View Full Version : The perfect Society...
NenarTronian
06-25-02, 04:23 PM
What would it be like? What government system would it be, or would it be a new one? How would the nation/city be run? I'm a fan of sci-fi so i'm really interested in how a realistic Utopia would work.
Here's a good read (huge though): Plato's Republic (http://ball.tcnj.edu/pols270/plato/republic.htm)
Plato was the first dude we know of who gave serious (and philosophical of course) thought to Utopias and how they'd work. Way to go, Pla-to!
Have you read any fiction lately? There is tons of the stuff out there. I'm of the opinion of most of the authors: It doesn't work. At least, not very long. Eventually, someone somewhere is going to break out, and it will then all go down the hole. It always happens in fiction, is always happened in real life. I, personally, would not be able to survive for long in most of the ones presented.
The main problem is that everyone has to be continually working at it, and that just won't happen.
NenarTronian
06-25-02, 06:02 PM
You are right. But maybe the very act of a society STRIVING to achieve a perfect society, IS the perfect society?
Something to ponder
Define 'perfect society' in clear, set terms and then let's discuss
A utopia is generally considered a state where nobody is in pain, dies of causes other than natural, and gets enough to eat. Basically, no pain and suffering.
?? Perfection is a path, not a state (something similar I saw on my biology teacher's desk)
Agent@5
06-27-02, 09:22 PM
Thats a really good question, i think a worl dthat is rationally balanced in power.... but then again I think the world that we have got is doing OK
A utopia is generally considered a state where:
nobody is in pain:
People will find someway to feel pain. I know a person who, in order to get sympathy creates pain...
dies of causes other than natural:
We may achieve in 60 years or so. Again exceptions will be war, major accidents etc. May be in 200 years we might replicate ourselves and transfer the memory...
and gets enough to eat:
50 years
orthogonal
06-27-02, 11:18 PM
May I suggest Thomas More's, Utopia, as an interesting (and occasionally humorous) view of how a 16th century gentleman conceived a utopian world.
Here's an excerpt from his chapter dealing with marriage:
"Before marriage some grave matron presents the bride naked, whether she is a virgin or a widow, to the bridegroom; and after that some grave man presents the bridegroom naked to the bride....All men are not so wise as to choose a woman only for her good qualities; and even wise men consider the body as that which adds not a little to the mind: and it is certain there may be some such deformity covered with the clothes as may totally alienate a man from his wife when it is too late to part from her. If such a thing is discovered after marriage, a man has no remedy but patience."
This wise precaution has generally become superfluous in the West today. ;)
Michael
NenarTronian
06-28-02, 01:38 PM
LOL, thanks for the excertp and advice, Orthogonal. Actually, this and about 20 other books like it are on my "books to buy list". For whenever i get money to buy them, that is...
How about enough space? All this life extention stuff might tip the ecological scale even more off balance...it's wayy to much in favor of humans even now...
Note! I am a human. I am not an anti-human animal activist!! So do not take it the wrong way.
What movie/show is your avatar from?
How could you not know her?? *expression of shock and disbelief**temporary heart failure*
It's the character Lina Inverse from "Slayers". It's a JApanese fantasy anime, y'know, the standard dragons/magic/deathgod bit. It's a teeeny weeeeny bit cliched, but any Japanese anime is good. Those artists put themselves INto the pictures, not anything like the cheap Spiderman comics trash you find all over the place in the US. Not that I'm insulting you American comics artists :D Japanese artists just make a whole lot more effort with a whole lot more skill.
Originally posted by Zero
How about enough space? All this life extention stuff might tip the ecological scale even more off balance...it's wayy to much in favor of humans even now...
Note! I am a human. I am not an anti-human animal activist!! So do not take it the wrong way.
Always look at the big picture...
Higher the technology - more people needed to support it. Complex the technology - more experienced people needed to support it.
more experienced=more years. Retirement age should be extended to 100 in 2020.
I haven't been able to browse anime as much as I'd like. Forgive my ignorance.:o
*still clutching chest*
Ach. I still do not approve of all this life extension stuff. Oh well. maybe I'll weaken when I am 90 with cancer and everything. Ugh, what would I look like?:bugeye:
Originally posted by Zero
Ugh, what would I look like?:bugeye:
http://www.stanfordhospital.com/photos/a-z/prostate/images/oldman.jpg
That aint bad. I could live with it.
I absolutely refuse to be convinced that there can be such a thing as utopia on the face of this earth. It is a limit, you keep trying to reach a certain point but you never get to it.
Mount a good argument and try to convince me if you want to.
Mount a good argument and try to convince me if you want to.
No, you are doing fine....no Utopia for you...bad boy...:D
Perhaps utopia would not be a perfect society, but a society striving to be perfect.
Hey, Gifted...since you are the Chaos Lord...
Many years ago, the military was heavy into BPR (Business Process Reengineering). Now I understand, they are into "Complexity and Chaos Theory" and its application into military affairs and by extension the society at large.
Can you shed any light on this?
Aww. That's so sad...waaaaahhhh!
The status of Chaos Lord is still under development, but a degree in that sort of thing will be required(and I don't have one yet, sorry!).
I also apologize, a reveiw showed that my last idea posted was already posted.
Awaranowski
08-02-02, 02:44 AM
Well to answer your question. If everyone really tried to be good, it wouldn't matter what kind of government was being used. Any kind would work if people really wanted everything to work.
Anarchy - People would respect each other
Dictatorship - The dicator would be really caring and a good guy. Be really good at his job
Totalitarianism - The leader would know exactly what people wanted and would serve them
Democracy - People would not be dumb and make good choices
See what I mean. I think all forms of government would work. Because whoever had the ideas for these governments must have seen something good in them. And if they were used by good people, those good values would be recognized and utilized by the people
Unregistered
08-30-02, 08:56 PM
A state of Utopia is completely impossible. People are different, and society is continully changing. If Utopia were possible, it would be different tommorow than it was today. Infact, it would be different every second. It would never stop changing, because the concept of Utopia is changing with the people.
That is if Utopia is even possible. Its relative to every living being. For a poor man it may be wealth, for a minority (wo)man it may be equality, for a Cop it may be infinite doughnuts. Its impossible. Utopia is a state of mind.
A utopia is generally considered a state where nobody is in pain, dies of causes other than natural, and gets enough to eat. Basically, no pain and suffering.
If there was no pain and suffering, there would be no pleasure and good, yes? One is opposite of the other, therefore they are the same. Without pain, suffering, and death, we would have no fears. We could possibly kill ourselves without knowing it. The world would be boring, it would be different. I can't begin to fathom at this moment how horrible the world would be if we couldnt feel pain.
%BlueSoulRobot%
09-06-02, 07:18 PM
I agree with Unregistered. I think Utopia's different for every person. There's just no way to satisfy everyone. Call me a pessimistic bum :D, but hey, it's reality we're dealing with here. Though, if you'd like to enter the super-wacky world of make-belief, I'll join you there on my purple-and-pink polka dot elephant. :)
Popcorn8636
09-06-02, 08:35 PM
I don't think a Utopia is possible, especially since there's probably not been a day where everybody has gotten along without even the slightest conflict. In fact, I think that things are only going to get worse. Read my thread "Technolgy- Friend or Foe?"
Unregistered
09-09-02, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Popcorn8636
In fact, I think that things are only going to get worse. Read my thread "Technolgy- Friend or Foe?"
And remember to pick up popcorn from the concession' stand!
grazzhoppa
09-26-02, 08:31 AM
Isn't it true that once you have something, you will want something else eventually?
I don't think a uptopia can happen because once there is no hate, no pain, no violence there will be something inside ourselves to feel them again. If you started a utopia from scratch, as bring some babies up in the ideal world, then it has a chance of succeeding, but once a person gets a taste of violence, hate, or any other "evil" in the real world, they will have a yearning for it.
But isn't it fun to think about what you can't have?
Just a thought...
Utopia is when everyone is happy.
Clockwood
10-01-02, 11:55 PM
I would not like to live in a utopia. It would give its citizens far too little freedom.
I also think a utopia would be unstable and a forign power would collapse it.
Just think, when we finally get a system that would allow us to send large numbers of people to other systems for a low enough price, people will start again trying ot do this. It might work better, as communications will probably be very slow, and so any society they set up will develop without outside influence. I can see many people founding some place like Gramarye, wouldn't that be cool.
Unregistered
10-24-02, 09:30 PM
In a word with no pain hate or sadness, there would be no love happiness or pleasure. We wouldnt know love happiness or pleasure without knowing what the inverse of them are.
A Utopia would be impossible. No one will ever be satisfied.
Unregistered
10-24-02, 09:35 PM
Also, its no just one thing that makes people happy. Pain sometimes makes people hapy. Losing makes people happy sometimes.
::shrug::
sorry for double posting
%BlueSoulRobot%
10-25-02, 07:33 PM
Maybe Utopia's when everyone's dead. :eek:
No worries, no pain, no love, no hate. Just blissful nonexistence. :cool:
pumpkinsaren'torange
10-26-02, 11:59 AM
grrrrrrrr....Plato's New Republic drove me to distraction!! :mad:
shinobi
10-26-02, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Awaranowski
Anarchy - People would respect each other
Dictatorship - The dicator would be really caring and a good guy. Be really good at his job
Totalitarianism - The leader would know exactly what people wanted and would serve them
Democracy - People would not be dumb and make good choices
I think the reason that we will never have a utopia is because no political system will ever work. There will always be people who don't respect other people. Those who strive to become leaders are attracted to power and once attained their first goal will be to ensure they keep it. And there will always be dumb people and we will always make poor choices now and then. Democracy does not bestow people with wisdom, it just gives them the right to make mistakes.
Originally posted by %BlueSoulRobot%
Maybe Utopia's when everyone's dead. :eek:
No worries, no pain, no love, no hate. Just blissful nonexistence. :cool:
i agree, which is sorta scary... is happiness just lack of pain though?
I don't think a uptopia can happen because once there is no hate, no pain, no violence there will be something inside ourselves to feel them again.
It would be like reading a book that has a happy start and middle as well as ending. Totally feel-good and totally boring, especially if you were actually living it as well. Which makes me think... What would anyone have to write about? Would there be any arts?
grazzhoppa
10-27-02, 01:01 AM
Of course there would be.
But they wouldn't be overburdened with messages of pain and suffering or of lessons-learned because everything is perfect and well.
It wouldn't be boring to the people in the society because they are happy with living their life. They don't need to connect with a medium to sort out their emotions.
That makes sense, but maybe the arts could/would be (more?) overburdened with suffering and angst, to let go of any hankerings for such, and as a reminder of how good we've got it? And that way, Utopia and it's opposite could sort of co-exist, at no risk to Utopia.
how can you know if something is boring if you dont know what its like for something to be exciting?
boring/exciting are opinions... they can be formed by society/education, just like happiness...
grazzhoppa
10-27-02, 10:53 AM
Maybe they'll make a new word for it. Boring is just a word.
will the new word no longer be just a word? :bugeye:
grazzhoppa
10-27-02, 11:21 AM
maybe it will describe their entire way of life. Something that has nothing to do with the evils and suffering that we have today. It's hard to think how they would describe it because it's translating a word from a culture that is the exact opposite of ours. How would we be able to understand something like that?
Clockwood
10-27-02, 03:33 PM
I dont think utopia could exist with present day humanity. Not while everybody wants to be king.
Perhaps one day we will evolve (biologically, socially, or both) to the point Utopia would be feasable. Indoctranation from birth might work but only if it is applied to everyone on earth.
I also have the feeling without strife we would become stagnant. Society would become weaker and weaker until it would take only a single aberrant to collapse the whole thing.
%BlueSoulRobot%
10-27-02, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Clockwood
I dont think utopia could exist with present day humanity. Not while everybody wants to be king.
Speak for yourself, King Clockwood. :p :D
Originally posted by Gro$$
i agree, which is sorta scary... is happiness just lack of pain though?
Nope, because if there was no happiness, then we wouldn't know the meaning of pain. And if there was no pain, then there wouldn't be any happiness. Either the whole thing, or nothing at all, I think. :eek:
Originally posted by grazzhoppa
Maybe they'll make a new word for it. Boring is just a word.
Yeah. :) Words are subjective to the culture from which they arise. I often wonder what the world would be like if "bad" words like "fuck", "shit", and "mitten" were ordinary words. Then I realize, absolutely NOTHING at all would be wrong. They are just words. :D
Clockwood
10-29-02, 10:20 PM
It only takes two people who want to be king. Only two to ruin it.
AdrienVeidt
10-29-02, 11:40 PM
I don't think a Utopia is possible until certain prerequisites are met in order to pave the way.
Everyone, everywhere will have to be a participant. It could possibly start out small and grow. But, the longer there are antagonists to the movement, the larger the danger of collapse.
Everyone will need a real-time wireless PDA thingy. This will monitor their general health and position, in case of accidents. It will be a phone, email account, and voting device. Everyday, every citizen will be expected to give twenty minutes of everyday for voting purposes. The only way to ensure fairness is to have a real democracy.
All legal proceedings will work in a new way. Your job as a litigant will be to prove the other guy's case. And when you lose the trial, it will be you and your side that actually loses, not the case you argued. Lawyers will be banned. As a citizen, it's your responsibility to know your laws. Pick up your own damn load, thank you. Since any legal proceedings you may enter into will be with you yourself arguing the other guy's case, this will come to force people to learn to look at other people's arguments for once. It sounds dumb, but I think it's called operant conditioning.
Everyone will get a home, and food, and an education.
Everyone will donate, say . . . three months a year to government duty. This will involve duties as varied as farm work to daycare to teaching to pretty much anything you'd find a charity doing.
Capitalism is gone. The fundamental act of capitalism in an exhange of goods, services, or information for money or goods. It is an implicit building block of captialism that one of the two parties gets screwed. Besides, there's all that "open-system / closed system" stuff to consider, too. Capitalistic growth can't be exponential in a closed Universe. Or even a Multiverse. Or Megaverse, really. Capitalism is inherently designed to fail. It simply keeps shoving the deadline farther and farther into the future. Well, the future is now, and we've got to decide to take capitalism apart on our own, in our own manner, before it implodes in our faces and billions starve, and millions die in wars over water and food access.
There must be research into life-extension and cybernetization of the human form. You will not be allowed to receive any anti-senescense treatments until you are surgically sterilized in order to prevent rampant over-population.
There must be research into genetic reprogramming of a cell in situ. We must be able to take on new forms if we are to properly adjust to new environments. How cool would it be to spend a year as a blue whale?
There must be an exodus into the Universe. Or we stagnate, and choke and die in the cradle.
It's your choice because it's your future. What world do you want?
The only way to ensure fairness is to have a real democracy.
Where majority rules? like "kick the minority out of the planet" kinda democracy?
Everyone will get a home, and food, and an education.
I like it. Communism tried that too.
It is an implicit building block of captialism that one of the two parties gets screwed.
Some people love getting screwed. For example, I give my idea that saves $22 million to the company, they pay me $22,000. And I consider that fair trade. Would be believe that?
There must be research into life-extension and cybernetization of the human form.
It is going on as we post....
There must be an exodus into the Universe.
If the unverse is multiplying in geometric rate (nytimes article) then we would be doing that sooner than you think. The future could be stranger than fiction...
AdrienVeidt
10-30-02, 02:56 PM
Good points, kmguru.
A true democracy would understand that no one has the right to infringe on other's rights. Therefore, there wouldn't be anybody getting exiled off the planet. I think, that as long as the basics of life are fulfilled, ie food, shelter, education, security, and such; everyone will be much more chilled out about things.
Technically, Communism never tried anything as there's never been a true communism. Communism can't work within a larger capitalistic society, so not even hippie communes are indicative of what a true communism could do. And don't even try pointing out any of the "communist" nations around the world. We all know they were oligarchal totalitarianisms of oppression. That's why they were and are destined to fail, not because they were allegedly "communistic". Personally, I'm not sure if communism can actually work on any scale bigger than a village. There would have to be some sort of overseeing body that would allocate planetary resources to the most needy applicant.
That $22K is only a local advance of monetary resources for you. Does that automatically mean your entire neighborhood is bettered? SHouldn't the real priorities be about making sure everyone is healthy, educated, and in a postion to explore their own ability to be happy? Is money really, really implicit in all these goals? Is it not immoral to continue to use money, which is nothing more than "leverage" incarnate, in order to do things in the world? Why should something not happen if there are the physical resources to complete it, and everyone wants it to happen? We should hold off on doing it simply because a person can't get enough "numbers" (which is all money really is, a concept of "worth") in one place at one time? It's just dumb.
True, there is anti-senesence and cybernetization research ongoing, but how will it be implemented? Will only the rich have the option to live forever? So they can be the rich forever while all the poor uneducated masses simply work and die for their favor? Nope, it must be available to everyone, everywhere, at one time, who chooses to use it. It's the only way to make the world better, and not just a different kind of shitty.
And just because the Cosmological Constant may be increasing as time goes on doesn't mean we'll actually get to see anymore of the Universe if we just sit and wait. Quite the opposite. As space itself expands, the objects imbedded in it will come to be farther and farther apart. So, the more time we waste navel-gazing and arguing about bullshit, the more of the universe will be available to us.
I really don't see how any of this is anything other than patently obvious. How in the world would it, could it, or should it be better to continue the way we do? How could anyone have a valid and benevolent motive to continue the current modes of living and dealing with one another? We will choke and die on our own filthy abuses of one another unless we resolve to live life as one species. Any other choice is stagnation, and ultimately extinction.
We will choke and die on our own filthy abuses of one another unless we resolve to live life as one species. Any other choice is stagnation, and ultimately extinction.
I think progress only comes from conflict (the shadows?) and need to solve issues. Suppose a group of 10,000 people sent to another planet where there is no disease and food is plenty and a good climate. Assuming they form an agarian society - I do not think that society will last very long in a homeostasis framework. The whole universe is dynamic, stars born and die, asteroids collide, even universes collide. Such is the nature of the Universe.
Now, while there are more planets that are dead with regrads to life (to our perspective) there are still planets like ours that produce life forms like us. These life forms are controlled by mechanism long before we arrived here. In other words we did not design our DNA. Had it not been positive for the Universe, such DNA would not have been there.
While, it looks hopeless, but the plan of the Universe is on track...and I assure you, universe learns from its creation. If our DNA is designed such that it has a lasting capacity - so shall it be. Otherwise we will go away like dinosaurs and the universe wont miss a bit.
The survival mechanism inherent in our DNA would play a part in reshaping our environment including asteroid collisions. Whether the design has enough capacity - time will tell.
So, get a ring side seat and watch....
AdrienVeidt
10-30-02, 05:22 PM
Now, now...surely the best survival mechanism isn't kicking back with a brewski and watching to see if everything goes straight to hell, is it?
Yes, progress comes from conflict. But, the word "conflict" doesn't mandate rampant abuses of human rights, war, and capitalistic exploitation of a planet with limited resources.
There are other ways to engage in competition, rather than conflict. What about the simple prestige of being the first to come up with an idea that could aid Humanity? That would be sufficient motive (as it routinely is in Scientific Research circles), and would mean no one has to die. Society would still progress, however.
I don't see any reason why the Universe would have a "plan". Filling in gaps of knowledge with the assumption of planning isn't exactly contrary to critical thinking, but it doesn't help when one assumes it to be true. I personally do believe in some sort of vague higher-power, but I tend to think that any sort of discussion about it puts it in terms that automatically define, and therefore exclude, possibilities of what characterisitics that higher power could have.
Since, by the definition I understand, "God" includes all things and all qualities and all capacities, any exclusion of anything at all automatically rules out certain things that "God" could be. And this obviously means that we're saying what God cannot be, and we simply don't know that to be true. So, for all intents and purposes, any discussion about "God" is automatically insufficient and incorrect. But, of course, it's always nice to shoot the shit, y'know?
"progress comes from conflict", "art from suffering"
sounds like tired old cliches. is this the only way?
can "progress comes from cooperation", "art from contentment" be possible?
AdrienVeidt
10-30-02, 10:34 PM
Well, Gifted; "senesence" (I can never quite remember if I'm spelling it correctly) is functionally defined as the natural processes of cellular activity that lead to genetic degradation, that will eventually lead to death. This includes telomere truncation, DNA mutations and breakages and the like, and other such effects like free-radical oxidation. Y'know, all that stuff they tell you about on those Centrum commercials.
Anti-Senesence research seeks to avert death by learning how to make cells simply not age, or able to repair 100% of the genetic damage done by everyday activities.
Spookz, I agree that such cliche's are tired. I'm nagged by the question of whether there's ever been a society or group that seriously tried to to it all a different way. If not, how can anyone really, really be sure of such things?
I doubt it.
Not to have conflict means that everyone is contented with the
way things are. That being the case, where is the impetus for change?
If every one is content with the way things are, what need is
there for art? Why would one wish to depict things in a
somewhat different manner?
Curious :cool:
AdrienVeidt
10-31-02, 07:40 AM
Well, when I say "conflict", I mean armed conflict. There's no reason to say that the only was to progress socially and technologically is to find new ways to kill one another. Inter-personal conflict like the rivalries between colleges and universities doing research, in an effort to be the first one to discover whatever the research is about, is perfectly fine.
Of course, a world where everyone sat on their fat ass all day and did nothing except chew their cud would be a sucky world. But at least no one would be routinely murdered for stupid and idiotic political goals.
as usual adopting one extreme or another doesnt really reflect what goes on in reality
what i find is that individuals have different ways in reaching a goal. some could find competition to be a stronger motivator, others by cooperation.
yet again there can be some flexibility as to the model adopted, different stages in the path to that goal could require different strategies.
the overall model adopted by any individual depends on education (parental and formal) and the culture around him.
to elaborate on adrians example, rivalries between colleges and universities say in a robot contest will have both models in effect. the team dynamics will be one of cooperation while the relationship b/w colleges will be competitive
how about saying art is about empathy? would that work? empathy could encompass a variety of emotional states. it wouldnt be limited by any particular outlook?
??
While empathy deals with: "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives" - it is normally used for sad, misfortune, suffering rather than joy, contentment and orgasm....:D
AdrienVeidt
10-31-02, 12:43 PM
I read in a book called "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud that his personal definition of "art" is pretty much anything you do that isn't immediately related to survival or reporduction. The way you twirl your hair, the way you hum a tune, the clothes you choose to wear are all an "artistic" statement about certain things about you that you broadcast to the world at large. It's not a perfect definition by any means, and shouldn't necessarily be taken as 100% absolute in every situation, but it's a good rule fo thumb, IMHO.
But, to return to the topic at hand, I don't think that the only way we can maintain our current level of technological and scientific advancement is to engage in armed conflict with ourselves. In truth, it hasn't really been that way since WWII. True, there is quite a lot of research and advancement being made by military contractor companies, but they ain't necessarily the crest of the wave anymore.
Killing each other is just old hat, y'know? Is that sort of mentality really the best we can do as a species? It's just sad.
utopia has to start with a reevaluation of the state of the society we live in. to go into the technical aspects before working out new paradigms of human and social interactions is premature. a perfect system of economics and governence would hardly be useful if the individuals that it engages, are flawed
the establishment of most forms of government throughout history has had in its essence, a utopian vision. peeking out the window would show that this has yet to be attained.
for starters lets talk about women. what is their role in society? (western culture)
are they oppressed? if we reverse the way we raise kids, can we have dynamic, ambitious, intellectual, athletic females and shy, retarded males subserviant to females. (i think this has already happened) :)
conditioning humans to accept bogus limitations with regards to their potential is a disservice to our advancement as a species.
the differences b/w sexes are real but the emphasis should not be towards accentuating them with false notions
??
axonio98
11-06-02, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by NenarTronian
What would it be like? What government system would it be, or would it be a new one? How would the nation/city be run? I'm a fan of sci-fi so i'm really interested in how a realistic Utopia would work.
Here's a good read (huge though): Plato's Republic (http://ball.tcnj.edu/pols270/plato/republic.htm)
Plato was the first dude we know of who gave serious (and philosophical of course) thought to Utopias and how they'd work. Way to go, Pla-to!
The dream of one man can be the nightmare of many others.Hitler was an utopist.
By definition no utopia is realistic.
Plato's Republica is the first fascist fantasy.
grazzhoppa
11-06-02, 06:44 PM
Definately give a look through of Plato's Republic.
It's not hard to understand and it's really interesting. I've gotten through about a quater of it recently.
Sorry. ;)
axonio98
11-07-02, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by grazzhoppa
Definately give a look through of Plato's Republic.
It's not hard to understand and it's really interesting. I've gotten through about a quater of it recently.
Sorry. ;)
I read the whole book years ago. Maybe you should read it with critical spirit. If you do that you will understand that the idea underneath plato's utopia has everything to do with State control on all aspects of each pearson live. That is fascism.
AdrienVeidt
11-07-02, 01:39 PM
True enough, but is it really "state" control, i.e. the "people", or is it "state" control as in the leader or government forces in control.
If it's all a benevolent fascism set up by the entirety of the populace, and with open accessibility, I can't say I would see how ppl would necessairly be unhappy.
Don't discount the book simply because of a label placed on it by ppl who know of a type of government that Plato was unaware of as it hadn't been invented yet. Not really.
axonio98
11-07-02, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by AdrienVeidt
True enough, but is it really "state" control, i.e. the "people", or is it "state" control as in the leader or government forces in control.
It's not you as an individual that decides what's best for you, i tell you that.
If it's all a benevolent fascism set up by the entirety of the populace, and with open accessibility, I can't say I would see how ppl would necessairly be unhappy.
Benevolent fascism? There's no such thing. In such society you can't think differently from what is ruled. Sciforums coudn't exist in Plato's Republica.
Don't discount the book simply because of a label placed on it by ppl who know of a type of government that Plato was unaware of as it hadn't been invented yet. Not really.
I read the book and i've judged it by myself. Plato was smart enough to know that taking a child from is parents to be raised by the state is an horrible situation. But the only thing Plato cares is pure reason. He doesn't give a shit to human emotions.
Clockwood
11-08-02, 01:59 AM
Question: Why should someone work and have +1/3 of their income taken away if they can sit back and get welfare. If there is no money or other form of exchange, why work either?
If you dont have lawyers or judeges or the like, what do you do when you have a real nutcase on your hands?
AdrienVeidt
11-08-02, 01:40 PM
Well, let's be honest here. This will happen anyway as robots become cheaper and smarter. Why continue to pay XXXXXX amount of money to a person, when you can simply buy a robot for X amount of money, and have it work 24/7 and not have to listen to it bitch about Family and Medical Leave, overtime, and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?
Give it a hundred years (that you could easily live to see with current medical knowledge and research) and I'd guess that the only jobs to be had for a person are jobs like CEO and the like.
What will the remaining 99.999999999999999% of the world do?
That is the world of StarTrek but unfortunately they did not discuss the economics or the activities of people much.
I think, if we continue at the present rate of scientific progress....we shall see robots everywhere in about 50 years. And if we can develop the fusion technology to provide power and the whole world could be a gigantic welfare planet with a few people working to keep the robots going who in turn will keep us going.
But we need some incentive to keep the people busy. In Star Trek and lately in Andromeda - they made the robots and computers depend on humans. Such may not be the case. That is a good are to debate in.
AdrienVeidt
11-08-02, 04:28 PM
Well, the way I think it'll fall into place is that we'll concurrently have the human workforce phased out in favor of robots, and life extension therapies to have ppl live longer, if not indefinately.
And then, thru motives that ultimately boil down to out-right boredom, there'll be an enormous wave of suicides until there's only a few million ppl left to become "star children".
Not necessarily so...
As you said, it will take many years to integrate robots to human society and the evolution of robots themselves. Our future is written in stars. The universe is a big place. There will be plenty to do, places to see and planets to terraform not to mention giving a helping hand to other life forms out there....
No, life wont be boring by any strech of imagination....
AdrienVeidt
11-08-02, 05:28 PM
Stellar colonization will prove to be a MUCH larger consideration than we guess, IMHO. I think it will take a lot longer to actually implement, and I'm guessing that the boredom will be the major impetus behind it when it does happen.
Personally, I plan to be there. How about you?
I am trying to be there too. We already have the understanding of how cells stay immortal. All we need is a mechanism to reverse DNA transcription errors. All this can take say 20 years. Then the computer technology can kick in to put us in a new paradigm. Alternate choice is to freeze oneself say about 100 years...or upload my mind to a computer until my DNA can be manipulated to form a host body.
The future will be amazing....
AdrienVeidt
11-08-02, 06:32 PM
I know I'm a johnny-come-lately, so this may be old hat around here; but have you read Greg Egan's Diaspora?
If not, I recommend you put it at #1 on your reading list, kmguru (and everybody else on the planet). It's my bible for what I'm trying to accomplish by going back to school.
No Adrien, I have not but checked out the cliff note version just now. Several of sciforum members have discussed all aspects of his ideas somewhere here and in the computer section without the knowledge of his book.
I guess ideas are a natural extension of understanding of available knowledge. Two years ago I designed a PDA technology that is just showing up from Palm and Microsoft (I did not have money to pursue even though I had a Korean comapany to prototype it. )
I think you can check out our detailed postings including mind uploading, VR world etc including how a flesher can visit a VR world. All these are possible in 22nd century and not 30th century if Moores Law holds up.
Look at the old star trek and today's technology....
unbalanced
11-12-02, 07:42 AM
way back when,people died at a younger age, population was kept in check through natural causes,not anymore though.
I don't remember what varmint they wiped out in australia specifically,but it ate mice,now they done had a mouse plague.
They wiped out the coyotes and wolves in the state where I live,now there are too many deer, they get killed by cars all time cuz there be too many.
The deer here have contracted a disease from the soil called chronic wasting disease,the coyotes are trying to come back but the farmers keep shooting them,they don't keep chickens anymore,they like to eat cats,any cat that is living outdoors is most likely infected with FIV,a feline version of aids spread by injuries suffered in fights,ever heard two cats fighting in the night?.
I could go on and on about this,fact is,if you could acheive immortality,you would surely lose your mind,and you probably couldnt afford it anyway unless you were filthy rich
The future will be an amazingly brutal place if the powers that be have their way,imagine being an immortal military man,psychomurdernofearofdeathmonsterslave.
I'm sure the definition of utopia people have been using here is accurate and most likely the dictionary meaning. But according to this definition, is utopia what we really ultimately want? Happiness, sure, no more needless death or war; we do need to strive for these things but with them and nothing else our society would still be lacking. What about our relationship as animals to our natural environment? Keeping biodiversity alive? Making society's structure work by applying it to the seventh generation rule? Art? Excitement? Fun?
If we could manage to develop a society where our main problems were quarels over values and morals or clashing personalities in our communities, we would (or should) feel extremely successful. It has never happened, but maybe it will sometime (does optimism keep us alive?)
Anyone wanting to take a look at a novel relating to ''Utopia'' should grab "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Peace.
Clockwood
12-16-02, 12:00 AM
If you have a utopien civilization it better not have any competition. Have just one expansionistic neghbor and you yould be eaten alive.
IF you could find a place for everyone: a job they enjoy, a place where they get along with there neighors, loves thier spouse, etc., etc...
Clockwood
12-17-02, 11:14 PM
It would work... but only if we were more like termites. Not a world I would wish to live in.
I myself perfer the freedom that comes with being on the frontier, where order has not yet been established.
pumpkinsaren'torange
12-18-02, 02:00 PM
that sounds suspiciously a bit like socialism..
Clockwood
12-18-02, 05:32 PM
Actually, socialism is a bit like a termite colony. Except in a termite colony a termite will never think of starting a revolution, accepting or offering a bribe, or wishing anything but good will for their country. They work at 100% effort 100% of the time. Not very much like, lets say, russians.
pumpkinsaren'torange
12-18-02, 05:34 PM
:D damned ants!!
Socialism... That's when everyone wears grey pants, right?
pumpkinsaren'torange
12-18-02, 05:42 PM
over here, we call 'em "gray" pants...:p :D
The main problem with socailism is tha teverybody has to want the system to work, adn work to make it work. obviously, that doesn't happen very often. The biggest problem with the USSR was that the government was easily corrupible, they spent too much money on the military, and the corrupt people in th egov't were not looking to the interests of the system.
Balder1
01-26-03, 01:43 AM
The question asks what a utopian society would be like, not if it works, so I'll answer that. I don't think an entirely utopian society will ever work with humans, especially as we are.
First, I'm surprised that no one has brought up AI. There would be a perfectly unbiased, benevolent planetary AI overseeing the world, in charge of all production, agriculture, and distibution. It would also keep close tabs on the environment, of course. :)
The government would be mostly fascist, with the AI in charge. It would prevent all murders, provide therapy, and all the other things that governments usually provide. At this point we would have quite a few pyschological treatments(brainwashing?), not too mention genetic ones.
Humans would be free to do whatever, as long as they don't infringe on others rights. Socializing, researching, recreation, taking trips across the solar system. Each person would be entitled to a certain amount of mass
This would probably be possible in a couple hundred years, if we actively pursued it. A problem would be overpopulation... no kids for people, I guess. People would still experience hurt in relationships, and problems with their social life maybe, but I don't see anyway to overcome this.
Most of this comes from those Reality Dysfunction books by Peter Hamilton, now that I think of it.
To tell the truth, if I didn't have to struggle to do anything, my life would lose it's meaning. If everthing was perfect, humans would probably turn into hedonistic slobs... but then, slobs makes the society unperfect.
TruthSeeker
01-27-03, 12:09 AM
NenarTronian,
Education is the key. If we teach our children some basic values such as Love one another and, consequently, help one another; we may be able to make a natural society based on Love and care. The society would work naturally as if it were a single living body, in the same way our cells work to sustain our bodies. There would be no government. Everything and everyone would be self-governed.
A theology would work, if it was a true theology, i.e, not a prophet or other such figure heading the government, but trully having a god in charge. Of course, you can see the problem.
I'll have to agree with TruthSeeker on education...
TruthSeeker
02-28-03, 02:57 PM
GRO$$!!
Long time no see! :) Where have you been?
Sup :) I've been busy... life has been a rollercoaster all around :) 'Tis all cool. How ya been?
I didn't have much time to explain myself earlier, but why I believe to the key to a happier future is education is because it is education that will allow people to create this future.
In my opinion, this is a question of why government exists in the first place... why can't we just vote on EVERYTHING? I think politicians are elected to make decisions for us, because they know how to organise and work with making society work better.
The problem with that though, is that politicians can get greedy. Most current forms of gov'nt have solved this by making short-terms of service for presidency, senate, w/e sort of gov'nt... but the long term solution is having politically, economically, and overall educated people making sure people in office are the right people making the right decisions.
An example: George Bush and his recent tax cuts (forgive the GB bashing)
The economically un-aquainted person will go... "tax cuts... more money for me... good". Meanwhile, someone who has been familiarized basic economics understands that "tax cuts... current economy... utilization of expansionary fiscal policy... NOT too good for our economy at the moment...".
In the end, in order to make a better society with a better government, people must elect a good government right now, in order to do that, they must be well educated so they what a good government is and know what do demand from it.
TruthSeeker
03-04-03, 07:46 PM
I've been well... :)
What I meant by education is that we should teach our children to NOT be selfish and greedy, but seek the greater good. If we really want to make a better society, then we need to work on our values, before we work on the system. The current system is based on greedy and selfish desires. There is no sense of service and collectivity. This is pretty bad, since we ARE a society, a whole. If one part fails, all the others are affected. This is what haven't been working. Of course, communism attempted that. But the problem with communism is that it just tried to change the system. What happened is that the people that were in power had the same values that the greedy capitalists have. So, you can see why it didn't work. The mistake of communism wasn't on the system, but they didn;t take care of the values first. This is the very core of our problems: our values.
the common argument to though, is that people will always work for themselves with more effort than they will work for society... even though we ARE a part of siciety, I believe it will be quite some time before our brains can advance beyond "i go work, i get money... i have money, i can buy stuff" concept to the "i work to produce things for society which i then take back (in a different form maybe) when i spend my money"
ralph nader
03-05-03, 08:10 PM
peace
TruthSeeker
03-05-03, 08:44 PM
GRO$$,
It's just a matter of educating our children to be selfless, to regard others as more important as themselves. That should be the focus of their education.
The Marquis
03-06-03, 11:08 AM
That's just wonderful, Truthseeker. I have a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Now, Can I have all your money? I really, really need it. And after all, I'm more important than you. You just said so.
TruthSeeker
03-06-03, 01:55 PM
Again, education is important, otherwise your values would be like The Marquis'.... which apparently are self-centred.
3finger
03-21-03, 03:05 PM
Simply put, free will the ability to possess and own inanimate objects rules this out as a possibility.
You utopia society would need one thing that I don't think could ever come to be. Absolutely neeccesary for this to ever exist would be
A human's comfort with not having an opinion.
Without opinions only would this be possible. All other issues would be averted if every human had an exact common mindset in regards to everything around them. Any preference or disagreement would make it not a utopia for that one particular person, and thusly you would have your ANTAGONIST for the story about how the utopia came to an end.
Without the lead character in Orwell's 1984, everybody else was under the impression they are happy. Without the lead character in Brave New World, everybody else was made to be content. Both these stories are about opinion as a basic human need (and other things) . this is why it is not possible in a human society as we now are.
-HS Dropout
Tirstan
11-05-05, 09:24 PM
Utopia? What is a utopia, everyone has a different view on exactly what this would be? Every individual has a different view. So should we not explore what these views are, or better yet, try and define a Utopian view that satisfies the apparent meaning of our existence.
What seperates humans from other animals? Our intellect, opposable thumbs, and communication abilities have enabled generations to discover new things about our world or at least to speculate on what natural accurances might mean. Every generation makes a contribution to the knowledge of society. "Standing on the shoulders of giants."
(Do you think a child taken from a tribe of early men and placed in a modern environment would learn any slower than a child born today? Are we not products of our environment?)
What do we have in common with other animals? Our hunger, desire to reproduce, and instinct (list not inclusive). One may also argue that hunger and disire to reproduce are instinctual desires as well. They do seem so. Wanting to eat something seems no less real than wanting to breath. Fortunatly, we do not have to eat as often as we breath.
Birds build nests. Ants build hills....... This is instinctual behavior carried in the animals DNA. Possibly the result of a trial and error animal behavior where an animal that did not have these traits parrished (survival of fittest). Has this occured in humans, or has the fact that we adapt our environment to suit our needs reduced this affect?
Humans create a false environment to live in and some governments strive to provide enough resources to keep people fat, dumb, and happy. Television is a perfect example of a means to pacificity in most cases. Wasting time watching uneducational shows that distract from reality. Our reality is the biggest distraction from the reality that exists around us. It has probably never been so hard to achieve a spiritual enlightenment as it is now given that we have never before had so many and such elaborate distractions.
If we assume that it is very plausable that our view on reality is scued based on our imaginary worlds, what remains true. Instinctual needs? One in particular seems to be of utmost importance, our desire to create. Humans want to be produce, but more often than not people are content with whatever they are offered by the existence they know.
If we cannot tailor a utopia to an individual, could we not still tailor a utopia for humanity. A utopia based at least partially on current capitalistic views. Throwing away Adam Smith and other solid economic theory would be like refusing to acknowlege the benifits of algebra. We should learn from history.
Utopia for me would be a society that harbors and incourages the persuit of knowledge while providing for a continuously improving living condition. Education should be free. Wealth should be based on value to the community and most importantly all positions of weath should be achievable by any member of society who posesses the mental and physical capacities necessary to preform the task.
The evolution of microsocieties, small communities of people of different trades, who trade services between members to increase the group wealth.
Coops between microsocieties would further increase the wealth of each microsociety.
I would also like to see the reemergence of an apprentice system for training people, especially in the technologies where working with the technology promotes a faster learning curve reducing overall investment and leading to faster productivity. Imagine you are just getting out of high school . You want to study information technology and you have an opportunity to go live with a community of individuals currently working in the field. Invaluable....
I have quite a few ideas, but I spent so much time thinking about the intro that i have burnt myself out before I have actually delved very deep into the topic. I'll write more later.
Hope I have given you something to think about.
Even if it is just wonder at my misspellings and my queer usage of the english language.
(Do you think a child taken from a tribe of early men and placed in a modern environment would learn any slower than a child born today? Are we not products of our environment?)
Not exactly. There are differences between human sub groups just as there are differences between German shepards and other dogs as to how quickly one group can be trained verses other. That does not mean, one dog is lesser than the other dog group....otherwise, the dog group that does not have value will not survive over thousands of years.
While that difference may not be apparent in a generic simple activity, it does become apparent in many fields - from basket ball to engineering to computer programming...each group has their strength and weaknesses. We need all to survive the next millenia.
Good lord, this thread is old...
The evolution of microsocieties, small communities of people of different trades, who trade services between members to increase the group wealth.
Coops between microsocieties would further increase the wealth of each microsociety.
I would also like to see the reemergence of an apprentice system for training people, especially in the technologies where working with the technology promotes a faster learning curve reducing overall investment and leading to faster productivity. Imagine you are just getting out of high school . You want to study information technology and you have an opportunity to go live with a community of individuals currently working in the field. Invaluable....
I have quite a few ideas, but I spent so much time thinking about the intro that i have burnt myself out before I have actually delved very deep into the topic. I'll write more later.
I will take your advice. We are designing large scale sustainable economic development for several African countries. We are thinking both Micro and Macro-enterprises so as to create full employment in a very short time.
If you have ideas to pass on, and they are good, we would love to hire you as an advisor. One constraint: You ideas must use tools and technology to amplify a person's productivity to world standards or better. The technology must be self-sustaining from low-tech to high-tech such that in case of a disaster, the society still survives. But the high-tech portion should have maximum productivity to cover the inefficiencies of the low-tech mix. The per capita GDP (the quality of life equivalent) must be equal to any developed country.
Good lord, this thread is old...
But the idea for a perfect society is not...I mean, we are still searching....correct? :D
Not exactly. There are differences between human sub groups just as there are differences between German shepards and other dogs as to how quickly one group can be trained verses other...it does become apparent in many fields - from basket ball to engineering to computer programming...each group has their strength and weaknesses. We need all to survive the next millenia. What does ths have to do with a "perfect society"? You are trying to show that some animals and some humans are faster to learn and easier to train? Perfection can never be attained in a society because each individual has their own idea of what perfection is. And the entire concept of what is "perfect" in Nature is something that constantly evolves over time - necessarily - to corespond with our evolving environment.
What does ths have to do with a "perfect society"?
I was commenting to Tirstan's comment - if you care to read at the forum... :o
The only problem with the perfect utopia is Humans--forgive my cynicism :p
Tirstan
11-06-05, 11:45 PM
Not exactly. There are differences between human sub groups just as there are differences between German shepards and other dogs as to how quickly one group can be trained verses other. That does not mean, one dog is lesser than the other dog group....otherwise, the dog group that does not have value will not survive over thousands of years.
While that difference may not be apparent in a generic simple activity, it does become apparent in many fields - from basket ball to engineering to computer programming...each group has their strength and weaknesses. We need all to survive the next millenia.
This is the reason I am posting. I need more work in my communication skills. My idea was not expressed properly. It is not complete. I recognize the differences in learning potential within sub groups does not have a large quantifiable result in the overall survivability of a sub species. Not like say a genetic mutation in a species that gives it an advantage providing access to a food supply unavailable to other members of the same species. This would give the mutated species a larger food supply enabling a larger population probably increasing the range(territory animal species occupies).
The idea behind my statement:
Originally Posted by Tirstan
(Do you think a child taken from a tribe of early men and placed in a modern environment would learn any slower than a child born today? Are we not products of our environment?)
The availability of knowledge has had a much greater effect on our society when compared to the differences between sub species learning capability.
We have not changed much physically.
If early man, not cromagnum man, but the first members of our genus? or species? ( not sure which. man but not accounting for different races ), had access to the amount of knowledge available today his society would be similair. It is the accumulated knowledge that seperates our society from that of early man and makes humans unique among the animal knigdom.
I am searching for a base or bases on which to help more acurately define a natural purpose. A utopia should promote the natural instincts of man (example. to create), since promoting an individualistic view of utopia would only be utopia for one individual. The natural instincts of man promoted would be generally agreed upon to be instincts that benifit society while also deemphasising instincts generally agreed upon to be detrimental to society. Benificial instincts would emphasize outcomes that result from an individual exibiting the qualities of truth, loyalty, learning. The quest for wealth cannot be subtracted from any social equation. That's why true communism does not exist, because someone with power eventually gets greedy. There must always be a benefit for an action that benefits society.
If a leader makes changes that results in a greater increase in a microsocieties wealth the leader should be compensated in relation to the degree of the change in wealth. This works to encourage beneficial change while capitalizing on individualistic desires. Is that not why capitalism is successful? Because it takes greed into account. Unfortunately it heavily enforces greed and is neglectful with regards to the promotion of society.
my idea is still not even close to complete and i am sure i have created a vast array of divergent ideas that were unintended.
One of the best acceptable practices for dog training involves pinning a puppy down by the neck when he exhibits an undesirable behavior. This has excellent results when compared to striking an animal. If a puppy misbehaves in a pack the alpha male will pin the animal down to show his dislike. The puppy naturally understands this behavior. Animals treated with this technique will generally be much more responsive. You have identified yourself as the leader and dogs understand this. What natural understandings do humans have? Promote beneficial natural behavior and it will accelerate the success curve of individuals and thereby society.
Great post Tirstan.
The basal natural instinct of humans are controlled by other natural instincts such as not to express itself. For example, in a mating scenario, humans are supposed to get attracted from the chemical composition of the pheromones. Each pheromone has specific characteristics. However we neutralize or cover up that activity. The result is miscues and confusion. You select your mate based on what he or she is is wearing on a opposite body. Results are disasters as we have 63% divorce rate.
The availability of knowledge has had a much greater effect on our society when compared to the differences between sub species learning capability.
That is partly true. Those societies that value knowledge and innovation prosper and those who do not - wither. Based on the works of Professor Jared Diamond, I came to the conclusion that when a society peaks in engineering and technology, that coincides with wealth and power. Then the society fills up with dumb and greedy people that rise to the top and can not provide the required knowledge to maintain their superiority. These people are usually law givers, MBAs, "C" students and priests who try to control the the society but fail. The availability of knowledge is no guarantee that a society will prosper.
History is full of such examples: Greeks, Romans, Chinese Dynasty, Indian kings, Argentina etc. Now it is the American Society which helplessly looking at the mass evacuation of production facilities to India and China.
The sad part is, the knowledge is still available to solve our complex problems like Terrorism, Economic Collapse and Natural Disasters. Yet the organizations who have money for this, give it to the people who can not produce the results. From department of Homeland Security to FEMA to DOJ to National Science Foundation. Cronism abounds...
I was involved to solve Argentina's 60% poor issues at the Governor's level. The people at the high up were so arogant that their laws did not allow to work with an American company to solve their problem. Yet the common people expect so much from the Bush visit that they rioted.
I have worked with Greece and Italy with similar results. That is once glorified countries now choke with knowledge.
Without innovators, we will not even come close to a perfect society. That is the key.
Tirstan
11-07-05, 01:02 AM
I will take your advice. We are designing large scale sustainable economic development for several African countries. We are thinking both Micro and Macro-enterprises so as to create full employment in a very short time.
If you have ideas to pass on, and they are good, we would love to hire you as an advisor. One constraint: You ideas must use tools and technology to amplify a person's productivity to world standards or better. The technology must be self-sustaining from low-tech to high-tech such that in case of a disaster, the society still survives. But the high-tech portion should have maximum productivity to cover the inefficiencies of the low-tech mix. The per capita GDP (the quality of life equivalent) must be equal to any developed country.
The idea of large-scale sustainable economic development is very intriguing. Beautiful example of complexity, much more information is needed to define specifics of micro societies (Information with regards to resource availability). What natural resources are available for economic exploitation? Are there specific geographical characteristics that make the land unique (Rivers? Waterfalls? Is it windy? Thinking of hydro or wind power. Is the region safe and does it provide attractions that might attract tourists?) What types of materials can be developed in each micro economy?
Redundancies must be built into both the micro and macro societies to diversify resource base. Account for crop failures by diversifying crops grown. Account for a loss of value of a resource by developing multiple resources.
Starting with the development of the most profitable resources to acquire more material wealth to be used to improve infrastructure (power, sewage, electricity, police stations, fire stations and most importantly schools: initial school development should concentrate on training for occupations necessary to sustain economic development with the current state of education in mind. It may be necessary to provide pictorial tutorials due to illiteracy). Once a certain economic productivity goal is realized primary and secondary education systems can then be established.
Current methodologies used to increase productivity can be realized, but it is first necessary to define what is to be produced. Engineering principles will be needed to create machinery necessary for low cost production (the low cost of labor should also be exploited). Once a product or resource is selected a business process can be developed and workers trained.
Obviously computer related services offer the most economic benefit (intellectual property requires no material inputs, but requires highly skilled workers). Initial development goals could be realized through outsourcing of computer related tasks until community members can replace outsourced positions.
More info required.
Good post. Great minds think alike. We are in a preliminary discussion stage where I am setting up a group to do the detail design. We are collecting massive data from the statistics department and engaging the University to collect and present the data. Time flows slowly in Africa (though it takes the same 9.5 weeks to have a baby). Thanks.
I was just reading this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/international/asia/07afghan.html?hp=&pagewanted=print) in NYTimes. I hope not to make the same mistakes in my projects.
one_raven
11-07-05, 01:23 AM
I was involved to solve Argentina's 60% poor issues at the Governor's level. The people at the high up were so arogant that their laws did not allow to work with an American company to solve their problem. Yet the common people expect so much from the Bush visit that they rioted.
I have worked with Greece and Italy with similar results. That is once glorified countries now choke with knowledge.
I am curious in what context and to what end were you involved?
What did you do?
As for the original question...
A Utopian society is impossible because different people simply have different ideals about what makes society perfect.
Moreover, why would you WANT a Utopian society?
Any doctor will put you on Prozac if that's what you want.
That's not what I want out of life.
I prefer challeges and struggles.
I prefer to experience the full gambit of human emotion.
I want life to be difficult and hard to take.
I want to come home after a long rough day and revel in coming home, listening to music, sloughing off the day with a good meal a good drink and a good woman.
I think the real question should ask why so many people want to live such a sterile, emotionless, dull life.
Tirstan
11-07-05, 01:54 AM
That is partly true. Those societies that value knowledge and innovation prosper and those who do not - wither. Based on the works of Professor Jared Diamond, I came to the conclusion that when a society peaks in engineering and technology, that coincides with wealth and power. Then the society fills up with dumb and greedy people that rise to the top and can not provide the required knowledge to maintain their superiority. These people are usually law givers, MBAs, "C" students and priests who try to control the the society but fail. The availability of knowledge is no guarantee that a society will prosper.
History is full of such examples: Greeks, Romans, Chinese Dynasty, Indian kings, Argentina etc. Now it is the American Society which helplessly looking at the mass evacuation of production facilities to India and China.
Very true.
Priests who try to control society… Incompetent second, third, etc, etc, sons resulting from royal inbreeding who enter the clergy not seeking religious ideals, but because they will not inherit family wealth or title and seek a powerful position in society.
The succession of an emperor…The father being a fair and just ruler does little to ensure the son has the same capabilities.
Lawgivers…. Have very little incentive to make changes. They are already in a position of wealth and are more concerned with maters they hold of more importance, like sucking up to companies they hope to work for after their term or that offer some other personal advantage.
So much potential is lost in the inefficiencies of bureaucracies.
The evacuation of production facilities to India and China…
These production jobs represent a crucial building block for developing countries where low cost labor is available. I live in Georgia and have a friend who works on roofs. My friend told me the jobs are being taken over by Mexican labor forces. Yes, my friends skills are worth less because others will perform the work for a lower cost, but I would not want to work on a roof in Georgia in the summer. He now supervises a mexican crew. The lost jobs are of a low skill level. The biggest disadvantage I see is that the loss of jobs overseas increases the distance between rich and poor domestically (shrinking the middle class), but at the same time this adds incentive to further education.
Tirstan
11-07-05, 02:19 AM
Delays Hurting U.S. Rebuilding in Afghanistan
Bureaucratic inefficiencies mixed with a serious lack of public support or apparent involvement. The mindset and expectations of the public must be addresses. Money is being thrown in the wrong directions.
“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.” Feeding the hungry is a very delicate subject. Is it advantageous to provide overpopulated societies with food necessary to prevent hunger? And should we increase the supplies as the food provided enables even larger families? Birthcontrol? Where does it all end?
Yes...
The company, based in McLean, Va., put roughly 50 foreign advisers to work in the bank and ministries in 2003 and 2004. Bearing Point and A.I.D. officials declined to give the cost, but Afghanistan's current finance minister said it was $500,000 a year for each consultant, roughly $150,000 for a consultant's salary and the rest to cover living expenses and security, and the company's overhead and profit. $500K per year per person…
It is not so much for the consultant fees as the results. These consultants are a bunch of silo-based thinkers. So the overall results are negligible. In the end, we will end up with a different version of Talliban.
utopia has to start with a reevaluation of the state of the society we live in. to go into the technical aspects before working out new paradigms of human and social interactions is premature. a perfect system of economics and governence would hardly be useful if the individuals that it engages, are flawed
i say..my sentiments exactly! :eek:
Tirstan
11-07-05, 05:03 PM
Yes...
The company, based in McLean, Va., put roughly 50 foreign advisers to work in the bank and ministries in 2003 and 2004. Bearing Point and A.I.D. officials declined to give the cost, but Afghanistan's current finance minister said it was $500,000 a year for each consultant, roughly $150,000 for a consultant's salary and the rest to cover living expenses and security, and the company's overhead and profit. $500K per year per person…
It is not so much for the consultant fees as the results. These consultants are a bunch of silo-based thinkers. So the overall results are negligible. In the end, we will end up with a different version of Talliban.
I like that term, "silo-based thinkers". Bank and ministries? What are these people doing? Fiscal planning? Dealing with macroeconomic concers when microsociety concerns are not being met? Ministries???Preaching?
People need to be organized into stable supporting groups. Religious concerns must be dealt with. If only to sit down with religious leaders and agree that religious matters should not conflict with the development of the economy. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want, but it should be agreed upon that if the religious groups and society produce more everyone will have more to eat and a better standard of living. Everyone wins a little bit.
Is the purpose of reforming banking to enable more financial support for developing businesses? Where does the capital come from? Apparently not much left after paying for advisors and costs to support new businesses. Takes alot of money to build a strong society. Hard to attract foriegn investors in unstable regions. Capital must be created in the microsocieties and a portion of the profits reinvested into further development.
Sound as if the country would be better off hiring diplomats and engineers. Diplomats to help stabilize local factions into coherent units (get the people involved in the process) and engineers to create new industry (to fuel growth) based on resources available.
Sound as if the country would be better off hiring diplomats and engineers. Diplomats to help stabilize local factions into coherent units (get the people involved in the process) and engineers to create new industry (to fuel growth) based on resources available.
I agree. Unfortunately these so called consultants have anything but engineering degrees and understand microenterprises. In a place like Afhghanistan, due to years of war, the society is at the hunter-gatherer and semi-agrarian level. USA does not have any consultants who understand that level, let alone, how to move them to an industrialized society.
Without a quick microenterprise development, Afghanis will fallback to the opium production to export over $10 Billion worth stuff to Europe and North America. It has already started. Another source of income is in the terrorist industry supported by the Gulf kings.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.