Human civilization--from its beginnings, in fact--is based on the concept of conquering. We conquer other humans, we conquer land, we conquer the sky, we conquer science, what have you: we advance. I hope that this is considered undeniable. While human civilization may have different cultures and languages and, well, differences--this one aspect of human society remains the same in every civilization. Human life is nothing but the conquering of problems--of grades in school, of money, people, promotions, things, thoughts. It is the central dogma of society. To conquer. If this is indeed undeniable, which I hope that it is, I will use it as the foundation of my argument.

Civilization, as far as humans know of it, has never grown to such proportions today. Modern humans have been around for many hundreds of thousands of years, but only in the last five thousand or so have we really begun to take off. We have become the most succesful species that has ever lived--not because of our numbers (indeed, there are many times more insects or bacteria or virii) but because of our ability to control. Although our control of nature, of the world, is not yet perfect, in fact it is not nearly so, we still at least have a great deal of control over our environment. We are getting to the point where we will be able to create or destroy whatever we wish--whether it be a colony of ants or the entire ant species. It would be challenging, at the very least, for any species to survive our wrath, and greatly beneficial for any species to recieve our help.

So--our society conquers, and it has conquered nature.

There is a problem, however. We have not yet conquered human nature--that is, among other things, greed and hate and jealousy--things that make us different from many of the other creatures on Earth. As such, we cannot wield such control of the planet because we are not yet mature enough to do so. This is plainly obvious in that we destroy a great deal of things that would help us more if they remained alive (take the rainforest for example--cures for a slew of diseases could be found there, and it also filters out a great deal of the harmful gasses we pump into the atmosphere). This will ultimately lead to our destruction. Our campaign as a species [subconsciously] has been succesful. We are now top dog. However, with this great power our development intellectually has fallen behind.

What will this lead to? Destruction, of course!

Because it is not entirely feasible to "evolve" H. Sapiens into a more intelligent species a different course of action must be taken in order for the current species to survive. We must stop conquering. Any challenge at all for any man, woman, state or nation or culture must be stopped. The word conquer must become irrelevant. We need utopia. In fact, if a utopian society is not developed we will definitely destroy ourselves. AND the only utopian society is one without the concept of a challenge to overcome, so, in a way, we would commit the final conquest: that of human nature itself.

In order to create a utopian society, we have to use the tools that time has given us: technology. The human mind is incapable of devising a society where human nature would not be prevalent, at least a feasible society. Are there any third parties, then, that could possibly assist us? Yes, there is one: the computer. My idea is for a computer, one that knows how a human mind works and how human society works better than any historian or psychologist, to devise a utopian society devoid of conquest. This notion is not entirely far-fetched, it will certainly not be long before computers are devising better computers--going beyond the capacities of any programmer to perfect our technology. This means that utopia is within our grasp. Every living person could be happy, without trouble, without challenge, with anything they could ever ever want at the expense of nothing. It is possible, when put into the hands of a computer.

All we have to do is wait.

You forgot one thing: why do we feel the need to conquer?

I am going to guess that we feel the need to conquer so that we feel more powerful than death. Young people feel invincible because they don't know of anything worth conquering, but as they get older, the universe seeps into thier brains.

You want a paradise? Kill yourself. That is paradise. Balanced and perfect.

EDIT: After I posted this, I read your quote below that line. I challenge you to study it.

I love my quote. It's managed to cease my fear of death. I'm not afraid any more, because with no existence you really do reach perfection. However, that is not applicable for living human society, whose life I am trying to extend. Why do we feel the need to conquer? I think it's more of an extinct that would be hard to explain, like an ant's undying loyalty to its own queen, child's love for its mother (in mammals), etc etc.

Instinct.

Agricultural societies conquering behavior began when plowing and organized agriculture produced a food surplus that turned into a population surplus.
Population surplus allowed for the creation of a standing army whose job it was to get more land, to grow more food, to make more people, to join the army to get more land.

Tribal and horticultural societies in general dont dislplay the kind of behavior you describe.

Pollux - you make some assumptions. You define success in terms of conquering and conquering in terms of success. You say humans always want to 'conquer' things which is true but is not a bad thing - some people just want to conquer their ignorance and fears, and anyway many people and societies are not conquest driven. Also your very broad definition of 'conquest' makes it necessary to basic survival. (Eg 'conquest' is why the giraffe has a long neck).

The idea that computers (or computer scientists) are going to save the world is just a rehash of the sort of faith-based idea that Marxism was going to save it.

"Responsible scientists, looking at their colleagues, saw the obvious fact that most specialists were quite unfitted to play an important part in the evolution of general culture; but, far from acknowledging that this was a sign of science's failure, they accepted it almost with glee as an excuse which let them out of the necessity of thinking about wider issues." (C.H.Waddington -The Scientific Attitude 1941).

Today this is more true than ever. IMO the time has passed for the idea of some distant technological utopia, apart from science fiction and myth-making (and research grant applications). Right now is what counts (as always).

To alter society drastically would take no more than altering the mass social system by which we indoctrinate young people into the current mind-set, often called 'education'. This is why states work so hard to achieve central control of the education curriculum and its delivery system.

I would disagree, on the idea that conquering is a good thing. Conquering implies that you are fighting an enemy, not a friend, not a neutral, but an opponent. When humans instinctively need to conquer everything then that means that everything is their opponent. This just doesn't sound like the way life is supposed to be. This (http://www.sciencenews.org/20000916/note5ref.asp) is about as close as I got to my idea, it's still in its baby steps but is definitely feasible within my lifetime, at the very least. Computers will take over the creative juices that currently power the technological conquests of the human race, and soon they will also take over the government and psychological ones as well. Assuming we don't kill ourselves first it is inevitable. As I see it, utopia is just as definite as this as long as we let the computers try. They will be vastly superior in intelligence to us, so it will likely be a peace of cake to solve every last world probleml.

Originally posted by Pollux V
I would disagree, on the idea that conquering is a good thing. Conquering implies that you are fighting an enemy, not a friend, not a neutral, but an opponent. When humans instinctively need to conquer everything then that means that everything is their opponent. This just doesn't sound like the way life is supposed to be
No it doesn't does it?
And I find it particularly unsettling that our opponent has no idea it is even our opponent.
It's like beating up a guy in a coma and saying its a good thing is like cheering, scoffing and patting yourself on the back while you do it.

It doesn't matter if our opponent knows that it is our opponent. It still is. It still is a thing that must be fought and conquered, whether it is a thought or emotion or a person or an animal, it is an opponent.

Yep. And Nature as a whole is no exception, always there to be conquered by science. But what can one do about it?

Leave it to a superior intelligence that does not value conquest but instead only seeks to be. We keep it alive as long as it does our thinking for us.

This is crazy. Why do we have to invent a superior intelligence. Why do we not do it ourselves. Surely you don't imagine we're going to build computers that we do NOT use for conquest. As if computers are going to be built and used differently to everything else we build and use. Computers are tools, not oracles whose peaceful wisdom we will one day all meekly bow to and follow. We should be discussing just 'being' and thinking properly right now, not waiting for some superior form of light bulb to just 'be' on our behalf.

The whole purpose of building the computer was that we could create a being with an intelligence greater than us. Who's to say that when once we reach true A.I we, or they, won't try for something better? A human cannot concieve of utopia because a utopia is a thing that does not involve conquest, and that would go against instinct, which is impossible. I think they will be something like oracles, and that, sooner or later, they will solve all of the world's problems. When you think about it the idea is realistic.

Hmmm. And just who is going to progam in the goals of all this artificially intelligent calculation? The very same people who can't sort out sensible goals now. And is your Utopia the same as my Utopia. Very definitely not I would say, since my Utopia doesn't have (or need) computers in it. You're beginning to frighten me.

What is your utopia?

In this life? A Buddhist world. In the next (should there be one) the same again. In the non-life? Nirvanah and non-existence, although some of the more fleshly realms sound tempting.

I don't know...buddhism always seemed too calm. Not enough excitement, I guess. The vinegar you taste is sour.

Utopia and Nirvana can't be differentiated. What is the ultimate purpouse of both, the end of suffereing perhaps?

I would say our existence lies in the reach for utopia(nirvana), once(if) we reach it, we no longer exist. Or perhaps simply realize that we never realy existed at all.:)

I'm unclear as to what Nirvana is....could someone perhaps enlighten me? (pun intended heheh;))

Once we reach utopia, we exist, but we're no longer human. Part of being a human is to suffer, among other things, of course.

Pollux, interesting thread, very interesting thread and I do see where you're coming from.

I have one query, in this Utopia that is being run by a super computer and "conquest" is obselete, how will we learn? Learning is a "conquest". We can't go about our lives in this perfect world and be so dumb that we can't even acknowledge how perfect it is.

I don't think it's right to confuse utopia and nirvanah. The former is a social goal to be achieved collectively in this physical existence, the latter isn't.

Pollux - I'm not really qualified to describe nirvanah (I wish!) but in the terms of current scientific'philosophical consciousness research I think it's 'what it is like' to be nothing, and yet everything. Sounds paradoxical but the transcendence of such dualistic paradoxes are what Buddhism is about (since ontologically the world is not dual). Any Buddhists out there to answer this better?

Originally posted by Pollux V
Part of being a human is to suffer, among other things, of course.

and acceptance of this is precisely why we continue to suffer. i recommend a reboot

*pollux rules!*

"What will this lead to? Destruction, of course!" (pollux)

dump the pessimism. we are counting on you to take us earthlings to the stars

:D

Originally posted by spookz
and acceptance of this is precisely why we continue to suffer. i recommend a reboot
Great metaphor.

I have one query, in this Utopia that is being run by a super computer and "conquest" is obselete, how will we learn? Learning is a "conquest". We can't go about our lives in this perfect world and be so dumb that we can't even acknowledge how perfect it is.

I don't have a clue, because I'm not the computer. The superintelligent omnipotent computer is the only one that knows. And it's just our luck that the fellow does not exist.

Pollux - I'm not really qualified to describe nirvanah (I wish!) but in the terms of current scientific'philosophical consciousness research I think it's 'what it is like' to be nothing, and yet everything.

That's kind of like what my old quote said..."but the next best thing is to die soon." Apparently Sophocles was a buddhist! However I feel that we must make due with the next best thing, because since we're not altogether sure that nonexistence is what awaits us when we die we should try to make as much heaven out of earth as possible. And this has not been done. Buddhism is not the answer, if it was, then we'd all be buddhists and we'd all be happy.

and acceptance of this is precisely why we continue to suffer

I know I know! That's what I was saying, that in order to cease suffering (at least in some respects) we would have to transcend our humanity. I doubt that anyone knows how to do such a thing--would you go up to a dog and order him to be a cat?

AND if that was sarcasm then I cannot detect it, so then thanks for the various compliments...

Pollux - You state that "Buddhism is not the answer, if it was, then we'd all be buddhists and we'd all be happy".

Your logic doesn't survive scrutiny. Even if Buddhism is the answer most people would ignore it. I think if you run a poll you'll find that Buddhists are happy people. (It would probably be better to say 'people who have a Buddhist-like philosophy or hold Buddhist beliefs' rather than 'Buddhism')

Okay, but my point was that if Buddhism was so great then everyone would immediately notice it was that great. More or less like a mass cultural epiphany, something like using airplanes for war in the early 20th century, using horses for travel, really a "why didn't I think of that." Buddhism doesn't have it.

Well - Buddhism is becoming increasingly popular in the West, so maybe it's happening. The problem is that Buddhism is not a piece of knowledge to be passed on to others, it is a personal introspective practice which you either choose to do or not do. So evangelicism is ruled out. There's no way of logically persuading someone who hasn't practised it that it's a good thing to do. It's the same problem as trying to get people to practice the piano, since you can't know what it's like to play an instrument until you have some decent experience of actually doing it.

Originally posted by Thor
I have one query, in this Utopia that is being run by a super computer and "conquest" is obselete, how will we learn? Learning is a "conquest". We can't go about our lives in this perfect world and be so dumb that we can't even acknowledge how perfect it is.
I can answer that.
Learning is simply a form of adaptation, correct?
One only learns a procedure or exercise in order that one may employ the learned method to one's benefit.
It is a mode of self-propagation, or adaptation.

However, in Utopia . . .
(NOTA BENE: I implore you: Recall that UTOPIA means "NO PLACE," and that is exactly what IT is!) . . .
. . . in Utopia, adaptation would be superfluous since all biotic and abiotic factors would be static in their absolute accomodation of all our needs. There would be no reason for adaptation.
Ergo, there would be no purpose in intelligence, or the augmentation thereof (education). Learning would be obsolete.

We would revert back, regress to more primitive forms of life. We would "de-evolve."
Did anyone ever read The Time Machine? This is what the protagonist thought had happened to the simplistic Eloi of the future (But actually, they were a food source to the malefic, subterranean, and industrious Morlocks.).

How about Brave New World? In that novel, infantile stupidity was encouraged, partially because there were scarcely any miseries left in the world.

Pollux V

Comrade, there is an alternative to totally modifying our social structure of becoming dependent on these fictitious super-processors for which you have such a liking.
We could simply expand.
If we move across the universe, our population would become extremely diffuse, and we would be substantially threatening to one another.

In fact, if everyone with a similar mentality migrated together, each to their own way, humanity could be separated into a plethora of like-minded colonies, all independent of one another.

The voluminous gulfs of space would preclude interation or communication of any kind, so warfare would be unfeasible.

If we expand, the various social heirarchies and political ideologies of our time(s) will expand with us. While destruction of the race as a whole may be less, what it means to be a human will remain the same. We'll still wake up, go to work, make money, pay our taxes, buy something nice, and go to sleep. That's life for most of the population now, and that's the way it's been since the beginning of human civilization. Utopia disregards this hampster-in-the-wheel hypothesis, that we all really spend our lives working toward an unobtainable happiness, and instead gives us this happiness. We cannot concieve of it because it is beyond us. However, assuming I survive the various wars and revolutions to come, I will likely see an intelligence created by man that is more imaginative and more intelligent than man himself. This intelligence will either destroy us or take us under its wing. Who knows, but it?