Is a "practical Utopia" possible?
Forget everything being "perfect". Forget everyone being "equal". Forget people being in a permanent state of bliss.
Think instead of a practical Utopia as being an optimum - or even just a "very good", way of organizing society and the economy in terms of delivering happiness and well being for all. Does such a project have a chance, at least, of being sensibly formulated as long as the aforementioned extreme demands are abandoned?
Think instead of a practical Utopia as being an optimum - or even just a "very good", way of organizing society and the economy in terms of delivering happiness and well being for all. Does such a project have a chance, at least, of being sensibly formulated as long as the aforementioned extreme demands are abandoned?
Comments (52)
Much higher happiness and well being levels all round.
Quoting CasKev
I agree that the path to Practical Utiopia .... "Prutopia" if you will, is problematic. But that does not stop us from thinking what Prutopia would look like. What would a formula look like? Given that people are not equal, or expressed more positively - everyone is different, it seems to me that Prutopia needs to accommodate this fact. Some people are going to have rarer skills; some people are motivated to work harder for worldly wealth than others and so forth. So Prutopia needs to retain the concept of rationing by money and rewarding work with money. However, given how much automation is increasingly easy Prutopia should be able to offer choice of lifestyle along a work/consume spectrum. The "lowest" end of this spectrum however could still offer a reasonably high standard of living for those who choose not to work or only work a minimal amount.
How much higher, and how are happiness and well being measured?
Same question. How much sustainability is required to be considered a "practical utopia" and how do you measure it?
It's one of the two main problems with utopias: there is no way to even determine an abstract ideal. There is even less of a chance to determine ones that will successfully compel its denizens to all happily embrace them.
Higher rather than ultra-high.
There are various types of happiness - e.g.
economic security
being close to a few people
being self confident
feeling motivated
having lots of free time and being able to choose how to spend it
having sexual/gender freedom
having knowledge of the world - a personal philosophy
Prutopia would enable all happinesses for all people - or at least it would maximize the chances of all happinesses flourishing within an individual.
Think about addiction on an individual level. The more severe cases require a person to spend years recovering; the process is long, and can take a lifetime. Apply that idea to humanity as a whole; the 6,000+ years of history as we know it, and every aspect of the failure of the human will that comes with it; the state of the human condition. Can that same human will alone bring about even the extremely conservative Utopia you're describing?
Everyone who think at himself as a philosopher would have to deal with this question.
I agree with those who says that there are many models of society and not only one model alone. In my opinion our societys in Europe are based on practicals utopias. There are many models that coexist in Europe. For instance : anarchy, Social democracy, communism, liberal socialism, democracy, liberalism, dictatorship, etc. What are these if not all utopistic social forms. These models are all imperfect, coexistent and push parliaments to make laws. Laws that make the model true and actually existing. Our society are on the way of the perfection, but how far the target is? We only have to hope that along the way won't be accidents, war and so on... this would be the very and real Prutopia.
Is it really about happiness? Me thinks the heirarchy of needs is still not clear enough to formulate any plans, practical or not. To me, goodness comes before happiness. I know the two are tied together at a fundamental level - goodness is a means to achieve happiness and all. But, to me, we should place goodness above happiness and make it the primary objective of Utopia/Prutopia. Why? Happiness follows naturally from goodness but the converse isn't true; and where goodness is missing, happiness won't last for long.
This view agrees with the Buddhist point of view. Heaven is a happy place but the Gods, who have human failings, must cycle through Samsara. Only the truly good, like the Buddha, are truly happy.
I guess it can be whatever you like, as long as the outcome is somehow desirable. Mathematically, and logically, it is only possible to optimize a one dimensional output function of the variables. So if x ,y and z are variables then one could maximize quantities such as [x], [x+y], [z*x + x/y] etc etc. (Note that a variable can be its own scoring function - e.g. f(x) = x.) But it is not possible to maximize more than one output value at a time. We can make the notion of a function more sophisticated by allowing algorithms with conditional branching - computer programs - to calculate an output "score" and try to maximize this score. Such an algorithm is, in practice, the only way to evaluate the "score" of how "well" a real society is performing. "The greatest good (or happiness) for the greatest number" type of formula simply does not compute, even though we get the gist. It fails to be optimizable because there are two outputs to it - the total quantity of goodness (or happiness) AND a quantity of people. In fact, not only is such a formula non optimizable, it is actually undefined computationally (but we get the gist).
However, a computational algorithm will never be sufficiently detailed in practice to cover every nuance. It is all too easy to calculate a very positive score for some obscure permutation of the variables that actually represents a very undesirable situation. So any algorithm that calculates the "score" must be taken with a pinch of salt, but nevertheless can represent a useful approximation to how one is to judge "desirability".
OK, so that was a bit of an aside. Now to the question of what the scoring function for Prutopia should be - in particular whether it should be generally about "goodness" or "happiness". That is actually a different discussion, given that I have specified (vaguely) happiness/well being! However, in my magnanimity, I am prepared to discuss some generalities regarding the practical suitability of scoring functions in relation to utopias. The first thing to say about a utopia, as generally conceived, is that every citizen has to be taken into account. Thus any scoring function that behaves considerably differently from person to person is an unsuitable candidate for a utopia. Wealth (by itself) is a particularly bad scoring function - not only does the sum total of wealth not reflect its distribution, the actual importance of wealth to each individual varies greatly. Happiness however, is an ideal scoring function because - by definition - everyone strives to be "happy". Now some would argue that not everyone seeks "happiness" , and for them being "good" is important. I would reply therefore, that being "good" makes them "happy", though that means broadening the concept of happiness well away from feeling "good". "Happiness" also has a problem of course in that it is possible that one person can be happy at another person's expense - or at the expense of sustainability etc. I would suggest that if happiness is to be the scoring function, then only happiness which does not majorly involve anything "bad" should be counted.
Quoting Noble Dust
Lots of societal change has recently occurred rather quickly - I'm thinking of sexuality and race. Individual lives are short and so new habits are picked up quickly.
Quoting andrea
I agree to a certain extent, but some of these "utopias" are definitely better than others. However, all of them have key dystopian features
1) The scoring function is GNP.
2) The education system is repressive
3) The overarching ethics are the work ethic and competition
Oh dear... :s
This is what I was referring to but this is only partially relevant. Your Prutopia must be sustainable on some basis. Your objective is happiness. What are the means by which you'll achieve it? The only instrument that makes Pruotpia sustainable is goodness. Why? I'm simplifying here so judge me leniently. Goodness ensures that happiness isn't ''bad'' as you described it. You're aware of the problem that's why you spoke of it.
If that's the case, why not just change priorities? Make goodness your priority. Happiness, ''good'' happiness, naturally follows. I don't accept the argument that we're good because it makes us happy. No! Because goodness involves the distinction between ''good'' happiness and ''bad'' happiness and this is crucial if your Prutopia is to be self-sustaining and not spiral into chaos.
Freedom of choice is the instrument of happiness. As an example, and as mentioned earlier, the freedom to place oneself anywhere on the work-consume spectrum leads to wellbeing and economic happiness. Prutopia must never be about one size fits all. When one accepts that, then many arguments and divisions between citizens vanish. The Universal Basic Income would allow choice regarding self placement on the work-consume spectrum.
Thank you. Carry on! (Y)
I think i may know what you are getting at. But at second glance of RN's quote, i think it is actually a fair request to the original poster to define what he meant by "practical Utopia", before even discussing whether such a thing is possible or not, etc. That is at least how i interpreted it, fwiw.
How then are you going to set your goals in Prutopia?
That's why a utopia is impossible, a functioning society cannot make everyone equally happy, and if everyone isn't equally happy, it's not a utopia.
Not a chance.
People are animals, many lacking the attributes that some idealistically expect in humans, quite unable to live up to what some of us (for some reason) keep expecting of "humans".
Animals will be animals. Just observe the behavior in the Reincarnation topic, if you don't believe it, and want some anecdotal confirmation.
Michael Ossipoff
"Prutopia" could refer to "prudent Utopia" rather than "prudish Utopia". Or are they related? I think we should be told. Anyway, I do prefer "Practopia" - punchier and pregnant. So Practopia it is!
Sure. Imagine if no bad things happen, then what does goodness boil down to? Another way of looking at it is to ask what would the world be like if it was inhabited (geddit?!) solely (geddit?!) by Buddhist monks? Where's your goodness now?
Oh righty - so call off the search then on the basis of a technicality?
A glaring prohibitive truth is not even close to a technicality.
By acknowledging diverstiy
Who told you that? Anyways, we are discussing practoipias, mainly in order to circumvent nhihilists.
Nobody told me that, it's a fact you have yet to counter. But feel free to show how something can be a utopia with some people happier than others.
You actually said I'm hung up on the definition on the word "utopia" when we're discussing possible utopias. That's as ridiculous as saying one is hung up on the word "horse" when one is looking to buy a horse.
I'm sorry, Jake, as long as one is discussing utopias, the definition of the word matters. It's a bit odd I have to remind you of that.
Diversity breeds conflict. Look at the natural word. Diversity: prey - predator. I think there's a good reason why birds of a feather flock together. Perhpas we can control diversity, harnessing its merits and limiting its dangers.
But societal change is neutral; if you're chalking up changes in societal norms towards sexuality and race as positive societal changes, then you need to also look at what you might consider negative societal changes that occur at the same time. Political corruption is a constantly boiling pot which eventually leads to tectonic political changes, and suddenly the social reforms that we thought we built up are now toppled down. The hubris of our time is that we implicitly assume that things like technological innovation, a globalized economy, social equality, are synonymous with a sort of humanistic progression. But that's only one side to the neutral phenomenon of societal progression. Most western societies ultimately progress to a point of societal death.
No chance at all, in my opinion.
The nature of human attribute won't allow it to happen. As long as there are humans, there's always a state of unbalanced. Everyone has their own thinking, they have their own idea of utopia. The utopia you have in mind can't be the same with everyone's. An organized society might be what some people have been yearning for but at the same time some people don't settle for comfort or mediocrity. You can't satisfy everyone at the same time using the same idea of "utopia".
Well unless you apply the practical utopia project on a group of automatons, where they have the same mindset.
Quoting Cynical Eye
In advance of trying, that is. Good. Neatly done, and self-absolved. That leaves more time to do many other things. X-)
Quoting Cynical Eye
Is a culture that works for its members (at least as well as the people work for it) impossible in reality, impossible in theory, or both? If so, please share your thoughts if you would.
And why would such a society necessarily be "mediocrity"? Would it be some exaggeration of a communist werkers' paradise, with matching bland uniforms, easy-listening music playing nonstop, and no goofing off allowed? If that is what you are hinting at, can't we stretch our powers of imagination just a little more? And if that's not what you meant, please clarify (while excusing my wild, if well-intended, assumptions). Thanks!
All fine ideas, but what you're missing is a proper analysis of the state of the human condition.
Not at all. My practopia is designed to accommodate a wide range of lifestyles of choice, which is about all one could ask of a society. Sure there will still be murders, grief and sorrow.
You didn't address my caution about the human condition here. You would need to go into more detail in order to actually address it.
ummmm well..... all I can say is that Practopia is aimed at people. Not other creatures. I think it is up tp you to focus your concerns - e.g. "people like to be bloody minded " or whatever...??
What??