[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1651629099427.jpeg (305.87 KB, 1400x584, 175:73, w.jpeg) ImgOps Google

What would be perfect society at the absolute pinnacle of advancement be like? Not the most perfect realizable civilization, but the actual best life imaginable for everyone?

Would it be completely free of pain and struggle, with all things we covet and pray for, all manner of sensual gratification, the deepest love and the greatest sense of achievement, absolute enlightenment, available at a mere thought or less?

If you could personally change and improve anything about life, society, technology, to the limits of your imagination, again and again to the unlimited future, what do you think your ultimate, final version of reality would be?


I don't think humans are capable of achieving such a thing.  I think the Matrix has it right, that people grow displeased with anything resembling harmony or perfection and ruin it for the sake of conflict.  The closest thing to Utopia would be a Star Trek future where needs and wants are handled via replicators and holo systems.  But even in a Star Trek future, there is necessary conflict.  True Utopia will be some sort of evolved post-human enterprise.


>best life imaginable for everyone?
Delete consciousness.  It's an awful bother to feel.  Even if your life is mostly good, death still comes for you and everyone you love.

But if you don't want that answer, a utopia is a society that values science and individual happiness.


A utopia is fundamentally not possible in large part because of the innate human desire of some people to hate other people just for existing and taking up status plus resources.

Even if we had a scientific situation in which no scarcity existed, like smartphones literally replicating like mushrooms on forest floors, there would still be hatred and this conflict due to his animalistic internal mental programming.

This is likely a result of human evolution due to our species coming about in extreme scarcity for food, water, et al without the possibility for cooperation.


>the innate human desire of some people to hate other people just for existing
I would agree with the obvious that humans are capable of hate.  I'm not sure here if you're thinking of a misanthrope that wants to live alone on some mountaintop.  Or whether you would say almost everyone has a need or desire to hate someone or some group.


No, it's worse than that human beings are capable of hate. Human beings are hardwired for hatred. Violent hatred. This is why social scientists can separate children based on something as purely meaningless as hair color and birthdate month only for the groups once so defined to deliberately try to harm each other in experiments.

I don't like this, but that's how it is. A fact of life, I guess, for humanity evolving in times where every single non-tribe member had to be killed or else they'd take the precious water resources needed for your tribe. Maybe.


Well, modern children will be taught that harming others is wrong, it's assault.  Unless those people are enemies of the state, of course.  If societies need enemies that theoretically need harm, perhaps they can be imaginary.


>Well, modern children will be taught that harming others is wrong, it's assault.

That's only true for some children due to what some parents. Others hold to social mores in the standard, traditional sense and thus want to teach children to be prepared to engage in violence against those who "deserve it". That's life.

Fortunately, since the Age of Enlightenment there's been a concerted effort to try to advance ethics and persuade individuals to rise above their baser natures. This is only partly successful. I don't know if it will ever be fully successful. I don't precisely believe so, but I may be wrong. It depends on how optimistic one is.


It sounds like you consider that innate human tendency for hate to be a purely bad thing. So then, if it could be removed from human nature, perhaps by some GATTACA style gene recombination, would you do it? Do you think it would solve that particular issue?


I think in the thread you're allowed a degree of magic in changing culture.


A side question: Imagine you had magical power and, say, when two groups of humans wanted to go to war, you could create a force field that would separate the parties, and prevent missiles or whatever from crossing the line.  Now, would using such a power and forcing diplomatic resolution be bad for human development.  For example, is going through war experience a necessary part of developing into a self-actualized man?  Or is war something you could safely get rid of?

I'll put this in the tread because if you want to create a utopia, you will probably favor or discourage war.


Post scarcity, post major danger from medical issues, I'd say.
A society where the state is largely uneeded, as technology has improved to where resurrection beyond death is even possible, without expense, and consequently they only need be concerned with harm.
Everyone free to live their own life, make their own way, act on their own desire for adventure.


If you'll pardon the song form, I think this does a good job of exploring that notion;

War is not pleasant, to be sure, but conflict and violence are not inherently wrong.
There's a time and a place for such things. What we must always remember is the cost, that we don't act unduly.


Would you consider that a maximally progressed society, or would those people strive for progress themselves? Would you imagine such a civilization would remain indefinitely, unchanged for millions of years, or might they have their own ideas of advancement? I don't mean to suggest these are easy questions, but it bears putting forward the implications of a "perfect" utopia being reached.


I like the song.  It's a good point -- if you are building a utopia without war you have to ensure there aren't reasons people would want to go to war.  I suppose at the very least you'd have to say no war, and no oppressive police state.

In the end, I do believe violence is wrong.  Or maybe more generally trying to hurt people is wrong, as your song talks about starving people, which might not be violence exactly, but I think you have to count that as under the umbrella.  Or more generally still, trying to hurt people who are not credibly trying to hurt you is wrong and, even then the hurting should be at a minimum and preventative of harm.

And if my utopia starts at peace, nobody will have a reason to make war.  I have to assert there will be societal organizations and sufficient per capita resources to keep people reasonably content, so although there will be rivalries and conflict, things will be stable enough that groups will not desire the extermination of other groups.  Which I guess is utopian, but that's the tread.  :)

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]