human nature while trying to strive for a balance that could be maintained without the destruction of our world.

 

 

[The Dryad]

On 9/10/2018 at 12:44 AM, E said:

Well, it's a fun concept, but that's all it'll ever be now. As it stands in at the present, we no longer have the resources to create anything remotely utopian. Or at least, in the upcoming years we won't. We've squandered the time we have to change things enough to make a livable world for the future. Barring human nature from the equation, even without that recurring pattern, the concept of utopia created by us just isn't feasible. Maybe something more advanced than us, sure, but certainly not us.

 

The only idea I've ever had about a utopia was granted to me by a friend. He spent a lot of years studying and a lot of years writing a detailed compilation of his work. And even then, both he and I acknowledged that it wasn't utopia in the slightest, it was a system designed to overwrite what we have in place today. 

 

The gist of it was as follows.

 

Take money and the functionary transaction that it stands as a replacement for, remove it. The currency of the system is time. Time invested and spent into work or jobs grants you access to everything the system offers. This applies to every person. The wealth gap is eliminated this way. Crimes related to theft are eradicated since you no longer need a sum of money to buy anything. You can simply acquire it by working at your job no matter what it is.

 

My pal decided that the best way to combat the unemployment rates was to shorten job hours. Instead of working people to the bone, all work would be shortened to four, maybe five hour shifts once per day per person at the maximum. The shifts create more job openings for people to fill in after somebody's shift has ended, and the shorter work hours means that people can actually have time to enjoy their lives.

 

One of the potential flaws he acknowledged was overconsumption. If everybody can afford to eat the fanciest food and get the best cars and this and that, then obviously demand for certain things will surge. But he believed that wouldn't be the case to a certain degree and careful management. There would be high demand for certain things, yes, but just like today, when there is a shortage of something, what do people do? Most of them suck it up and wait. His second line of reasoning was that people can be rational. If you or I had the opportunity at this very moment to obtain a billion dollar sailboat, would you take it? The answer I and my friend gave was "no."

 

His third line of reasoning was a return to older business practices. Today's corporate business models and engineering departments build everything like a piece of shit. By the time it hits the store shelves it's obsolete. And when you buy it, it won't last you a lifetime. It'll break within a year or two and you won't be able to fix it unless you throw it out or go to specialist repairs which charge the same or more for buying another model of something.

 

Older technologies existed in the past that were utilitarian and didn't cheap out in their engineering. They were built with ergonomics and accessibility in mind to every day people, and most of them were built to last. With the right care and maintenance you could make these machines and technologies last a lifetime which is a massive boon on the table considering the resources needed to create them and the waste products their production creates. As it stands today, there is massive monetary benefit in building and selling a piece of shit that'll break down in a year or be obsolete the next, and this is what's killing our world, not overpopulation. It's gross doubling of the overconsumption of resources in comparison to the population and the loss of the ability of our world to absorb these blows any longer.

 

He had so very much more to his theory and his work, but I'll leave it at that at the moment. My pal figured that you didn't need to change much of the system as it exists today to make something that's worthwhile. You just needed to tweak it. Human nature will never permit utopia and he knew this. So what he opted in believing was building a system that played to human nature while trying to strive for a balance that could be maintained without the destruction of our world.

 

 

I find this "societal system" very intriguing, even though it's not a true Utopia, something like this would save us from the mess of the fallbacks that we're eventually going to have which our current global economy. Thanks for sharing this! Overconsumption is something that I believe is our downfall-especially the emissions from the meat and dairy industry with the waste lagoons that go with it, and the speed in which our technology becomes obsolete- on the flip, if we're keeping the same technology, is technology still advancing? Overconsumption of the textiles industry and waste of fashion is problematic, but without these 'trends' are we still progressing? I really like this society model but I probably need to think on it more to fully understand it.

[The Dryad]

On 9/9/2018 at 3:46 PM, Alejandrogynous said:

The concept of Utopia skeeves me out, since the only way we could ever achieve one is by removing so much of our fundamental natures that we cease to be ourselves at all. Because of this, a true Utopia is impossible. The closest we can get is through control and manipulation, cults at best and sci-fi nightmares at worst, and no matter the good intentions at the start, the underpinnings will always be rotten. 

That's why I (spiritually speaking) believe Heaven is the ultimate Utopia- the Garden of Eden feel because of the weakness of the human psyche and flesh, but our actual spirits are made of different things that the flesh bodies we make a temporary home of. Some people are just bad, but most crimes are committed so that they can live comfortably in a temporary flesh, but if you remove that need, I'm sure that most shortcomings of humans are removed.

 

I think any man-made Utopia will be a disaster- there are a lot of examples from cults, most religious, but the one that comes to mind is 'The Family' from Australia.

[Epitaph]

5 hours ago, The Dryad said:

I find this "societal system" very intriguing, even though it's not a true Utopia, something like this would save us from the mess of the fallbacks that we're eventually going to have which our current global economy. Thanks for sharing this! Overconsumption is something that I believe is our downfall-especially the emissions from the meat and dairy industry with the waste lagoons that go with it, and the speed in which our technology becomes obsolete- on the flip, if we're keeping the same technology, is technology still advancing? Overconsumption of the textiles industry and waste of fashion is problematic, but without these 'trends' are we still progressing? I really like this society model but I probably need to think on it more to fully understand it.

 

The fellow that I conversed with was writing a book on it to flush out all the other smaller details to cover as many points as he could. I read through his drafts and discussed it with him but my memory doesn't go much beyond the core foundation of the idea. I really wish I had his drafts on hand, and I kinda wish he kept more than one set at a different location. Those drafts burned down in the house fire that got my buddy. It's a loss on two fronts.

[Homer]

My utopia would definitely include no humans. That's a tad difficult to start without getting in trouble.

[The Dryad]

1 hour ago, E said:

 

The fellow that I conversed with was writing a book on it to flush out all the other smaller details to cover as many points as he could. I read through his drafts and discussed it with him but my memory doesn't go much beyond the core foundation of the idea. I really wish I had his drafts on hand, and I kinda wish he kept more than one set at a different location. Those drafts burned down in the house fire that got my buddy. It's a loss on two fronts.

I'm so sorry about your friend.

[The Dryad]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

My utopia would definitely include no humans. That's a tad difficult to start without getting in trouble.

Lol, an 'I, Robot' situation? Seems more likely everyday, I've seen some robots from Japan that at first glance look completely human, not dolllike, but looking closely, their stares are too blank. But yeah, humans are the worst.

[Epitaph]

10 hours ago, The Dryad said:

I'm so sorry about your friend.

Ah, don't be. He was getting up there. He died in his sleep from the smoke inhalation before the fire got him. Best way to go honestly. Out of all the folks I've known, his death is the one not to be sorry about really. He went in peace. Although I do miss him right about now. What I wouldn't give to do some contract work with him right about now. Get out of my stuffy old province for a bit.

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

 

[Ashmedai]

I think it'd be way too hard to pull off. What might be good for a utopia for one group of say, 10 000 people,  may not work for a different group of another 10 000 people. Make 10 of said utopias, and then well we may as well just have what we have now.

[Skycaptain]

If you're waiting on hold on a phone call, and it plays your favourite music that's Queutopia 😋 😋 

[Karst]

Here's some interesting sci-fi novels about utopian societies:

Herland, Charlotte Perkins Gilman

The Disposessed, Ursula Le Guin

Too Like the Lightning, Ada Palmer

[lapat67]

To get a utopia, you'd need umans (eumans / oumans).

 

@Ardoise I really liked The dispossessed. The Culture novels by Iain Banks as well, which has many of the features mentioned: no money, robots are, if not exactly in charge, definitely keeping things running. And it's galaxy-spanning, which keeps them from running out of resources. There's even the idea of progress, with civilisations tending towards a spiritual evolution. Thanks for the reminder about Herland, which I've been meaning to read.

At the moment I'm reading The Just City by Jo Walton, which is about 300 people who have prayed to Pallas Athena to let them build the eutopia in Plato's The Republic, and Athena obliges them by transporting them to Atlantis. It's hilarious and thoughtful and it's so clear that it's going to end badly.

[EarthMama]

If humans (as they are right now) populate the area, it is no utopia.  We're not built for it.  There are too many fundamental flaws in the human mentality to achieve a true Utopian civilization. 

 

 

Think on it....if everything goes perfectly, we get bored.

 

What happens when humans get bored?  We mess stuff up.

 

[Hundebengel]

After the statement, which I find quite intresting  (came originally from the jews, as the rabbis did discuss certain things, which was later written down in the talmud): "Humans should not have been made. But since they are, we have to make the best out of the situation." Since this is the case, I think there are certain things that need to be about human nature:

• For most of the human race, imo, you need progress to feel happy or good or fulfilled. From there derives a constant need for "doing" something, getting somewhere, being someone.
• Which includes the "I want this or that" usually. Also it creates a gap if you dont explictly know what you want, you will desire what someone else has in some way or an other since you did not reflect about yourself enough.
• Also, every human has different abilites which naturally end up in indifferences and makes up unequality.
• And humans are by nature, if not focused (which comes from self reflection and looking at yourself closely and most people dont like to do that), lazy af (also makes sense: If you dont need to do something, you wont (even if it making you unhappy(procrastinaton is your friend))). This also means that you want what the other one has. But you dont want to do the work to get there which derives usually from the "not reflecting"-process since everyone has to find their own values and goals to acutally find motivation/drive to get there.
• The last thing which is coming to my mind right now (from a completely economic perspective): We are a machine, like everything else living, for using up (which in the end means destroying) our world. Also , this means in a broader sense: We life to destroy our future.

Considering these points, in my opinion, there was no other way than to end up in the world we are in right now(or at least something in this directon). So to create a Utopia with the current human nature, is quite impossible imo. You would need to alter so much of the human nature to make this happen.

An intresting thought I've picked up from a book: Make it impossible to not share your thoughts, ie through making the brain a receiver for the brain waves of others. This would mean, that you cannot hide anything from anybody (Which comes close to the principles of Ray Dalio, radical trought and radical transparency).

[Karst]

Another of my favorite works of sci-fi on the same theme is, you guessed it, Star Trek.  The society there isn't exactly utopian, but it's certainly close.  It's a hopeful vision of the future.

I'm honestly sick of the post-apocalyptic genre.  It's easy to write a burned-out wasteland, but much harder to plausibly write a society where everyone has their basic needs cared for and rights respected.

[Karst]

I think that, instead of creating overly ambitious "utopias", the sensible thing for people to do is to make minor improvements to society where they can.  It would be a slow, careful approach in the direction of utopia.

It's a cliche, but small steps can have major impacts in the long run.

[The Dryad]

51 minutes ago, Ardoise said:

I think that, instead of creating overly ambitious "utopias", the sensible thing for people to do is to make minor improvements to society where they can.  It would be a slow, careful approach in the direction of utopia.

It's a cliche, but small steps can have major impacts in the long run.

Yeah, a perfect Utopia will never exist, true, but we can get closer, probably starting with creating more green spaces in cities, recreating the Singaporean social housing model or something like it, and basic universal income and free universal education.

 

I'm not exactly sure what the problems of social housing Singaporeans have, but from what I understand, it prevents discrimination and racial divides by forcing different people to live in close quarters, almost everyone uses it so it's not a social stigma, and people can actually afford homes....unlike in America.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

1 hour ago, Ardoise said:

Another of my favorite works of sci-fi on the same theme is, you guessed it, Star Trek.  The society there isn't exactly utopian, but it's certainly close.  It's a hopeful vision of the future.

I still remember seeing Star Trek: First Contact back in 1996 in a theater in N.J. And how this quote from the movie affected me:

 

Quote

Cmdr. William Riker: It is one of the pivotal moments in human history, Doctor. You get to make first contact with an alien race! And after you do... everything begins to change.

Lieutenant Commander Geordi La Forge: Your theories on warp drive allow fleets of starships to be built and mankind to start exploring the Galaxy.

Cmdr. Deanna Troi: It unites humanity in a way no one ever thought possible. When they realize they're not alone in the universe, poverty, disease, war - they'll all be gone within the next fifty years.

Then I remember something from philsophy-- the differences between what is called The Virtuous Circle as opposed to The Vicious Cycle. Both are feedback loops, but The Vicious Cycle we seem destined to be stuck in ALWAYS produces a negative feedback loop that causes things to tear themselves apart. Unfortunately, it would take societal engineering to produce a lasting instance of The Virtuous Circle, and people always rebel against that because they have a hard time hewing to the Greater Good.

 

Want to turn someone against you veddy quickly? Ask them the question " Couldn't you feel proud to live in a country of society where everyone gets taken care of-- where no one goes hungry, there is no poverty, everyone gets basic healthcare as a birthright? Even if you had to pay a bit more in taxes and do without that third car?"

 

Maybe the US should be proud to have been the first nation state to have reached a celestial body, but wouldn't it be just fabulous if, in some future, we could cobble together a global society like the one in Star Trek?

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

I still remember seeing Star Trek: First Contact back in 1996 in a theater in N.J. And how this quote from the movie affected me:

 

Then I remember something from philsophy-- the differences between what is called The Virtuous Circle as opposed to The Vicious Cycle. Both are feedback loops, but The Vicious Cycle we seem destined to be stuck in ALWAYS produces a negative feedback loop that causes things to tearn themselves apart. Unfortunately, it would take societal engineering to produce a lasting instance of The Virtuous Circle, and people always rebel against that because they have a hard time hewing to the Greater Good.

 

Want to turn someone against you veddy quickly? Ask them the question " Couldn't you feel proud to live in a country of society where everyone gets taken care of-- where no one goes hungry, there is no poverty, everyone gets basic healthcare as a birthright? Even if you had to pay a bit more in taxes and do without that third car?"

 

Maybe the US should be proud to have been the first nation state to have reached a celestial body, but wouldn't it be just fabulous if, in some future, we could cobble together a global society like the one in Star Trek?

This whole idea is what got me thinking about utopias to begin with-it I was actually talking about Donald Trump's "Space Force", and Asgardia and it made a circle back to utopias.

 

The idea of Space Force is the only singular idea of Trump's that I actually respect, because it's the natural progression of humanity- instead of fighting among ourselves for "who is superior" we'll probably be fighting aliens, even though peace is ideal- let's be honest, humans are egotistical, if we/when we find extraterrestrial intelligent creatures, it'll be a blessing to actually unite with each other.... otherwise, we probably won't survive the times. It would be cool if the United States could get it's head out of it's butt long enough to work in order to establish a better space program, but to be honest I think the a United global front without bias, representing humanity in general is best...

[Karst]

The "space ace" thing really is accurate, isn't it?

[SorryNotSorry]

One person's utopia is another's dystopia.

[lapat67]

Indeed, @Woodworker1968, if people talk about a global society, I imagine this impersonal juggernaut. I think a lot of what is wrong with the USA simply comes from it being too big. I'm a believer in the subsidiary principle, where decisions get made at the smallest level possible. I think it's not a coincidence that countries that I really think are worth emulating are small, like Bhutan and Denmark, or are regions or cities, like Catalunya and Curitiba.

 

@Ardoise, somewhat related to that, I think a big part of why we so often make a mess is, if you will, our good intentions, i.e. that we jump in and want to improve things. If I may be so minimalist, I would suggest in the first instance to do no harm.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-09-28/can-new-energy-technologies-save-the-planet-ask-the-sperm-whale/

 

@Calligraphette_Coe, a vicious cycle and a virtuous cycle are both due to positive feedback, it's just that what gets amplified in the former case is the problems and in the latter the rewards.

[Karst]

@lapat67, I think you might be right about large nations having inherent problems.  I'm from the US myself, and, like plenty of other people I know, I take more pride in my specific hometown and region than in "America" as an abstract whole.

The best solution, in my opinion, to these issues would be countries that functioned more as groups of city-states and semi-autonomous regions.  Nationalism can't cause as much trouble when individual nations have less power.