NationStates Jolt Archive

Go and read Looking Backward (http://www.sacred-texts.com/utopia/lb/index.htm), then come here and argue against the feasibility of a Utopian system. I think the book does a nice job of explaining how a Utopian society could function, and it does address nearly all the issues I've heard put against perfect societies. Besides the practicality of implementing a social order like this, is there any concrete reason it couldn't work? Is the only reason we don't have this system now the fault of those with political power that would lose wealth under it?

If people want to create a Utopian society, it's certainly feasible.

Whatever happened to Utopianism?

It was replaced by distopianism.

It's unattainable. Human's are inherently self centered.

I'm sorry, but the world he describes is far from utopia for me. I've long been of the opinion that civilization in general is not good for humans or any other species. We evolved in tribes, we're adapted to tribes, we crave tribal interaction, and we spent the first 3 million years of our species' life living in tribes. It's only in the last 1% of human history that we created civilization and immediately started thinking, "Why are we so unhappy? I know - we need to create a utopia!"

The reason very few people propose utopian societies is that they are constantly being tried and they always turn into monstrous dictatorships and/or devastated countries. Look at Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea and North Vietnam, and even Communist China. You may not realize it, but every one of these countries was originally intended to be a utopian wonderland. By the way, the man who coined the term "utopia" understood this perfectly; that's why he used the term utopia, which literally means nowhere; it can never happen.

People are inherently self-centered, and the only way to have a prosperous society is to allow people to do what they want. If every trade is agreed upon by both traders, pretty much every trade will be beneficial to all involved. Furthermore, if working an extra hour gives the worker an extra hour's profits instead of giving it to strangers, every worker will work until he has as much stuff as he wants.

On the other hand, if everyone gets only a tiny share of what they make, no one will make or do anything. That always leads to an attempt to force everyone to work, which leads to an evil dictatorship. The other path would be mass starvation or emigration from the utopian society. Usually elements of all three paths occur.

An ideal society is one in which there is as little outside intervention in the lives of individuals as possible.

Utopian existence? I think the Ninth addresses how that's attainable fairly well. That along with the 3rd, the 5th, the 8th, and even slightly the 6th.

in memoriam: March 26, 1827

A tribal system could never exist again because tribes are weak, which is why civilizations formed. Since its impossible for a society to dissolve into tribes(reason being they'd quickly align into small civilizations and kill eachother) it makes more sense to coagulate into a larger and more harmonious society, because staying half way doesn't give as much benefits as either end. The obstacle that must be overcome by Utopianism is the opposition by the people that would lose power in it(namely the super-wealthy elites, because if it was possible the general populace would definitely agree to it). Interfering as little as possible is an impossible ideal to achieve also, almost moreso than Utopia, because it invariably leads to injustice due to negligence; teamwork is very powerful and when teams work against eachother the scale of fighting is spectacular, and left to their own devices people(who are greedy) will form teams to try and overtake one another. A Utopian society such as that described in the book allows everyone to have more money because they are all working in concert; nothing is wasted in fighting off competitors because there are none, and there is no market to corner because there is no benefit in cornering it.

The problem with a utopian society is that everyone has to agree to the ideals. But people will naturally have different opinions about stuff. And when people have immensely stronger differing opinions the only way to change their minds is through coercion and force. And we get to a dystopia.

There's also the problem of human nature being inherently not very nice, but that's an often used comment.

Hell, the origination of the term was in a book that was mocking the standing order at the time, not proposing a feasible system. Utopia is no place.