By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Utopia... should we seek it?
I vote yes. The definition of Utopia is of course open. Pol pot springs to mind. But.... utopia is always associated with idiot dictators. The word is itself is taboo in the west. My question...should we work towards or work against it ?
"Imagine"
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
J. Lennon 1940-1980
BHGAL:
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
coineineagh:
I have the song, but don't listen to it that often. I really loved Scott Bakula's rendition on a Quantum Leap episode, though. It also ties into the story, and that makes it extra potent.
diverdude1:
I will try to find that... even though I don't really know who Bakula is... sounds interesting
coineineagh:
You can probably find it easily on YouTube. If you have VPN. Just search Quantum Leap Imagine. Try to find the scene where he's sitting on the porch with his little sister, playing a guitar.
You answered it yourself by referring to Pol Pot. If you ever get the chance to visit the Killing Fields just outside Phnom Penh, it will leave you deeply disturbed and cynical about those that want to "change the world for the better". Forever. There is no utopia and working towards a perceived one will be at the cost of someone somewhere.
diverdude1:
yeah, I've been there. maybe it is a place no one should go. still see that tree in my mind's eye... and those mass grave pits where u can still see the ragged clothes sticking out of the dirt. PP was one of the sickest to ever defile our planet. how does mass-murder make a utopia?
Yes , we should seek Utopia. It is not about the Killing fields, more like Strawberry Fields, forever. Or :Everything is beautiful, in its own way"
I tend to live in my own little la la land anyways, far from Utopia, but it is MY own little world.
I dictate to just me. Even then things often don't get done as I dictated it to be done, by myself.
royceH:
Yes, BHGAL, I've pretty much got that. And..good luck to you! Why not!
If it ever occurs to you that you're not pulling your weight then you can have a jolly good talk to yourself.
BHGAL:
yes Royce, ..I talk to myself often..curse myself, jump up and down and violently give myself shit..... I still don't often listen .... oh yes, I guess do, maybe 75- 80% listen............. 20% free for all
One's utopia is probably is someone else hell.
Implementing your utopia by force, by a small group of zealot, without any feedback, at an artificially set speed, it will be definitely hell for everyone.
I think it's ok to dream, it's even healthy to know what you want and how you wish things to be. It gives you a sense of direction, a coherent vision and set of objectives. When it's time to implement things, however, you have to understand *your* vision might not win every one. It's ok, it's not the end of the world, everybody plays, sometime you win sometime you don't. Learn to share your vision, to seduce people with it, let people appropriate your own vision. Your vision won't be exactly the same thing when appropriated by others. It's how ideas are shared and how they evolve. It's like this that you can have flexible, adaptive decisions : share the vision, don't be anal about it. I'm looking at you, China...
There can never be a place of Utopia. It is not possible. People have different visions of what Utopia is. America has one vision, China has another, People all over the world have their own sense of what a Utopia is. Hell, I bet ISIS has a vision of Utopia. I know I would not want to live in their Utopia.
On which scale? A national one or a supranational one? How much specificity is there in the definition? The more conditions added to the definition will make it harder to attain. It's hard to answer considering we don't have a definition of the word. Each person may have their own. However, that also means that most people are perfectly capable of making their own utopia. My utopia is in my home. Everything I love is in it and everything I don't love is absent from it. You could call it my "utopian bubble!" Other good words may be "man cave" or "command room." Anyway, I don't think we don't need a national government to do it for us. So long as you aren't being held back by certain material or social standards, I think happiness is always possible to spring forth from inside.
Personally, I have no real problems with life is as of now, whether I'm in China or whether I'm in America. The only problems are that while life quality is good enough for me, I suppose it may not be the case for everybody at a single time or a single place. Nor do our production/consumption based economies seem environmentally stable. But in the current time frame, so long as basic living standards are met, we are able to go out and seek our own happiness and make life our own paradise. I think the key to it all is personal enlightenment.
ScotsAlan:
A global one. I would say a good starting point would be for everyone to have human rights in some form. And Im not talking about China here. I am thinking more of the people in the war zones. For me the biggest infringement to peoples rights are when they are bombed or beheaded.
jetfire9000:
About the people in war zones... how do we accomplish that? By tossing money at them? Good luck in hoping it will be used responsibly. The bread and butter method in foreign affairs has been to arm, train, and support rebel groups to oppose any regime blatantly violating human rights. And after that, the upheaval of that regime created a power vacuum which sprouted unprecedented social unrest on a magnitude unseen even in the previous strongman regime. Groups/factions which initially received enabling to do the dirty work have now become an even greater problem. Now, in order to combat that, we are arming different groups to fight against the first groups. Oh dear, is there ever an end? It's weird, but liberals and neocons alike absolutely love to get involved for "the greater good" which seems to always make a greater mess of things.
Shining_brow:
I think the Neo-Cons are doing it for their own greater good. Liberals, at least, seem to do it for other's greater good. Huge difference!
jetfire9000:
@Shining Brow
There's definitely not a huge difference. There's hardly any difference, at all. Especially in the effects that result in such actions. Regardless of good or bad intentions, the result of the actions taken often leave the world a much worse place than it was. You can't go in and lace a place with cash, pepper it with bullets, or depend on your army of drones to change the law and lay of the land that has existed for hundreds or thousands of years. Where is the structure? (the system which regulates behavior and keeps society functional on a certain level) If you don't have it then you're living in the jungle all over again. In order to oust dictators you have to tear social structure down. You may think you can replace it with a better one - but chances are the one you are replacing it with are based off of your own system's values. And that may sound feasible, but I don't think you can give too many examples of it working in the current timeframe. Liberating a group of people so that they can return to their former way of life is one thing, but completely coming in to a strange land and creating a new system is another. You can't try to use force to impose your definition of civilization on another people and expect them to accept it. Perhaps if some pure moral authority had the magic notebook in "Death Note" he could surgically target individuals who were the greatest manifestation of evil you could think... but even that would run amok and eventually derail into its own mess.
The liberals that engage in such action are no different, regardless of perceived personal motives or not. We can't possibly be so stupid to believe that they are better simply for having a naive and foolish intention to save the world.
Obviously I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm just suggesting the fruitlessness of engaging in a struggle to change people's ways of life who quite frankly don't want it.
I just wikipedia'ed the guy that you hold up as an example for "utopianism." No wonder nobody talks about it. Read the first paragraph:
"He presided over a totalitarian dictatorship[7] that imposed a radical form of agrarian socialism on the country. His government forced urban dwellers to move to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effects of executions, forced labour, malnutrition and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population.[8][9][10][11] In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died due to the policies of his four-year premiership."
So he forced people to go out and work themselves to death. And up to almost half of the population died while he was trying to make his utopia pan out. Another quote: "To keep you is no benefit... to destroy you is no loss"
If this is a utopia then you can keep it.
ScotsAlan:
Thats not my idea of Utopia. I mentioned his name because someone was sure to mention him as a nutter. And a nutter he was.
Yes but no, there exist many forms of utopia.
The location first, to some people it is a sunny version of the English countryside, to others it is a tropical island in the Pacific.
Then the society, some want a very developed world where technology would make everyone's life easier, others prefer a hippie community free from modern technology that makes people not communicate anymore.
And finally the individual rights, should people be free to be themselves, with all the consequences that can come with it (murder, unstable people, conflicts, ...) or should they be brainwashed from young age to become perfect harmonious citizens but devoid of free thoughts and personalities (China tries to achieve the last, failing so far).
And who are you, we, I, him or her to force our vision of utopia on others, through political or violent means.
I think more equality worldwide would be a good step toward my utopia, developed countries should help other countries much more than we do now, and not because of guilt (colonial era and so on) but because we are all humans. By equality I don't mean communism, capitalism is what it is but so far the best system we have, we only need to make it more equal. We could feed all of Africa for a year with only a few days of the US army budget.
yongge:
I've done the tropical island in the Pacific bit. Frankly, no thanks, a geographical place is no guarantee of Utopia, or even happiness. The closest to Utopia for me is to be surrounded by people that care about you and being happy with what you have and do.
ScotsAlan:
Totaly agree with the equal rights part. I would see a world without wars as a Utopia. Give future generations a good foundation to work on, rather than the same out cycle of destruction that seems to have no end in sight.
Shining_brow:
What do you mean by capitalism being the best system so far? Certainly, lassez-faire capitalism totally sucks!
I think it's been demonstrated quite well in the world that a socialist economy works quite well - capitalistic, with a high welfare state. And, instead of spending on military, spend on the people's well-being.
Utopia for men resembles an old shoestring, it only goes so far on the same road before forking around.
Good politics is about sticking to the bottom of the fluff and keeping the top from getting too hairy.
No. Because in trying to consciously create it you make something that is artificial and then try to project it onto humanity. Obviously, this is doomed to fail, as past attempts at utopianism have. That said, history should be viewed as an evolutionary process, and humanity will eventually reach a point where further progression becomes impossible and the process comes to its natural end. You could call that Utopia, and we might speculate as to what such a state might look like. It probably isn't authoritarian, and is much more likely to resemble the world's liberal democracies. Markets and capital are still exist, although the economy might be post scarcity, because we can' get away from the fact that certain things or experiences are finite and have value.
Utopia will come when we learn to balance development with environment and peace. And even still there will be some people that just want to watch the world burn and screw it all up.
Utopia is an idea that we have of an ideal society. Anyone living 1000 years ago would agree that our current lives are quite close to their idea of Utopia, but with significant and unexpected differences. Feudal people back then would be less concerned about race, gender equality, bureaucracy, travel expenses or education.
The things we worry about today might be irrelevant in the future, while whole new concepts emerge that we haven't given much thought. It's not really a question of choosing to chase the dream of Utopia; it's something we're all compelled to do. The powermongers who feel they can impose their vision of Utopia are to be feared; revolution disrupts social evolution. Just look at China, generations after 'revolutionary' turmoil, they're still picking up the pieces. Some of the wrong people have a lot of money to NOT go around, and people's values have been "bombed back into the Stone Age".
I'm a supporter of Jaque Fresco's Venus Project, where he proposes a transition to a resource-based economy. It's hardly a 100% working idea, but a lot more is already fleshed out than you'd imagine. Unfortunately, when it comes to solidarity, the community behind it fractured quickly. Egomaniacs and obsessive characters smear mud around. If you even go to their websites (probably blocked in China), the first thing you hear is about the allegations and splinter groups. It's a mess.
Like I said: Social evolution is gradual, but these things can't be rushed. People need to all want the same thing, and most of us don't.
ScotsAlan:
I agree about revolution. Thats the wrong way to do it. It turned out ok for France of course, but those were different times and there was different issues. I will have a look for that project you mentioned. Should be an interesting read.
coineineagh:
France's nobility had it coming. Napoleon made a mess, though. We might all be speaking French as universal language if France had focused its power on the colonial game.
BHGAL:
I have a real issue with France and it's history.....Vietnam, Haiti, it's African attempts, my home town Zhanjiang ..it goes on and on about French screw ups.... I prefer Canada, Australia etc. etc etc (the British Commonwealth) to Quebec...
coineineagh:
France had a very positive approach towards colonialism. Natives were not always inferiors who were on the eradication waiting list. They treated them like possible future French citizens. There was some cooperation and relatively fair trade going on, compared to other colonial powers. Sadly, this approach didn't bear as much fruit as the invading, intimidating, depopulating and terrorizing did. Countries like the Netherlands and Britain outcompeted them due to sheer cruelty. The problems with integrating cultures were the same as they are today: Frictions that make multicultural societies unprofitable, and leave national supremacists pining for the old days, where everyone was of one culture. Thankfully, there is more to life than just absolute national authority: we get the benefit of world knowledge, food, scientific advancement and rapid social evolution. All that monocultures like China (Korea and Japan?) can do, is hide their backwardness behind a veneer of success.
Shining_brow:
I disagree. Revolution is an impetus of evolution.
Revolutions happen when the ruling elite aren't well-liked by a large amount of people with the power to overthrown them. This, obviously, is not intrinsically bad, and many good things come from it. And, sometimes, those changes last a long time!
However, sometimes the revolution - well, post-revolution - things aren't too well thought out. And, for many, change can be difficult - especially if you were doing well, and now not. This is obviously true for the upper-middle and upper classes - who historically have been the power behind 'evolution'. The ones at the bottom just want things to be a bit better, and have an axe to grind against those towards the top. However, they don't actually think about anybody else. Nor do they have the skills, ability, or education to make real change positive or long-lasting. This was the major problem in China.
The other problem with many revolutions is the turn away from ideals, and projection into hero-worship of the revolutionary(-ies). If Mao wasn't such a moron, and actually realised he was extremely fallible, and actually listened to those around him, things could have gone well, Instead, he had them killed or imprisoned :( If it wasn't Mao in charge, things here could have been so much different!!
coineineagh:
Interesting views. However, Mao didn't have absolute power. He was leading a mob of superstitious idiots. His own son got slaughtered by his very own Red Guards in some misguided attack of zealotry. Populist hero-worship is what the people understood and expected. It's what they responded to. And all the time, 95% of his efforts were focused on maintaining authority. Even his designated *successor* couldn't wait until the old man croaked, and was involved in a plot to assassinate him. There were just too many people focused on greed and grabbing power; most of them couldn't care less what the revolution was about. They just wanted to climb the ladder as high as they could, no matter who got trampled. Mao was hardly innocent either, as he made conscious efforts to personally profit from food exports, with full knowledge that local officials had been overrreporting harvests, and tens of millions were starving to death. It took a congregation of 6000 party officials to stop him from making things worse for his own profit. What it boils down to, is that both the leaders and the people in the country were not socially *evolved* enough to make a revolution beneficial in any way. Most revolutions come way too early. France might have been an exception, because the nobility were trying to stagnate social development, and the people rose up to deal with it. But it was still extremely messy, and evolution may have been preferable. Many kingdoms switched to Constitutional Monarchies quickly after the French revolution, and they seem to have gained more advantages than France.
Lots of good answers here. your a smart bunch.
My idea of Utopia? Well a starting point would be for everyone to actually see everyone else as equal. Different of course, but for everyone to be worth the same.
I also post on a UK forum. And the unfounded hatred I see there for other people dismays me. But all the above answers have cheered me up lots. Thanks all 
coineineagh:
I guess you'll not hear from much closed minds here, because they wouldn't be traveling abroad in the first place. Also, don't worry too much about bigotry: They're usually zealous in their beliefs and overrepresent their opinion, to the point of trolling. The only risk there, is that opinions voiced often by a minority will lead to the perception of it being an acceptable majority view - the power of suggestion. I was racist back when I was 18, fresh from a countryside village, eager to spread my ignorance in Amsterdam university. I didn't know when to shut up. ... Maybe I still don't, but at least my opinions are changed.
laowaigentleman:
Where have you travelled to in your lifetime, mate?
Have you been to Aussie and NZ? I've never visited the UK or Europe. How do these two places compare with your homeland in terms of egalitarianism?
Dead curious.
ScotsAlan:
I was racist when I was in my hick town too coin. But like you, I have changed. It seems some people will never change however, and that is a sadness that I have been confused about for a few weeks. I just dont get the irrational hatred. I honestly dont hate anyone.... and hey.... I have a lot of ex wifes ;-)
"Imagine"
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one J. Lennon 1940-1980
BHGAL:
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
coineineagh:
I have the song, but don't listen to it that often. I really loved Scott Bakula's rendition on a Quantum Leap episode, though. It also ties into the story, and that makes it extra potent.
diverdude1:
I will try to find that... even though I don't really know who Bakula is... sounds interesting
coineineagh:
You can probably find it easily on YouTube. If you have VPN. Just search Quantum Leap Imagine. Try to find the scene where he's sitting on the porch with his little sister, playing a guitar.
There is a book by Thomas Sowell called "A Conflict of Visions"
I don;t know if you agree with him, but he claims that the difference between the left and the right is that the left believe utopia is possible whereas the right hold a kind of tragic vision, namely that there are no free lunches, just trade-offs.
Personally, when I think of utopia I think of Plato, More and guys like Charles Fourier who's mentioned in the Communist Manifesto and seemed to be highly influential during the 19th century. I believe there is a town in Ohio called Utopia which was founded by "fourierists". He's mentioned in Dostoevsky a lot. Ooh la dee da, I'm dropping a lot of names here... 
I don't want to live in any of those guys' gated communities.
Many utopians say man is perfectible, but I can't subscribe to this view. I'm definitely not cynical and I base my view of human nature on empirical science which shows quite clearly that we're remarkably improvable. I believe in soft physiological determinism which can be countered by free will although the power of these respective forces differs in individual cases. Put it this way, I'll never excuse a rapist because he says he was suffering from blue balls.
Because of the divergence of our abilities, potential and the varying likelihood of us meeting the almost infinite array of goals it's possible for humans to achieve, I reject utopianism (if you agree that my description of utopian thinking correlates to yours that is), because the process of organising a society in any rigid fashion - and this is an inevitable consequence of putting into practice the goal of achieving utopia - will result in individuals' potential being constrained, which will result in the dynamism of humanity being undermined.
Prometheus needs to be unbound. The pursuit of utopia can only bind him further. I don't know how I would describe myself, but I think divulgence of power, education, social equality, health and welfare and an equitable distribution of wealth are the key things a government ought to focus on. If they can do this well, we can only blame ourselves if there are problems in our lives.
ScotsAlan:
Carefull....I'm not sure if intellectuals are "un-banned" here yet :-)
BHGAL:
I am not even gonna attempt to read it
I was just doing some pretty serious tapping on the desk ..giggling and smiling... drumming tried to explain boogie woogie to her but .... leave it at that... I was boogieing she was smiling and giggling too ... ..so much for deep thought.Actually, I think I have figured out why this subject is in my mind.
Simply, it lack of respect for the ballot box. Its at an all time low in developed countries. The hard core refuses to accept the votes of the masses. And they are just so vocal. So vocal that the majority are drowned out. My utopia would be for them to shut up and wait for the next ballot box
yongge:
See how that worked out for countries like South Africa and Thailand (before the coup), where the ballot ensured that the lowest witted peasants became the common denominator and the ones who decide who rules; where the votes and loyalty of these could be bought by allowances and scare tactics, resulting in thugs being voted into power and ruling for their own pockets. The ballot and democracy does not work everywhere and there is no guarantee that the majority will actually take decisions that is good for them . The problem is not bad rulers, it is the majority who are stupid enough to get them into power in the first place.
Shining_brow:
How about only those with a certain level of education are allowed to vote? (with free public education to at least 10th grade).
Of course, the ruling elite could control the education (like some countries we know), however, it's an idea...
I disagree...the evil that is in the nature of every man, makes Eutopia a non entity. And the spelling is intentional. J. Barzun had quite a lot to say about Utopia.
Shining_brow:
Lucky about 50% of the population are women then :p
But more seriously, humanity also has it in them the mechanisms to not choose to do 'evil', should they so choose to. I believe there are reasons for everything - find the reason, understand the reason, and we can figure out how to deal with the actual problem!
Totally, absolutely, undeniably YES!
From a small, mundane perspective - a) Choose to make this place a better world. b) Choose to make this place a worse world. c) choose to keep the place pretty much the same. d) not give a damn. e) not give a stuff about anybody but ourselves, and ignore the plights of the rest of the world.
One of those 5 options, only one of them actually works in the long-run - although, I'm sure, there will be many advocates for the last option - and, frankly, that's what's made the dystopia we're living in now.
I seek a much better world than what I was brought into And, I refuse to bring a child into such a world as this. (coincidentally, women refuse to go out with such a guy as me 
) yes, trying to create Utopia is going to suck, and for a very large part of the population. But I ask this - is your life, and the lives of the 7-10 billion who will probably feel the full brunt of such change, worth the lives of the hundreds, or thousands of billions of people who will suffer after we've gone, leaving the place a mess? Is your 30-90 years so much more important than the tens of thousands of years (or more!) of humanity's future?
For a real Utopia to work, humans must stop thinking of only themselves and their immediates. Family and friends are NOT #1, and more important than all the rest (combined).
People must also be brought up with one singular thought - "Why do I deserve to live?" For me, the act of living - being alive, being born - is not sufficient reason to continue living. Our lives must be worth something to the overall improvement of the species, and to existence.
If this seems a little harsh, let me put it a different way. When (not 'if') the technology is more freely available to effectively give ourselves and infinite lifespan (eg, through cloning, through full body genetic repair, through nanobots that fully heal the body etc), then who should this technology be given to? Especially if it was limited (for some reason). Who deserves to live forever, and who doesn't? WHY?
Would this technology be given to rapists? To murderers? To Zhou blog? To our politicians? Philosophers? Scientists? Humanitarians?
It's not too dissimilar to the whole "sinking ship" argument - the ship is sinking, there are limited lifeboats... who gets a seat, who drowns? Do YOU deserve to live? Are you the best that you can truly be?
Utopia, to me, also means a change of consciousness. Some has been mentioned above - equality, free access to all necessities, education. It's also about basic respect for other humans - not lying, cheating, killing, raping, etc. These are things that we all have within us, but circumstances have moulded us into what we've become. However, I also believe that such things can be changed.
Humanity can be a great thing. If given the opportunity.
And, we ought to try damn hard to make it happen!
rasklnik:
-If the ship was sinking, and there aren't enough lifeboats, the traditional system was women and children first. Then it would be enlisted men,( or male passengers, with captain and crew coming last. The Captain is always last)
-This system is fair and logical.
Shining_brow:
Rask - I'd say the system was "fair and logical" as far as merely keeping the human species going. However, to me, life in and of itself isn't that important - it's what's done with that life. So, quite likely, I'd suggest the captain ought to get a spot on that boat, too! And who knows who else is on the ship...
Probably harsh - but there you go! Why sacrifice someone who may be 'good' or 'the best', for someone who may only be mediocre (or worse)?
