What would be needed for Utopia?

[Tom McCurdy]

What would be needed for Utopia?

A question I had after starting brave new world.

 

[wasteofo2]

You'd need everyone to work hard, and no one to want more than anyone else.

Wouldn't work, you're always going to get people who want more than others. Even if they don't obtain "more" by malicious means, you still get people who just work harder than others, and then you get people who don't work at all.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I also believe that Utopia is impossible, but you could get close to an enviornment where everyone is happy by extreme means.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Lets say that the Earth's population was mostly destroyed and its up to you to rebuild the world...you want to build a utopia. You take the leading scientists and you work on building specific types of people... intelligent peope, workers, labor force. similar idea to what happens in BNW

http://www.huxley.net/

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

there's a book. The Giver. read it.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

what would be needed? no humanity that's for sure. humans are greedy, selfish and overall very rageful creatures. everyonce in a while there are a few good ones...but overall, i mean just look at the state of the world for example. and no matter what you want to think, everyone is selfish.

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

what would be needed? no humanity that's for sure. humans are greedy, selfish and overall very rageful creatures. everyonce in a while there are a few good ones...but overall, i mean just look at the state of the world for example. and no matter what you want to think, everyone is selfish.

i strongly disagree. in general i think most human beings are relatively decent. it's the very few who aren't that give the rest of us a bad name. the minority always speaks the loudest. you see a lot of stupid, selfish, arrogant people on tv because that's what makes news. the majority of us who are halfway kind and unselfish never get noticed, but i'd estimate we make up a good 80% of the population.

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop

 

[theriddler876]

to have an utopia you would need a fully functional comunist government with no corruption,

or build robots that would do every job possible, and just let humans live as if they were noblemen of all times and such

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

or build robots that would do every job possible, and just let humans live as if they were noblemen of all times and such

i am terrified of your idea of utopia

 

[selfAdjoint]

i am terrified of your idea of utopia

It has always been the case that one person's utopia is another person's hell.

 

[hitssquad]

It has always been the case that one person's utopia is another person's hell.

And it is not necessarily the case that one person's utopia is not also his own hell.

 

[selfAdjoint]

"Be careful what you wish for; you might get it."

 

[fizzzzzzzzzzzy]

whether utopia is is possible is based on your definition. I think that we would be in a utopian world if everybody followed one rule: that you should consider other people more important than yourself.

puf, although i mainly agree with you, abitofnothing is also right. I doubt that 80% of us are good and wholehearted. there are problbly 20% that are selfish and greedy etc. as you said but about 75% is affected by these people
Since "bad" people are often "cool" or "famous" people tend to think that if you act like them you will be as "cool as they are.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

i strongly disagree. in general i think most human beings are relatively decent. it's the very few who aren't that give the rest of us a bad name. the minority always speaks the loudest. you see a lot of stupid, selfish, arrogant people on tv because that's what makes news. the majority of us who are halfway kind and unselfish never get noticed, but i'd estimate we make up a good 80% of the population.

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop

uh huh. 80%? are you kidding me? why is it that those Amnesty Int. commercials need to resort to those horrible images of starving children in order to make someone give them 10 cents a day? why is it that in order for people to give to any charity really, the organization must resort to horrible images or pain, suffering, malnutrition, death, etc in order for people to give a little? its because the majority of the world is greedy. isn't it a horrible thing that people have to resort to making other feel guilty in order for them to give a little. 10 cents. a dime that most people drop on the ground and are too damn lazy to even just bend over and pick it up as they walk is something that could feed a child in another country. look at those commercials and you're telling me that people arent greedy? look at all of those shiny cars, big houses, diamonds and gold and jewllery that people have. do they actually NEED that stuff? or could they give a little? people just don't want to admit that there's a problem with the world and they could be a part of helping it but they are just too greedy and lazy to do so.

i do agree with you that there are SOME good people but even those who are going things out of the good of their heart are selfish. Mother Teresa for example, wanted to help people, her self-satisfying goal was to help people and she did...did she not satisfy her self by doing so? don't get me wrong. selfishness is not always a bad thing. but it still exists.

"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." -P. J. O'Rourke

"Love is blind, and greed insatiable"-chinese proverb

 

[dekoi]

What would be needed for Utopia?

A question I had after starting brave new world.

Citizen's side:

No pride.
No ambition.
No hope.
No temptation to argue.

A utopia is impossible on Earth because it defies the laws of mortal human nature.

A dystopia is possible. However, 1: it will not be 100% evil/bad (since to get the most evil you must first deform the good), 2: it is easily destructable.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

i agree with dekoi here!

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

A dystopia is possible. However, 1: it will not be 100% evil/bad (since to get the most evil you must first deform the good), 2: it is easily destructable.

wouldn't the same be true for any kind of utopia? i mean, define it like that and anything's possible.

as far as my comment about most people being good, i think you guys took my definition of "good" too far. I'm not saying 80% of the population is made up of saints, I'm saying that 80% of the people in the world don't actively promote "evil", and for the most part will help someone else out. as an example u could do a survey. ask strangers for directions in a mall. the people who try to help u i bet would outnumber the ones who brush u off 4-1.
i do have to agree that all people are inherently selfish. and i would apply the same to religions. "Obey my commandments and look what you get! a nice fancy mansion in heaven!" or something similar. the definitions change, but the root is the same, follow the rules and be rewarded.
so when it comes to utopia, i guess what would most be needed is a religion that promotes doing good for its own sake with no promise of reward. can't you see how popular that religion would be? ;)

 

[Philocrat]

What would be needed for Utopia?

A question I had after starting brave new world.

Complete and full knowledge of all there is to know! Man-God relation becomes then fully levelled!

 

[abitofnothingleft]

so when it comes to utopia, i guess what would most be needed is a religion that promotes doing good for its own sake with no promise of reward. can't you see how popular that religion would be? ;)

why does there need to be a religion for there to be a utopia? ouldn't it be nice if there didnt have to be?

 

[dekoi]

why does there need to be a religion for there to be a utopia? ouldn't it be nice if there didnt have to be?

Well i think that as this discussion developes, it will become important to clearly give a definite definition of a "utopia".

Could this 'utopia' act against human nature? Such as human birth, and fetus development as an example.

Or does this utopia have to satisfy the true needs and moral standards of all humans? As you might have answered so yourself: that would be impossible with mortal humans (on Earth),

 

[cragwolf]

What's needed is a fundamental change in human psychology. No psychos, no aggressive types, no ultracompetitive types, no bullies. More people who are kind, humble and curious (like me), and brave, noble, and intelligent (not like me).

 

[dekoi]

What's needed is a fundamental change in human psychology. No psychos, no aggressive types, no ultracompetitive types, no bullies. More people who are kind, humble and curious (like me), and brave, noble, and intelligent (not like me).

Which can be easily produced (in the future) by means of genetic modification.

How conveniant -- humans become smarter and deform their own human nature using their own intelligence.

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

why does there need to be a religion for there to be a utopia? ouldn't it be nice if there didnt have to be?

i suppose in a perfect world we wouldn't need religion. i merely mentioned it because religion (and i believe this to be obvious to anyone educated on the subject) is the most powerful force for influencing vast numbers of people, especially where concepts like morality and ethics are concerned. if you want to change the world, religion would be an ideal place to start.
i would also suggest that the lack of religion can be an equally powerful force in the breakdown of ethics, but that's a discussion for another forum, as per the rules of this forum regarding religious discussions.
also, i think it's rather fruitless to try to define "utopia" because as has already been mentioned, everyone's idea of paradise or utopia is different. the first step in getting to any utopia would have to be an alignment of ideals across the human race (returning to my reasoning of using religion as a means to accomplish this).

 

[cragwolf]

Which can be easily produced (in the future) by means of genetic modification.

I don't know about "easily". That might be an optimistic prediction. Maybe it's not possible to get rid of these traits, or it's not possible to get rid of them without really bad side effects.

How conveniant -- humans become smarter and deform their own human nature using their own intelligence.

Yes, very convenient! If it is possible, I envy future generations.

 

[dekoi]

Maybe it's not possible to get rid of these traits, or it's not possible to get rid of them without really bad side effects.

The negative effects are obvious of course. We practically destroy nature.

Yes, very convenient! If it is possible, I envy future generations.

You envy future generations? I would rather feel sorry for them.

 

[cragwolf]

The negative effects are obvious of course. We practically destroy nature.

I don't see it as obvious. Maybe I'm stupid, but I have no faith in my predictive powers when it comes to future technologies, and their precise effects on the human mind. I also don't see nature as something sacred, or that what is natural is the best. Evolution is more expediency than optimality. If we can use technology to change our natures for the best, then I think in principle we should go for it. But I'm not all that confident of our abilities to create reliable technologies for this purpose. And I worry that some people will have no qualms in using unreliable technologies for their own gain, and the exploitation of others. I could be wrong in so many ways.

 

[dekoi]

I don't see it as obvious. Maybe I'm stupid, but I have no faith in my predictive powers when it comes to future technologies, and their precise effects on the human mind. I also don't see nature as something sacred, or that what is natural is the best. Evolution is more expediency than optimality. If we can use technology to change our natures for the best, then I think in principle we should go for it. But I'm not all that confident of our abilities to create reliable technologies for this purpose. And I worry that some people will have no qualms in using unreliable technologies for their own gain, and the exploitation of others. I could be wrong in so many ways.

Our nature is what keeps humans human. Think of things that go against our nature. For example, homosexuality is against human nature (males + males do not mix), and thus we get diseases due to homosexuality, as well as serious (even deadly) conflicts with the male body upon homosexual 'sex'.

Everything against human nature has a negative consequence.

 

[cragwolf]

Well, I do lots of things that go against human nature, like sit in a chair for 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, under a fluorescent light and air-conditioning, surrounded by fumes and artificial products. I eat food which has been artificially processed. I eat animals which have been artificially bred and raised, pumped with artificial hormones; I eat vegetables that have been artificially bred, sprayed with chemicals and treated with artificial fertiliser. When I get sick, I take synthetic drugs. Artificial treatments heal me from injuries. Some of these unnatural things do me harm, some do me no harm, some help me.

Conversely, many natural things cause me harm. Mutations are completely natural, but they may cause me to have a bone deficiency, for example, and without artificial treatment I would die a painful death. I might have heterosexual intercourse with my wife, and catch a natural disease like syphilis off her. Once again, without thoroughly unnatural treatments, my life would be a litany of suffering in this case. I might go outside naked and natural on a warm day, and cut my feet on some sharp natural objects; get sunburnt by natural sunlight; or get hypothermia when it naturally rains.

The notion that everything contrary to human nature has a negative consequence is a primitive sort of statement. For one thing, who decides what it contrary to human nature? Is human nature what we did 100,000 years ago? Is human nature just natural instinct sans thought? Is human nature what society or a religion defines, and hence something that varies with time and place? Can something be contrary to human nature but beneficial to the family or society? Can something be contrary to human nature in the short-term, but beneficial in the long-term? Are the supposed negative consequences of acting against human nature worth it when there might be positive consequences, too?

We are human beings and we do things. Some of these things harm us, some are rather neutral in their effects, and some help us. And as time goes on, we try more things, new things. We can imagine what effects certain currently unattainable things might have on us, but we can't be sure. When they become attainable, we might have a better idea. Ruling them out because they don't conform to your notion of human nature, whatever that might mean, is pig-headed ignorant.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

i suppose in a perfect world we wouldn't need religion. i merely mentioned it because religion (and i believe this to be obvious to anyone educated on the subject) is the most powerful force for influencing vast numbers of people, especially where concepts like morality and ethics are concerned. if you want to change the world, religion would be an ideal place to start.
i would also suggest that the lack of religion can be an equally powerful force in the breakdown of ethics, but that's a discussion for another forum, as per the rules of this forum regarding religious discussions.
also, i think it's rather fruitless to try to define "utopia" because as has already been mentioned, everyone's idea of paradise or utopia is different. the first step in getting to any utopia would have to be an alignment of ideals across the human race (returning to my reasoning of using religion as a means to accomplish this).

ahhh but if everyone were perfect would we really need a religion to tell us what is morally correct? and if the world were perfect then, as said before, humans would need to have the same intellectuality as that of a god. we would need knowledge of everything. nothing could be a gray matter. all would have to have an answer. there wouldn't be any opinions. because if there were an opinion, someone could disagree...and who knows what could evolve from that.

 

[dekoi]

Well, I do lots of things that go against human nature, like sit in a chair for 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, under a fluorescent light and air-conditioning, surrounded by fumes and artificial products. I eat food which has been artificially processed. I eat animals which have been artificially bred and raised, pumped with artificial hormones; I eat vegetables that have been artificially bred, sprayed with chemicals and treated with artificial fertiliser. When I get sick, I take synthetic drugs. Artificial treatments heal me from injuries. Some of these unnatural things do me harm, some do me no harm, some help me.

Conversely, many natural things cause me harm. Mutations are completely natural, but they may cause me to have a bone deficiency, for example, and without artificial treatment I would die a painful death. I might have heterosexual intercourse with my wife, and catch a natural disease like syphilis off her. Once again, without thoroughly unnatural treatments, my life would be a litany of suffering in this case. I might go outside naked and natural on a warm day, and cut my feet on some sharp natural objects; get sunburnt by natural sunlight; or get hypothermia when it naturally rains.

The notion that everything contrary to human nature has a negative consequence is a primitive sort of statement. For one thing, who decides what it contrary to human nature? Is human nature what we did 100,000 years ago? Is human nature just natural instinct sans thought? Is human nature what society or a religion defines, and hence something that varies with time and place? Can something be contrary to human nature but beneficial to the family or society? Can something be contrary to human nature in the short-term, but beneficial in the long-term? Are the supposed negative consequences of acting against human nature worth it when there might be positive consequences, too?

We are human beings and we do things. Some of these things harm us, some are rather neutral in their effects, and some help us. And as time goes on, we try more things, new things. We can imagine what effects certain currently unattainable things might have on us, but we can't be sure. When they become attainable, we might have a better idea. Ruling them out because they don't conform to your notion of human nature, whatever that might mean, is pig-headed ignorant.

Some of your examples of things going against human nature are slightly vague. I think you are confusing "natural" objects and "human nature" or "human law". Artificial medicine/treatment is not natural, but it does not go against human nature (since it brings it towards goodness). By going against human nature, i am talking about things which contradict humanity, not just nature in general.

Also, we do not decide what human nature is, we discover it.

 

[theriddler876]

well if you had robots do all of the work, that would bring need down to zero, and costs of production to zero then you woudld have to divide the land equally, and if you live in a city, all the houses would have to be the same size, but all items would be free and in high supply, so you could go to a store and just get whatever you wanted or needed. so no one would have the need to break into your house and steal anything and such

 

[the number 42]

Guys, I would highly recommend two of Huxley's other writings on this subject:

Brave New World Revisited, an essay warning us about how our Western culture (as written in the late 50's) was becoming a Brave New World. Especially interesting on how the West was giving up its freedoms. Surprisingly topical.

Island: Huxley's final book. A truly utopian vision of a culture based on the development of the human spirit, with the aid of mescaline and Tantric sex, no less :!) A damn fine read, whatever your hangups about sex, drugs, and Bach's Brandenberg Concerto #4.