# Utopia



## FatCat (Oct 22, 2015)

I've been working on something that deals with the idea of a utopian society, where everything is supposedly equal and perfect...according to those in charge. The problem I'm having is what mimicks a utopian society, given that utopia is a subjective term. What ideals, judicial and societal, are objectively 'right'? I have a framework to make this ideology happen in terms of story, but I'm interested in the opinion of yours on what the perfect society would be.


----------



## WooHooMan (Oct 22, 2015)

I remember reading a story where some characters told another character that they were going to make the world equal and perfect.  And the other character said "I have no desire to live in anyone's perfect world but my own".
So, I think an overall utopia is impossible.  You can't please everyone.

I guess, in order for my idea of a "society that could please everyone" to exist, scarcity has to be eliminated.  There needs to be unlimited resources and plenty of every good and service that anyone could ever want.


----------



## Gospodin (Oct 23, 2015)

My opinion is that a genuine Societal Utopia - were such a thing possible - would make for a very boring story.  What conflict is there if there is no conflict?  What growth or change is there to engage in the story if there is no need for such? In the reading of any utopia or dystopia, it is clear to me that both kinds of stories look down opposite ends of the spyglass, so to speak, as regards what they are trying to say.  A dystopian story (all the rage at moment, as we all know) has the actors in the story looking for the clues that will lead them to the light and out of the darkness.  A utopian story is bathed in light, but since we all know this isn't really possible, utopian stories tend to send the actors on a quest to find the flaws in the framework, the hidden ugliness that must exist as the cost for all this beauty.  My opinion is that the meat of your utopian story will be found within those flaws, not in the perfection.


----------



## X Equestris (Oct 23, 2015)

As you say, utopia is subjective.  One person's perfect society is another's nightmare.  Personally, I don't believe achieving a perfect society is possible.  Both because of the point I already noted and because there will always be people who seek to dominate others or enrich themselves.  All government and economic systems work on paper:  unregulated capitalism, anarchism, pure communism, monarchy, totalitarian dictatorships, direct democracy, republics, technocracies, theocracies, and so on.  And that's because the human element is taken out of those systems when they're just ideas on paper.

I agree with WooHooMan that if it were possible, it would have to be post-scarcity.  Of course the challenge is getting there.


----------



## CupofJoe (Oct 23, 2015)

I agree that Utopian worlds may not be possible or even practical. [Would you need a judiciary at all if everyone was happy and content?] 
Such worlds can exist within a story if only as a backdrop to the existence of an external threat.
I am not learned in the lore but Star Trek was imagined as a Utopian post scarcity society, and the first thing Gene Roddenberry did was create the Romulans and the Klingons to throw grit in to the Oyster.
Or as I think of it Rule 4 of Pixar's 22
Once upon a time there was ___. 
Every day, ___. 
One day ___. 
Because of that, ___. 
Because of that, ___. 
Until finally ___.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 23, 2015)

I once thought that no utopia would be possible until mortality was defeated.  My own opinion is that the absolute certainty of mortality is responsible for almost all serious conflict in our world, from the granular street-level conflict to the grander world-spanning conflicts.

I like the idea of considering a post-scarcity world to be a prerequisite to utopia; but on the other hand, if mortality were truly abolished, I wonder if scarcity would ever be a serious issue.  And on the third hand:  perhaps as long as immediate access to an infinite supply of all existing materials/resources eludes us, no such thing as post-scarcity can occur.  I.e., even if a billion Item X's exist, the billion-and-one person is going to feel left out; or, the second person is going to feel left out if the first has that billion to himself.


----------



## Ban (Oct 23, 2015)

While i am no expert i did recently have a lecture about this specific topic. In the lecture the lecturer explained that the classical Utopias of plato's "Politeia" and 'Thomas Moore's "Utopia" had 3 things in common. 

1 The main aim of society is peace and harmony. Everything is in tune with eachother and there is order. 

2Hostile towards individualism. This may seem dystopian to us but in their minds it was more important for people to be equal than individualistic. Individualism had to make way for equality. 

3 Meritocratic. Rulers have power because they are the best fit to handle that power. Those who have the best skills deserve power. Plato wished for a Society ruled by "the best" which meant scientists and philosophers. 


These "Utopia's" might not be considered utopian by todays standards, but maybe it'll help.


----------



## DMThaane (Oct 23, 2015)

I often see it said that post-scarcity will allow 'blah' or lead to 'blah' but as a person obsessed with the demons of our natures, I simply don't buy it. You cannot have a truly utopian society populated by humans. It simply cannot be done. When _everyone_ is the same, when _everyone_ is equal, when _everyone_ can have anything they want, than what makes us who we are? Humans struggle for identity, we struggle for definition, and we've done some truly awful things serving that cause. 

Plonk humans down in a post-scarcity immortal society and we'll _invent_ things to horde. We'll invent cultural practices to judge each other over, we'll invent spiritual beliefs that allow us to feel special and entitled over our fellow man. We'll invent tribes because tribes are all we've ever lived in. You can't 'post-scarcity' social concepts. You can't 'post-scarcity' moral judgments. You can't really, truly, create a post-scarcity human society without also making it post-human, because human nature is the insurmountable problem.

You want a utopia? Build a perfectly ordered self-sustaining machine and than kill every person on earth. The machine shall be utopia and it'll be as empty and soulless as _every_ utopian proposal I've ever heard.


----------



## X Equestris (Oct 23, 2015)

DMThaane said:


> I often see it said that post-scarcity will allow 'blah' or lead to 'blah' but as a person obsessed with the demons of our natures, I simply don't buy it. You cannot have a truly utopian society populated by humans. It simply cannot be done. When _everyone_ is the same, when _everyone_ is equal, when _everyone_ can have anything they want, than what makes us who we are? Humans struggle for identity, we struggle for definition, and we've done some truly awful things serving that cause.
> 
> Plonk humans down in a post-scarcity immortal society and we'll _invent_ things to horde. We'll invent cultural practices to judge each other over, we'll invent spiritual beliefs that allow us to feel special and entitled over our fellow man. We'll invent tribes because tribes are all we've ever lived in. You can't 'post-scarcity' social concepts. You can't 'post-scarcity' moral judgments. You can't really, truly, create a post-scarcity human society without also making it post-human, because human nature is the insurmountable problem.
> 
> You want a utopia? Build a perfectly ordered self-sustaining machine and than kill every person on earth. The machine shall be utopia and it'll be as empty and soulless as _every_ utopian proposal I've ever heard.



Agreed, there always seems to be something missing in proposed utopias, if they don't outright turn into dystopias first.


----------



## Ban (Oct 23, 2015)

DMThaane said:


> I often see it said that post-scarcity will allow 'blah' or lead to 'blah' but as a person obsessed with the demons of our natures, I simply don't buy it. You cannot have a truly utopian society populated by humans. It simply cannot be done. When _everyone_ is the same, when _everyone_ is equal, when _everyone_ can have anything they want, than what makes us who we are? Humans struggle for identity, we struggle for definition, and we've done some truly awful things serving that cause.
> 
> Plonk humans down in a post-scarcity immortal society and we'll _invent_ things to horde. We'll invent cultural practices to judge each other over, we'll invent spiritual beliefs that allow us to feel special and entitled over our fellow man. We'll invent tribes because tribes are all we've ever lived in. You can't 'post-scarcity' social concepts. You can't 'post-scarcity' moral judgments. You can't really, truly, create a post-scarcity human society without also making it post-human, because human nature is the insurmountable problem.
> 
> You want a utopia? Build a perfectly ordered self-sustaining machine and than kill every person on earth. The machine shall be utopia and it'll be as empty and soulless as _every_ utopian proposal I've ever heard.




That was strangely beautiful.


----------



## Gryphos (Oct 23, 2015)

One of my stories features what I would consider a utopia: a post-scarcity society where all production is automated, essentially anarcho-communism. The people do what they want all day with no restrictions, since there's no need to work.

I've never bought these edgy statements that there's some kind of fundamental flaw in humanity that means shittiness is inevitable. To be honest, I don't even think 'human nature' (in the sense of how it's supposedly human nature to wage war) is really a thing, rather something people like to assume is a thing to justify what I would consider societally facilitated qualities. Is the Human Being inherently shitty, or does the world around them make them shitty? I believe the latter.

To me, the only 'human natures' I can think of are that pleasure is good, pain is bad, and all those evolutionary things like being prone to seeing faces in our surroundings. Morality is not a part of 'human nature'.

So with making a utopian society, I would simply go with the rule of thumb that the more pleasure and happiness people are able to indulge in, and the less pain and sadness people are forced to suffer, the better. The rest is just extraneous details.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 23, 2015)

DMThaane said:


> Plonk humans down in a post-scarcity immortal society and we'll _invent_ things to horde. We'll invent cultural practices to judge each other over, we'll invent spiritual beliefs that allow us to feel special and entitled over our fellow man. We'll invent tribes because tribes are all we've ever lived in. You can't 'post-scarcity' social concepts. You can't 'post-scarcity' moral judgments. You can't really, truly, create a post-scarcity human society without also making it post-human, because human nature is the insurmountable problem.



If mortality were eliminated, it _would_ be a post-human society.

There's a level of realistic cynicism in your comment that I often share.  But the one thing that amazes me is thinking of our children.  I mean, how extraordinarily weak they are for so many years of life.  This amazes me because when I think of pre-historic human civilizations (tribes, family groups, etc., stretching back to the proverbial dawn of humanity), I usually see those humans as being extremely barbaric, violent, etc.  But even then, human children were extremely weak for many years; and so, I am amazed that, within such a violent milieu, so many of those babes grew up to be adults.  So I have a tendency, now, to see much gentleness, even then.


----------



## DMThaane (Oct 23, 2015)

FifthView said:


> If mortality were eliminated, it _would_ be a post-human society.
> 
> There's a level of realistic cynicism in your comment that I often share.  But the one thing that amazes me is thinking of our children.  I mean, how extraordinarily weak they are for so many years of life.  This amazes me because when I think of pre-historic human civilizations (tribes, family groups, etc., stretching back to the proverbial dawn of humanity), I usually see those humans as being extremely barbaric, violent, etc.  But even then, human children were extremely weak for many years; and so, I am amazed that, within such a violent milieu, so many of those babes grew up to be adults.  So I have a tendency, now, to see much gentleness, even then.



Certainly we have an extraordinary capacity for empathy, far beyond any other creature. And while I can't say what we _would_ do without mortality hounding us, I can examine a few of the angles. Mortality forces us to build communities, it forces us to be accommodating. We have a reason to be good and true and moral because one die all we'll have is what we leave to our children and we'll want them to live in a world of goodwill. What happens when you take that away? If I'm immortal and can live forever, then I can force my worldview on as many people as I care to without restriction. I don't need to worry about family or friends or what my children will face once I'm gone. I don't need to worry about how many people I step over because _my_ vision takes precedent. _I'll_ never be gone and morality has now become whatever I can get away with.

Now this theoretical version of me is a complete tool but with the prospect of living thousands of years of life I honestly can't say I'd never become him. And that frightens me a hell of lot more than the idea I could die tomorrow and leave nothing but a bunch of half-finished story concepts behind.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 23, 2015)

DMThaane said:


> If I'm immortal and can live forever, then I can force my worldview on as many people as I care to without restriction. I don't need to worry about family or friends or what my children will face once I'm gone. I don't need to worry about how many people I step over because _my_ vision takes precedent. _I'll_ never be gone and morality has now become whatever I can get away with.
> 
> Now this theoretical version of me is a complete tool but with the prospect of living thousands of years of life I honestly can't say I'd never become him. And that frightens me a hell of lot more than the idea I could die tomorrow and leave nothing but a bunch of half-finished story concepts behind.



_How_ are you going to force anything on anyone, if all of them are immortal also?


----------



## DMThaane (Oct 23, 2015)

FifthView said:


> _How_ are you going to force anything on anyone, if all of them are immortal also?



Bury them in cement, toss them into a black hole, toss them into the sun, threaten what they care about, de-immortalize them. Really, the options are only limited by the method of immortality, creativity of the individual, and willingness to discard humanity.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 23, 2015)

DMThaane said:


> Bury them in cement, toss them into a black hole, toss them into the sun, threaten what they care about, de-immortalize them. Really, the options are only limited by the method of immortality, creativity of the individual, and willingness to discard humanity.



It's possible to imagine thwarting some individuals (encase him in cement) but much more difficult to control large numbers when threats of violence aren't backed by the ever-present reality of mortality.  

Besides which, the question would arise (for me) on _why_ one would so want to work hard to attempt to control or destroy a large number of immortals if one also has immortality.  For instance, on the issue of scarcity:  If I were immortal, I might not worry so much about securing a particular extravagance if I know I can just wait another hundred years, or several hundred years, and surely will be able to secure it eventually.

I believe that the reality of mortality gives birth to so much that is negative in the human experience.  Avarice, greed, cruelty, etc., as we experience those things now, arise because of the ticking clock and also a) the threat that others pose to us and b) the threat we can pose to others.

But I think that actually comprehending the effects of widespread immortality is difficult for us, because we have no experience of it. Invariably, as with many hack Hollywood directors of sci-fi movies, we imagine one or two major changes and then write all the rest of it as if everything else will be the same.  Human cruelty must continue because....humanity.  Human cowardice will continue because....humanity.  And so forth.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 23, 2015)

A few things:

Mortality and suffering teach us the value of life, and thus the value of others. If you make people immortal, you better make sure they have perfect empathy first. Otherwise selfishness and lack of concern for others will increase across the board. Maybe people wouldn't be able to so easily exert their own will over others, but all that means is that society slowly but surely degenerates into an anarchic free-for-all. And a post-scarcity world won't really solve this problem, because no matter how much there is for everyone, some people will always want _more_ and will trample anyone in their way to get it. Why? Because "post-scarcity" isn't really possible. No matter how much food, resources, etc. there is it will always be a finite amount because of simple physics. And as long as there is a finite amount of anything, someone will try to control it. 

And let's not forget that immortality undercuts the possibility of positive change. It undercuts positive change on the personal level because, whether through a belief in divine judgment or simple appreciation for the brevity of life on earth, mortality is one of the forces that drives us to behave morally. Without that specter of mortality, I might never examine myself for moral failings or consider if my life is being spent wisely because there is no real reason to. The only arbiter of my actions becomes my own whims, leading to leading to lazy self-concern. And immortality also undercuts positive change on the societal level because some of the biggest shifts in thinking come during times of generational transition, when the old guard dies out and the younger generation takes the reigns and tries out all of their new ideas about how things should be run. But with the prospect of immortality, the people in power can stay in power indefinitely. Congress is bad enough with people upwards of 60 getting constantly re-elected and holding onto power. Could you imagine what it would be like if those suckers were _immortal?_


----------



## DMThaane (Oct 23, 2015)

And we can live in harmony, loving one another for thousands of years, and than millions, and than billions, while entropy destroys everything around us and our internal passions decay until all that's left is a bunch of bored nihilists sitting in their couches watching reruns of A Bit of Fry and Laurie (I refuse to acknowledge any future where those don't exist) wondering to ourselves just what was the point of this immortality business. When everything is equal, and everything is available, none of it has any value. And we'll scoff and sip our nanowine and comfort ourselves with the knowledge that at least we'll know how the universe dies. They're taking bets, but none of its worth anything anyway.

Or, to undermine everything I've been saying, I've grown rather fond of a quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky. 'If people got hit on the head by a baseball bat every week, pretty soon they would invent reasons why getting hit on the head with a baseball bat was a good thing.' At least if I'm wrong, utopian future! And if I'm right, I'll have my smug satisfaction while the immortal super zealots burn the universe to ash.

EDIT: 





Mindfire said:


> Why? Because "post-scarcity" isn't really possible. No matter how much food, resources, etc. there is it will always be a finite amount because of simple physics. And as long as there is a finite amount of anything, someone will try to control it.



Technically true but with molecular assemblers and population controls the available resources extends well beyond the age of the universe, regardless of consumption, granting effective post-scarcity.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 23, 2015)

Well I'm afraid this topic itself might degenerate into a religious-philosophical debate–I am even now resisting the urge to delve into ideas put forward by Nietzsche–and so will refrain from going that route too strongly.

I will say that I do not believe that human goodness, that having respect for others and caring for others, that loving others, is contingent upon a fear of death.  Nor will I say I believe that human society can cohere only when its members remain weak and fearful and seek each other for strength.  And I am not sure that selfishness would continue to be a catalyst for conflict if mortality and scarcity became non-issues.

I will also say that I don't know precisely what would happen if those issues were removed; but the subject continues to intrigue me!


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 23, 2015)

DMThaane said:


> Technically true but with molecular assemblers and population controls the available resources extends well beyond the age of the universe, regardless of consumption, granting effective post-scarcity.



But that opens up whole new questions. Molecular assemblers? Where are you going to get those? As in, who's making them? Who controls the supply? Control the molecular assemblers and you control the world. Ironically, by creating this thing to end scarcity and thus all greed and power struggles, you have merely created a whole new object _for_ greed and power struggles.

And "population controls"? That sounds... ominous.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 23, 2015)

CS Lewis has a very interesting (albeit very challenging to read) essay called The Problem Of Pain. It is a religious essay about why pain does, and must exist (written mostly towards Christians like him who struggle with the concept of why an all loving God would allow people to feel pain). However, he does have some very interesting insights into how pain is actually necessary to free will. 

He argues that "in order for nature to act as a neutral field for all souls (or people) to inhabit, it must have a fixed nature of its own. If nature was only intended for one person to inhabit in a sort of 'utopia' for that person, then it might very well conform at any moment to the wishes of that inhabitant. Trees, for my sake, would crowd into shade at my very whim.

 But, if you where introduced to this world that varied at my every whim, you would be quite unable to act upon it, and would thus lose exercise over your free will. Plus, you would not be able to make yourself known to me, all the matter by which you attempted to make signs to me being already in my control and therefore not capable of being manipulated by you.

Again, if matter has a fixed nature and obeys constant laws, not all states of matter will be equally, agreeable to the wishes of a given soul, nor all equally beneficial for that particular aggregate of matter which he calls his body. If fire comforts that body at a certain distance, it will destroy it when the distance is reduced. Hence, even in a perfect world, the necessity for those danger signals which the pain-fibres in our nerves are apparently designed to transmit. 

Yet again, if the fixed nature of matter prevents it from being always, and in all its dispositions, equally agreeable even to a single soul, much less is it possible for the matter of the universe at any moment to be distributed so that it is equally convenient and pleasurable to each member of a society. If a man travelling in one direction is having a journey down hill, a man going in the opposite direction must be going up hill. If even a pebble lies where I want it to lie, it cannot, except by a coincidence, be where you want it to lie. And this is very far from being an evil: on the contrary, it furnishes occasion for all those acts of courtesy, respect, and unselfishness by which love and good humour and modesty express themselves.

But it certainly leaves the way open to a great evil, that of competition and hostility. And if souls are free, they cannot be prevented from dealing with the problem by competition instead of by courtesy. And once they have advanced to actual hostility, they can then exploit the fixed nature of matter to hurt one another. The permanent nature of wood which enables us to use it as a beam also enables us to use it for hitting our neighbour on the head. The permanent nature of matter in general means that when human beings fight, the victory ordinarily goes to those who have superior weapons, skill, and numbers, even if their cause is unjust." (Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain.) 

http://www.dunedin.elim.org.nz/uploads/1/2/7/8/12786940/problem_of_pain_-_c_s_lewis.pdf 

Food for thought. Is a utopia one where everyone is happy? Or one where everyone has free will? I have started playing with an idea that I call "The Eden Project" which is where my antagonist is basically trying to create a utopia, recreate Eden, but in doing this he must destroy the free will, and therefore the souls, of every member of the project. He is left with empty shells of people who feel no fear/pain/guilt or shame, but also are incapable of feeling love/compassion.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 23, 2015)

FifthView said:


> I will say that I do not believe that human goodness, that having respect for others and caring for others, that loving others, is contingent upon a fear of death.


I didn't say contingent. I said it was an important factor. A subtle but significant difference.



FifthView said:


> Nor will I say I believe that human society can cohere only when its members remain weak and fearful and seek each other for strength.  And I am not sure that selfishness would continue to be a catalyst for conflict if mortality and scarcity became non-issues.


This is also not quite what I was getting at. The point that I was making is that if you want a utopian society, you have to solve the moral problems _first_, before you solve the material problems. Because if you do it the other way around all you'll get for your trouble is the same corrupt population, but now with near-infinite time and resources. That's a bad mix. I'm not saying that a perfect society is impossible without material constraints (I'm a Christian, and "perfect society without material constraints" is a pretty apt description for that whole "new heavens and a new earth" thing), I'm just saying you need to have a morally perfect population before you can remove those material constraints safely. The material constraints are something of a failsafe. A corrupt, mortal society will at worst wipe itself out. A corrupt, immortal society? Who can say what evil would result and how long it would continue?


----------



## DMThaane (Oct 23, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> But that opens up whole new questions. Molecular assemblers? Where are you going to get those? As in, who's making them? Who controls the supply? Control the molecular assemblers and you control the world. Ironically, by creating this thing to end scarcity and thus all greed and power struggles, you have merely created a whole new object _for_ greed and power struggles.
> 
> And "population controls"? That sounds... ominous.



The problem with molecular assemblers is that once one person gets their hands on one he can start producing assembler components that can be slotted together to make new assemblers. Soon enough physical property is faced with what digital piracy has done to intellectual property. Nobody takes, nobody steals, they just... copy. Still, if the general reaction to piracy is any indication, we can expect the establishment to react with the same forward thinking consideration and in a not at all reactionary or soulless manner. 

Meet the new internat. Its the same as the old but now you can make bombs... and slaves. Yeah, maybe we better limit that. Wait, no, that's oppressive! Man, this utopia shtick isn't easy.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Oct 23, 2015)

A utopia is any populated and organized place that can maintain harmony of life through relative equality.

Relative equality is not static, it must flex within limits to meet the needs of the greater good and is not accountable for personal happiness or optimal quality of life unrelated to health.

If living with less material wealth or comfort is better for the greater good, and does not infringe upon personal health and well being, then the homeostasis of the utopia would dictate compliance.

Since the minds and nature of man are diverse at a genetic level, a utopia would be required to be tolerant of all diversity including sex, race, philosophy, etc, at an equal level of personal power in all things-- specifically in the day to day dynamics of maintaining a thriving community or society outside the home.

The dynamics of intimacy, including marriage and family, if held in compliance with the laws protecting bodily harm, is not relevant to the greater good and therefore the complexities of dominance and submissiveness would be acceptable within the home.

Dominance of will progressing to unequal power outside of the home such as gathering places for political or religious practices which may invoke feelings of superiority/inferiority that lead to jealousy, hatred, etc, are blatant bastions of exclusivity.

Exclusivity creates imbalance through chaos and unchained emotions that can lead to a utopian collapse.


----------

