• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Utopia

FatCat

Maester
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

Auror
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

Troubadour
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

Maester
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

Myth Weaver
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 ___.
 
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

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
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

Sage
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

Maester
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

Troglodytic Trouvère
Article Team
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

Auror
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.
 
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

Sage
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.
 
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

Sage
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.
 
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

Istar
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?
 
Last edited:

DMThaane

Sage
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:
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.
 
Last edited:
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

Istar
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.
 
Top