I have sometimes heard people in the popular media, especially conservatives, speak dismissively of the idea of utopia. Since when has utopia become a negative concept? Is it because they feel that original sin burdens us with the innante inability to create heaven on Earth? Do they fear the political ramifications of implementing some ideal? To me, utopia is not a political idea. It is not a political system to be forced on an unwilling population. It is our future. Either we are utopian, or we do not survive. Political systems follow from the collective attitudes of the people. Being Utopian is something in the present. What did you do today that is Utopian? Everything is leading there, the rise in a scientific literacy and discoveries, the modern re-discovery of consciousness raising practices like meditation and psychoactives, the global communications network, the growing appreciation of human equality and human rights, sustainability and organic movements... What is your impression of the concept?
I would guess that those who oppose utopia do so because they do not like the idea of equality or freedom, and those who dimiss it have very limited vision or faith. Imo, sin would have to be abolished for such a thing to exist. Those who don't believe that sin exists have no hope, and those who love sin like things just the way they are.
Wouldn't it be the opposite? If people think we are inherently flawed, then we do not have the capacity to create utopia, and we have to leave that to forces greater than ourselves? (especially when we have been promised exactly that after death)
Yes an intervention is required, but those who believe in the spiritual realm or are familiarized with it in some way believe/know that this intervention occurs constantly. And, we're not irresponsible, as you have to believe to achieve.
The problem with Utopias is that they are absolutes, so problems can become absolute in them. Hitler and Stalin could be seen as historical figures striving for Utopias. The positive side of the concept is that it is something to strive toward. Conservatives tend to see utopias in the past. They also tend to like systems where the ones who deserve utopia get to live in one. If you look at the utopias presented throughout history, they often are fairly class based. Anything from Plato's version to more modern ones. As far as us heading towards one, I see two currents and I am not sure which one is winning.
That its never built around pragmatism but illusion, the results are always based on a denial of reality, hence Hitler's Germany utopian idea of racial purity and the germanic soul. Or Ayn Rand's raw capitalism. Or Mao's cultural revolution. Utopia isn't about striving for a dream as much as creating a collective self-delusion and denial of reality. I think utopias are depicted as negatives through the works of Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm, Huxley's Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451 etc. They were warnings of what the structure and features of a utopian society and what they can evolve into.
I think you are getting at something about the so-called conservative people. Perhaps they think the present situation is already in such a state of perfection, and the more things change, the farther away they get. Thus, any force for change is seen as antagonistic to how things should be, it's the outsider, it's the culturally liberated, the urbanite, anyone that's pushing the boundries, educational institutions and organized movements like unions or "community organizers", hippies, artists, gays (fruitful in their own way, but not multiplying), and especially immigrants. Jews in particular symbolized this for the German fascists, as they were largely prevented from joining the agricultural class.
I think anti-utopianism rests the idea that we're limited in various ways. When we try to implement a utopian vision, we tend to screw things up, so utopianism generally leads to greater harm than the absence of utopianism. It seems like, on your view, positive progress is synonymous with utopianism. But why should we accept that? The anti-utopian will want to say that positive progress does not entail utopianism, and I'm inclined to agree with him on that matter. I think that they (i.e. utopian visions) are an interesting intellectual exercise that may be useful for orientating our perspectives, but that a "chip-away" approach to problem solving is often more fruitful.
Well okay. What would a utopian political system look like? What would be its features? What values would it be based upon?
I submit to you a utopian vision of America. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. FDR, State of the Union, 1944 These aren't things that are unreachable or unrealistic, many of them can be accomplished with legislation tomorrow.
But spidergoat those are fundamental socialist ideals not utopian ideals. The fulfillment of the above is based on a minimum standard for the better good of society, not the illusion of ultimate peace and happiness or perfection economically, politically and morally which I believe are always features of a utopian society or should I say the illusions built into a utopian society.
I'll give you an example, Denmark for instance has all those features you listed and it is generally a well run society where the good of its citizens are ensured through security for masses based on a certain tax system. In short it works but socially for many who live there the hitch comes in the form of what is called the jantelov, the Jantelov is an inbuilt social group understanding (or some say control), subtle but its there and there are those who find it oppressive: There are ten different rules in the law as defined by Sandemose, but they are all variations on a single theme and are usually referred to as a homogeneous unit: Don't think you're anyone special or that you're better than us. The ten rules are: Don't think that you are special. Don't think that you are of the same standing as us. Don't think that you are smarter than us. Don't fancy yourself as being better than us. Don't think that you know more than us. Don't think that you are more important than us. Don't think that you are good at anything. Don't laugh at us. Don't think that any one of us cares about you. Don't think that you can teach us anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law So what does it suppress? A certain individuality where one would strive to be different from the group or excel past the group, eccentricity and those who are over ambitious. In that sense it is not utopian, simply a system that works, its pragmatic, its socialism (perhaps an example of communism that actually worksPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Don't get me wrong I love Denmark and their way of life but its hardly a utopia. Spider: These aren't things that are unreachable or unrealistic, many of them can be accomplished with legislation tomorrow. I do think they are reachable and realistic in a general sense but i doubt you can implement such a think tomorrow. Danes are clanish (only 5 million in population) and until recently mostly homogenized which is why they do not begrudge paying for the better good of their neighbor for example. The american way is based on individuals striving and its so diverse that there is always the sentiment of 'why should I have to pay for them' which has been the complaint surrounding universal health care.
How is utopia being defined? If we mean the "perfect society" then there are two issues. First, humans are imperfect. We doze off. We have irrational fears of spiders. We fart in public sometimes. The best we could ever do is strive for utopia and learn to forgive the mistakes that keep us from obtaining it. Second, though, we'd need many many different utopias. To attain absolute perfection, we might need a different utopia for each person on Earth. I know that there are many people's visions of utopias that I would feel compelled to take up arms against were they to approach reality, and I have no doubt that if my vision of utopia were realized many people would be deeply dissatisfied with it. Can a disjointed series of utopias exist? Or would we consider that an oxymoron?
why do you say "illusions"? do you not believe that the universe operates under a perfect law, and that we cannot be at one with it?
Define, "absolute." Define, "Perfect." Humanity developed under the same conditions as all other life on Earth. Sparked from the beginning by reproducing chemical compounds that, once headed in a 'successful' direction, were the base route for all that followed. Who knows what other successful combinations at a beginning might lead to? And that was a few billion years ago. A few billion years of following that natural chaos of influence, cause and effect. Natural traits include, deception and suspicion. Pareidolia. Intelligence rising from an electro-chemical-neuro base that is further detemined by millions of random influences on a developing brain over the course of years. Science, our strongest route toward understanding the Universe, is based on building the most Accurate Models of reality Possible. This is because No Creature on Earth can observe reality for all that it is. Any Earth creature will observe based on its own bias. Science strives to use multiple observations cross checking eachother to MODEL reality. Proofs can never be obtained in science. Only a constant striving to increase accuracy. Look at how minor differences of opinion can lead to the most chaotic of arguments right here on this forum. People cannot agree on what Utopia IS, how could it possibly ever be implemented? The reason that most any rational person would be opposed to Utopia is not necessarily religious or political-- But simply aware that religion and politics exists. Complexities that are indeterminant. And therefor, chaotic. Utopia would require either Drones or a complete harmony, like Gaia, among all intelligence. When you have an intelligence that is the product of chaotic evolution, subject to emotional influences, entirely unique perspectives and stark differences of personality traits, further exacerbated by beliefs... Utopia is not just a dream. It's a horrifying nightmare. ETA: As an added irony-- anyone that posts in disagreement with me will simply illustrate my point. :shrug:
I'm going to cross link a thread here... This is not proper for me to do, but I wonder how many people might read in this section but not the one. Micheals post number 10 in this thread is pretty interesting, especially if one relates it to this topic. Understand: I am not saying the entire view expressed in post #10 is correct and absolutely accurate. Just interesting brain food.
Why might survive but life won't be nearly as fun as it would be if the Utopianism dominated. To some degree you get what you aim for. If we don't aim for Utopia we will wind up with a nasty crowded earth until the nuclear war after which we have an even nastier less crowded earth. I hope the rise of Utopianism can out pace population growth. The nationalist, feudal capitalists, and religious traditionalists don't like utopianism. Utopianism does screw up from time to time. Communism being the best example. We need to work with our selfishness and not pretend that selfishness can disappear just because we want it to. Competition is good because it lets superior ideas rise on their own merits where as with central planning the Utopian planners tend to refuse to admit when they make mistakes. On the other hand unlimited competition leads to feudalism or worse. It looks like we are slowly progressing towards Utopia but we can't take progress for granted. Look what the Easter Islanders did to themselves with an environment that they were capable of understanding. Why shouldn't humans have Utopia? We are smart enough intellectually to achieve it but I don't know if we are smart enough emotionally to achieve it. I want the Seventh generation yet unborn to be born into a Utopia. And it is possible damn it, so come on kids get it done.
