Utopia - Pros and Cons?
Posted by danm
u·to·pi·a
n.
# a book written by Sir Thomas More (1516) describing the perfect society on an imaginary island
# ideally perfect state; especially in its social and political and moral aspects
# a work of fiction describing a utopia
# an imaginary place considered to be perfect or ideal
[en.wikipedia.org]
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 12:44PM by danm.
n.
# a book written by Sir Thomas More (1516) describing the perfect society on an imaginary island
# ideally perfect state; especially in its social and political and moral aspects
# a work of fiction describing a utopia
# an imaginary place considered to be perfect or ideal
[en.wikipedia.org]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 12:44PM by danm.
Got thinking about this from replying in another thread.
I did a very interesting research unit on this at University, and I am very torn by the pros and cons of impact if the world we lived in today ever reached that hypothetical thing known as Utopia.
I'm interested to see how and what people see the 'perfect world' stand for, and how it would potentially function.
The problems that would be solved; advances made; the goals of the future, if any.
I am sure Utopia stands for different thing to different people, but surely, if Utopia is the final balance of everyone and everything uniting, then we must all share common interests; or at least, our views would all override as one, and we come out with the common denominator?
Would the world have reached its own equilibrium? A stagnant constant? Or would it continue to progress exponentially if we all worked together as one entity?
So many impossible questions with matching infinite answers.
I frankly find this unanswerable question fascinating, just to see the vast degree of different answers we are likely to have.
I actually expect a few of you guys to be surprised to see that Utopia, as thought of combined worldwide agreeance, we actually all have very different goals, thus this illusion of Utopia solving all issues will never actually be feasible for the reasons people say it will. At least, thats how I struggle to comprehend it...
Ironic or what?
Hopefully this sparks up a good debate...
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 12:55PM by danm.
I did a very interesting research unit on this at University, and I am very torn by the pros and cons of impact if the world we lived in today ever reached that hypothetical thing known as Utopia.
I'm interested to see how and what people see the 'perfect world' stand for, and how it would potentially function.
The problems that would be solved; advances made; the goals of the future, if any.
I am sure Utopia stands for different thing to different people, but surely, if Utopia is the final balance of everyone and everything uniting, then we must all share common interests; or at least, our views would all override as one, and we come out with the common denominator?
Would the world have reached its own equilibrium? A stagnant constant? Or would it continue to progress exponentially if we all worked together as one entity?
So many impossible questions with matching infinite answers.
I frankly find this unanswerable question fascinating, just to see the vast degree of different answers we are likely to have.
I actually expect a few of you guys to be surprised to see that Utopia, as thought of combined worldwide agreeance, we actually all have very different goals, thus this illusion of Utopia solving all issues will never actually be feasible for the reasons people say it will. At least, thats how I struggle to comprehend it...
Ironic or what?
Hopefully this sparks up a good debate...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 12:55PM by danm.
I doubt that we on this planet could ever achieve a form of Utopia that would please everyone. The differences are far too great. Perhaps communism was seen as a form of Utopia, with the state providing for the needs of the people, and everyone being equal, although some of course were more equal than others, now what does that remind me of?
An interesting topic Dan.
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central
An interesting topic Dan.
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to.
[www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 CentralI like the angle of what you said Nick, a hypothetical war with another lifeform/race that would form a common interest within our human race.
You mention we would potentially cast aside any things such as indifferences, to focus as one on the common task of said 'war'.
It's a weird one, if we all work towards the same thing, in that one example everything else is compromised somewhat, almost totally. So if a Utopian ideal is visualised, all working towards a common goal - would the same be implied? That we wouldn't actually progress as far as people would predict?
With boundaries, there comes competition, jealousy and variation. There are always people better and worse off than the other. It's what assisted trade, created wars, spread and created religion, segregated countries...
So in that light, as horrid as it can sound, boundaries and contrast in society and our human race are not necessarily a bad thing - they can potentially be more positive than negative.
Again, its an impossible scenario, but one to contemplate nonetheless of all the possibilities and how nothing is really certain or indeed feasible.
I also have been thinking long and hard about the space race, the social power struggle between Russia and America and what would happen if the Russians got to the moon first. I think things would be extremely different to today.
That social power struggle peaked in the 60's and 70's - but look at today!? Yes, we have advanced incredibly within the last 10 years, heck, even 20. But look at the social aspect of boundaries and 'competition' and ask yourself if that has assisted in the progression of mankind more than a universal effort.
Competition strives for one to outdo the other. Innovation becomes a necessity.
And why, oh why, of all things for the sake fo humanity, is there not a global space effort!? I mean, if anything, aside eliminating war, for humanity, that must be the biggest goal!?
Another thought provoking insight...
At work today, I have lied to my co-worker over a load of photoshopped tree cutouts that he needs to add to his work. I have sat and cut out my own library to add to architectural elevations spending a ridiculous amount of hours. They are my work, and I have always only used them on my drawings. I keep them on me in three backed up external drive forms. Every image I produce, I retain the original file with layers, and distribute a compressed and unlayered final version. Its a form of protection from copying or ripping my stuff off, I guess. Or basically, I want the credit for it, and if the co-worker creates a masterpiece in two minutes using my hours of work, it might put me out of a job because he seems to work so much quicker merely as he's fast tracked.
My view is that if people are to learn, they must take it upon themselves to learn things. Sure, if they can't they can't, but my co-worker can. Not very well, but neither could I once upon a time.
I've always been left wondering if that really is selfish? Or if I can justify my actions enough to be redeemed.
The way I see it, if I made my hard work publically available, everyone would use it, and there'd be little in the way of desire to make new (unless they got really outdated and low resolution).
Now, my argument, I have downloaded tree cutouts online before. In my early university days, because there were other pieces readily available made by someone else, freebies, I took and used them, and did little else. It merely saved me time, effort, and frankly, made me lazy. I had no urge or desire to make my own, because 'someone else already had'.
In a Utopian world of tree cutouts, there was no need for progress. Pretty crude comparison. But pretty bad too, isn't it?
The only reason I made my own, was because the old ones were bad quality. I innovated, and made higher resolution trees because of need and desire. The old ones were now useless.
Imagine that in a Utopian world, we all share everything. Someone has to have put the effort in firstly, but after that, what urge is there to progress if everyone is all at once currently satisfied? Progression only comes with need, as in my case, new higher resolution trees.
So in a Utopian world, unless something like population increase or food demand occured, the world would live in a rather static pose, wouldn't it? Utopian innovation would be driven by the most primitive of world advances from the ancient worlds - the very same population and food instances.
A little weird for a comparison, but it has got my juices flowing all morning.
I guess I've answered my own question - perhaps we are better off all doing our own thing, because the true innovators will take it upon themselves to the next stage. Utopia might just make people content and lazy until needs be... for eternity. Lol.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
You mention we would potentially cast aside any things such as indifferences, to focus as one on the common task of said 'war'.
It's a weird one, if we all work towards the same thing, in that one example everything else is compromised somewhat, almost totally. So if a Utopian ideal is visualised, all working towards a common goal - would the same be implied? That we wouldn't actually progress as far as people would predict?
With boundaries, there comes competition, jealousy and variation. There are always people better and worse off than the other. It's what assisted trade, created wars, spread and created religion, segregated countries...
So in that light, as horrid as it can sound, boundaries and contrast in society and our human race are not necessarily a bad thing - they can potentially be more positive than negative.
Again, its an impossible scenario, but one to contemplate nonetheless of all the possibilities and how nothing is really certain or indeed feasible.
I also have been thinking long and hard about the space race, the social power struggle between Russia and America and what would happen if the Russians got to the moon first. I think things would be extremely different to today.
That social power struggle peaked in the 60's and 70's - but look at today!? Yes, we have advanced incredibly within the last 10 years, heck, even 20. But look at the social aspect of boundaries and 'competition' and ask yourself if that has assisted in the progression of mankind more than a universal effort.
Competition strives for one to outdo the other. Innovation becomes a necessity.
And why, oh why, of all things for the sake fo humanity, is there not a global space effort!? I mean, if anything, aside eliminating war, for humanity, that must be the biggest goal!?
Another thought provoking insight...
At work today, I have lied to my co-worker over a load of photoshopped tree cutouts that he needs to add to his work. I have sat and cut out my own library to add to architectural elevations spending a ridiculous amount of hours. They are my work, and I have always only used them on my drawings. I keep them on me in three backed up external drive forms. Every image I produce, I retain the original file with layers, and distribute a compressed and unlayered final version. Its a form of protection from copying or ripping my stuff off, I guess. Or basically, I want the credit for it, and if the co-worker creates a masterpiece in two minutes using my hours of work, it might put me out of a job because he seems to work so much quicker merely as he's fast tracked.
My view is that if people are to learn, they must take it upon themselves to learn things. Sure, if they can't they can't, but my co-worker can. Not very well, but neither could I once upon a time.
I've always been left wondering if that really is selfish? Or if I can justify my actions enough to be redeemed.
The way I see it, if I made my hard work publically available, everyone would use it, and there'd be little in the way of desire to make new (unless they got really outdated and low resolution).
Now, my argument, I have downloaded tree cutouts online before. In my early university days, because there were other pieces readily available made by someone else, freebies, I took and used them, and did little else. It merely saved me time, effort, and frankly, made me lazy. I had no urge or desire to make my own, because 'someone else already had'.
In a Utopian world of tree cutouts, there was no need for progress. Pretty crude comparison. But pretty bad too, isn't it?
The only reason I made my own, was because the old ones were bad quality. I innovated, and made higher resolution trees because of need and desire. The old ones were now useless.
Imagine that in a Utopian world, we all share everything. Someone has to have put the effort in firstly, but after that, what urge is there to progress if everyone is all at once currently satisfied? Progression only comes with need, as in my case, new higher resolution trees.
So in a Utopian world, unless something like population increase or food demand occured, the world would live in a rather static pose, wouldn't it? Utopian innovation would be driven by the most primitive of world advances from the ancient worlds - the very same population and food instances.
A little weird for a comparison, but it has got my juices flowing all morning.
I guess I've answered my own question - perhaps we are better off all doing our own thing, because the true innovators will take it upon themselves to the next stage. Utopia might just make people content and lazy until needs be... for eternity. Lol.
It's competition that brings innovation. Communism tried to form a common interest (welfare for all by working hard for the community), but since people didn't benefit if they worked harder, but only benefited if everyone worked harder, there was no incentive to work harder. It's very similar to the prisoner's dilemma actually.
Here's another brain wave. What if the common interest is moving the world forward? Then competition isn't bad and would fit in a Utopia. However, since it is deemed unwanted in a Utopia it isn't there. But is it all that bad? Competition could bring forward the best morals etc. Come to think of it, this 'version' of Utopia is actually close to the neo-classical economy system and we've all seen that's not all that perfect. Is that due to the fact tha't it's not a fully free market? Or because it really doesn't work? In the form of debates you could apply this to the forming of perfect morals, but people would have to open up for new ideas. Look at the greater picture, but communism proved it doesn't work like that. Compromise then? On the one hand, yes, because everyone agrees, but on the other hand no, because with a compromise nobody is fully satisfied and therefore it's not perfect.
So can there be a Utopia? I think not, because of the paradoxal situation of having to have compromises for the unity, but the imperfectness they come with make it impossible for a Utopia to exist.
Quite an interesting topic there, Dan
Here's another brain wave. What if the common interest is moving the world forward? Then competition isn't bad and would fit in a Utopia. However, since it is deemed unwanted in a Utopia it isn't there. But is it all that bad? Competition could bring forward the best morals etc. Come to think of it, this 'version' of Utopia is actually close to the neo-classical economy system and we've all seen that's not all that perfect. Is that due to the fact tha't it's not a fully free market? Or because it really doesn't work? In the form of debates you could apply this to the forming of perfect morals, but people would have to open up for new ideas. Look at the greater picture, but communism proved it doesn't work like that. Compromise then? On the one hand, yes, because everyone agrees, but on the other hand no, because with a compromise nobody is fully satisfied and therefore it's not perfect.
So can there be a Utopia? I think not, because of the paradoxal situation of having to have compromises for the unity, but the imperfectness they come with make it impossible for a Utopia to exist.
Quite an interesting topic there, Dan
It totally is a paradox Nick, you are right.
Hidden under the very beginning of the subject surface, it just fails to justify what it preaches. Kinda funny, really.
It begs the question on whether humanity actually has a preset (and unknown) finite limit doesn't it? Some sort of cap on expansion/evolution on how far we really can go - in order to reach this 'Utopia'.
What exactly is the ideal Utopia, versus realistic Utopia? Utopia being the optimum and most perfectly balanced social world - versus the ecological Utopia of the maximum efficient capacity the world we know of can turn its cogs at.
I think both complement eachother, whereby the ideal Utopia on a social level (ie, science and technology MUST be able to fit the extents of the world at a physical level, ie, natural resources etc). So Utopia must therefore have some sort of peak. But then people start speaking of futuristic sciences like creating anything from a sub atomic level - controlling carbon molecules into gold etc.
How far into that we go, f$%# knows!
I still feel somehow the world, heck, the universe as we know loops on itself through evolution to devolution and so forth. I think the way we are heading, no amount of future advances and perfect society are going to reach beyond the capabilities of how the earlier world worked previously.
We are just too primitive in our insticts. We just really want to breed and feed at the root of it all, and somewhere, the desire is going to burn out, and we head back to square one before we get close to social and physical world Utopia.
Looking at what Nick has said, there are just too many artificial stumbling blocks that rupture how we progress today, notably politics and religion. Awkward constraints that govern how we are able to freely evovle as a species. It just won't work. Catch 22, and we start all over. A little purge.
It's like how the world has frequent 20k ice ages (documented in rock and ice samples), as if the world was self cleasnsing a bit. The same way society has these little purges, through goverment reforms, civil and world wars.
They just happen to happen.
Hey, heres another mixer to it all - animals and religion/politics. And if we compare them in terms of evolution to, say, humans and religion/politics.
We don't know for sure, but look how animals have evolved through time and have fluctuated through fighting/breeding. We've seen species go exctinct all on their own accord, prior to any of mankinds involvement. That's just down to nature. No politics and no religion. Just natures pecking order, excuse the pun. Haha.
If animals could reach a Utopia of efficiency, it would be that theres plenty to eat; and plenty to shag.
Ironically, with mankind, we dream of a Utopia that is social, not physical.
We then have invented an ideaology that we also caused the toxin for. Our existence and pettyness is preventing us hitting that g-spot in life.
Now if we presume animals don't have 'religion' in their lives, there are many people who preach that religion may be the end of us all.
I feel in agreeance on that one. Add politics to the mix too. It's capping us in a very big way from freely thinking as one, or at least, being allowed to go beyond the box.
So does that weigh in that there are multiple instances of Utopia again? A social level of Utopia (where society is at optimum evolution and progression); and a physical level of Utopia (where the physical world is at its optimum in terms of what it can accept and produce through input and output, ie, food and population ((breeding and eating being the crudest from of life requirements LOL))).
But really? What of all that jargon? That's just evidence that evolution as part of livingkinds progression follows a natural cycle of highs and lows independantly.
Utopia on its own as a social factor can only be reached by humans and human input, as we basically invented it, meaning it isn't a natural occurance.
That extinguishes ecological Utopia, as social utopia has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the earth, and is simply a science/social/technology goal.
So we conclude that it hasn't happened on its own accord. Ever. So say, we are in control of our own destiny, right?
Religion is then one of our 'artificially introduced' external factors that can adversely affect how we reach this supposed 'Utopia'.
So you'd have to eradicate all forms of religion to reach Utopia because of all the conflicting disagreements holding us back. But as Nick was hinting sort of, eradicating that puts everything on a linear playing field.
If we all are the same (thinking along the lines of communism) then there is no distinction between one or the other so much, and so we sit in content limbo. Thus we don't progress.
But we need things like Religion to keep us arguing and fighting for something better.
Yet Utopia doesn't require it, and in Utopia every question is solved and the world works fluidly.
Religion, sheesh, now thats a whole new kettle of fish altogether.
But Nick, spot on with the impossibility of it all, its what I found difficult to weigh up without going in circles.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 04:58PM by danm.
Hidden under the very beginning of the subject surface, it just fails to justify what it preaches. Kinda funny, really.
It begs the question on whether humanity actually has a preset (and unknown) finite limit doesn't it? Some sort of cap on expansion/evolution on how far we really can go - in order to reach this 'Utopia'.
What exactly is the ideal Utopia, versus realistic Utopia? Utopia being the optimum and most perfectly balanced social world - versus the ecological Utopia of the maximum efficient capacity the world we know of can turn its cogs at.
I think both complement eachother, whereby the ideal Utopia on a social level (ie, science and technology MUST be able to fit the extents of the world at a physical level, ie, natural resources etc). So Utopia must therefore have some sort of peak. But then people start speaking of futuristic sciences like creating anything from a sub atomic level - controlling carbon molecules into gold etc.
How far into that we go, f$%# knows!
I still feel somehow the world, heck, the universe as we know loops on itself through evolution to devolution and so forth. I think the way we are heading, no amount of future advances and perfect society are going to reach beyond the capabilities of how the earlier world worked previously.
We are just too primitive in our insticts. We just really want to breed and feed at the root of it all, and somewhere, the desire is going to burn out, and we head back to square one before we get close to social and physical world Utopia.
Looking at what Nick has said, there are just too many artificial stumbling blocks that rupture how we progress today, notably politics and religion. Awkward constraints that govern how we are able to freely evovle as a species. It just won't work. Catch 22, and we start all over. A little purge.
It's like how the world has frequent 20k ice ages (documented in rock and ice samples), as if the world was self cleasnsing a bit. The same way society has these little purges, through goverment reforms, civil and world wars.
They just happen to happen.
Hey, heres another mixer to it all - animals and religion/politics. And if we compare them in terms of evolution to, say, humans and religion/politics.
We don't know for sure, but look how animals have evolved through time and have fluctuated through fighting/breeding. We've seen species go exctinct all on their own accord, prior to any of mankinds involvement. That's just down to nature. No politics and no religion. Just natures pecking order, excuse the pun. Haha.
If animals could reach a Utopia of efficiency, it would be that theres plenty to eat; and plenty to shag.
Ironically, with mankind, we dream of a Utopia that is social, not physical.
We then have invented an ideaology that we also caused the toxin for. Our existence and pettyness is preventing us hitting that g-spot in life.
Now if we presume animals don't have 'religion' in their lives, there are many people who preach that religion may be the end of us all.
I feel in agreeance on that one. Add politics to the mix too. It's capping us in a very big way from freely thinking as one, or at least, being allowed to go beyond the box.
So does that weigh in that there are multiple instances of Utopia again? A social level of Utopia (where society is at optimum evolution and progression); and a physical level of Utopia (where the physical world is at its optimum in terms of what it can accept and produce through input and output, ie, food and population ((breeding and eating being the crudest from of life requirements LOL))).
But really? What of all that jargon? That's just evidence that evolution as part of livingkinds progression follows a natural cycle of highs and lows independantly.
Utopia on its own as a social factor can only be reached by humans and human input, as we basically invented it, meaning it isn't a natural occurance.
That extinguishes ecological Utopia, as social utopia has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the earth, and is simply a science/social/technology goal.
So we conclude that it hasn't happened on its own accord. Ever. So say, we are in control of our own destiny, right?
Religion is then one of our 'artificially introduced' external factors that can adversely affect how we reach this supposed 'Utopia'.
So you'd have to eradicate all forms of religion to reach Utopia because of all the conflicting disagreements holding us back. But as Nick was hinting sort of, eradicating that puts everything on a linear playing field.
If we all are the same (thinking along the lines of communism) then there is no distinction between one or the other so much, and so we sit in content limbo. Thus we don't progress.
But we need things like Religion to keep us arguing and fighting for something better.
Yet Utopia doesn't require it, and in Utopia every question is solved and the world works fluidly.
Religion, sheesh, now thats a whole new kettle of fish altogether.
But Nick, spot on with the impossibility of it all, its what I found difficult to weigh up without going in circles.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 04:58PM by danm.
Nickv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's another brain wave. What if the common
> interest is moving the world forward?
Interesting quote I just read on Egalitarianism...
An essay by Gary Hull of Capitalism Magazine
[en.wikipedia.org]
'Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an 'equality' in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot... In an attempt to 'dumb down' all students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer promote excellence and students of superior ability...'
That smells to me a lot like sitting happy and being content.
Thus can we conclude Utopia has actually got nothing to do with the progression and is just a point in time where we, as a race, are just happy to be as we are without any desire to improve.
Ironic, again, a world aiming purely on this wonderful desire and beauty to reach a world where there is no longer need for desire because it has extinguished itself of such subject.
LOL!
So how long after Utopia is there a point when people start to think 'hmmm, what else is there? I wonder if the grass is greener...'. I guess the belief is that there is no need.
Scary thoughts. I'd imagine such a world would be devoid of the Arts then? And expression?
I'm thinking machine universe. A land full of Kimi Raikkonens.
:|
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's another brain wave. What if the common
> interest is moving the world forward?
Interesting quote I just read on Egalitarianism...
An essay by Gary Hull of Capitalism Magazine
[en.wikipedia.org]
'Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an 'equality' in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot... In an attempt to 'dumb down' all students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer promote excellence and students of superior ability...'
That smells to me a lot like sitting happy and being content.
Thus can we conclude Utopia has actually got nothing to do with the progression and is just a point in time where we, as a race, are just happy to be as we are without any desire to improve.
Ironic, again, a world aiming purely on this wonderful desire and beauty to reach a world where there is no longer need for desire because it has extinguished itself of such subject.
LOL!
So how long after Utopia is there a point when people start to think 'hmmm, what else is there? I wonder if the grass is greener...'. I guess the belief is that there is no need.
Scary thoughts. I'd imagine such a world would be devoid of the Arts then? And expression?
I'm thinking machine universe. A land full of Kimi Raikkonens.
:|
:D
I think the fundamental aspect of Utopia working is the actual 'drive' of that society.
For it to work, it needs to be driven; and thus a Utopian world where people are allowed not to work, free choice, we can assume people wouldn't if they don't have to.
Therefore, no work = no progress.
Unless a variable is that all or some people suddenly 'work' out of choice, rather than it being a necessity, which suggests that people actually need to be different than today for Utopia to work. People must actually change universally, which is near impossible given our varying degrees of intellect!
But then people need to be almost emotionless in the face of both not wanting to or doing things/working. It must mean Utopia is therefore devoid of jealousy or desire.
Again, a complete juxtaposition of what it supposedly preaches.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
I think the fundamental aspect of Utopia working is the actual 'drive' of that society.
For it to work, it needs to be driven; and thus a Utopian world where people are allowed not to work, free choice, we can assume people wouldn't if they don't have to.
Therefore, no work = no progress.
Unless a variable is that all or some people suddenly 'work' out of choice, rather than it being a necessity, which suggests that people actually need to be different than today for Utopia to work. People must actually change universally, which is near impossible given our varying degrees of intellect!
But then people need to be almost emotionless in the face of both not wanting to or doing things/working. It must mean Utopia is therefore devoid of jealousy or desire.
Again, a complete juxtaposition of what it supposedly preaches.
in short: a utopia as defined in b) does exist and can be reached but it is possible that we'll not be able to find it. i guess if we find it there won't be standstill as due to the change in external variables mankind will always have to adapt an find new solutions to problems. maybe one could even say that we won't be able to find the actual utopia but only yesterday's utopia. it might be an endless hunt.
But if there still is some drive for development, doesn't that mean there are imperfect things, which by definition rules out the existance of Utopia at that moment in time?
Do you mean by your definition B that you want the maximum overall satisfaction, which will include individuals being not fully satisfied? But from that point of view, the part about 'an imaginary place considered to be perfect or ideal' cannot be materialised because the place isn't considered perfect by everyone. That would mean that to an extent, we're currenly living in a Utopian world by your definition and according to many people, we're not!
What was this Thomas More thinking when he wrote this book?
But if there still is some drive for development, doesn't that mean there are imperfect things, which by definition rules out the existance of Utopia at that moment in time?
Do you mean by your definition B that you want the maximum overall satisfaction, which will include individuals being not fully satisfied? But from that point of view, the part about 'an imaginary place considered to be perfect or ideal' cannot be materialised because the place isn't considered perfect by everyone. That would mean that to an extent, we're currenly living in a Utopian world by your definition and according to many people, we're not!
What was this Thomas More thinking when he wrote this book?
So something along the lines of Utopia being unique to a particular moment, as opposed to a conclusive final destination? I like it.
So we reach a level of Utopia that we, as a social evolution, cannot peak; that is, until external factors not controlled by us cause a change, and then the balance and definition shifts.
So that bides a bit with the two catergories of Utopian ideal - Social Utopia and Environmental/Science/Laws of Physics Utopia (being the one we change; and the one we can't change).
So does that mean we are forever playing a catchup game with the world of science?
Again, it would fit in with the theory of evolution, wouldn't it? How species evolve to cope with the changes in climate, on earth, at the very least.
Wooly Mammoths in the Ice Ages; Humans in the Modern Age.
Each species reaches a more efficient version of itself to fit the environment, a social utopia, a darwinian evolution and survival of the fittest to maximise the living conditions.
And when these conditions turn against us, our social Utopia is in jeopardy, and we thus reset, and start again.
Forever chasing and matching, its like gear revs and chasing to change gear, as it slowly trickles up the counter, it climaxes, BOOM, changes, back down to lower revs and so forth...
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
So we reach a level of Utopia that we, as a social evolution, cannot peak; that is, until external factors not controlled by us cause a change, and then the balance and definition shifts.
So that bides a bit with the two catergories of Utopian ideal - Social Utopia and Environmental/Science/Laws of Physics Utopia (being the one we change; and the one we can't change).
So does that mean we are forever playing a catchup game with the world of science?
Again, it would fit in with the theory of evolution, wouldn't it? How species evolve to cope with the changes in climate, on earth, at the very least.
Wooly Mammoths in the Ice Ages; Humans in the Modern Age.
Each species reaches a more efficient version of itself to fit the environment, a social utopia, a darwinian evolution and survival of the fittest to maximise the living conditions.
And when these conditions turn against us, our social Utopia is in jeopardy, and we thus reset, and start again.
Forever chasing and matching, its like gear revs and chasing to change gear, as it slowly trickles up the counter, it climaxes, BOOM, changes, back down to lower revs and so forth...
indeed, its almost blindly instinctive if you take it at that angle.
So then Utopia could be argued as a self driven point in time, and maybe the question isn't 'What is Utopian Ideal' but more so 'How will we reach it?'
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
So then Utopia could be argued as a self driven point in time, and maybe the question isn't 'What is Utopian Ideal' but more so 'How will we reach it?'
Since we don't have time for the long answer (it's get "tl;dr" anyway) here is the short answer.
Concerning the importance of utopian thoughts it's completely irrelevant if it's impossible to make it all come true or not.
Take a utopian novel for example. The main function of it issocial criticism. It matters more what it says about our time than what it says about the fictive world it is set in. If that wasn't the case it would be plain and trivial fantasy. It's not important that we end up in a perfect world as described in a utopian novel - it's important that we reflect on our world and find out why it is not important. Or in case of dystopian thoughts find out what to do not to end up in a 1984.
To give you another example: man's wish to fly was a utopian wish from the start. Now man could have noticed that flying wasn't an option, call it a day and go back to the cave. Did man do it? No, he invented the plane. That's not what the utopian thought was about in the first case and you could say that his original wish was ridicolous but at least it got him somewhere. That's what it's all about.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Concerning the importance of utopian thoughts it's completely irrelevant if it's impossible to make it all come true or not.
Take a utopian novel for example. The main function of it issocial criticism. It matters more what it says about our time than what it says about the fictive world it is set in. If that wasn't the case it would be plain and trivial fantasy. It's not important that we end up in a perfect world as described in a utopian novel - it's important that we reflect on our world and find out why it is not important. Or in case of dystopian thoughts find out what to do not to end up in a 1984.
To give you another example: man's wish to fly was a utopian wish from the start. Now man could have noticed that flying wasn't an option, call it a day and go back to the cave. Did man do it? No, he invented the plane. That's not what the utopian thought was about in the first case and you could say that his original wish was ridicolous but at least it got him somewhere. That's what it's all about.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.