Utopia

[Heliotrope]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.