h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

is utopia a good or bad thing ?

Probably.

Peet is perfectly right of course. I'd say Utopia is good by definition. I would like to know, though, what Utopia would be like - what kind of society would indeed be as good as it is possible for a society to be. You know something about my idea on the topic, I think, Happy - I think you can never fully eliminate all 'badness', but you can reduce the 'badness' to a minimal level and try to keep the good in a kind of balance with the bad that leads to the continuous enrichment of the good while the bad never becomes *very* bad.

I think the world right now is *very* close to the ultimate bad end of dystopia.

Hey whaddaya know - Pete and Peet!

Good or bad? Bad or good?

Well, essentially, all utopias presume the perfectability of the human spirit. You read them, you always get these boring bits where it describes how the utopians get educated into a state of highly moral stupor.

Of course, human beings are nothing more than carnivorous apes strutting around looking for breeding opportunities. You're not going to educate that.

So I guess the answer is bad. Us apes want to tread down upon the weak! We want our breeding opportunities! Utopia doesn't afford this kind of freedom. Anyone in any doubt should maybe read City of the Sun by Campanella, where the penalty for wearing high heels is DEATH! Campanella never visited Tot's nightclub, obviously.

I resent Binaryboy's description of human beings as "carniverous apes" - I'm omniverous!

Of course, I meant carnivorous and omnivorous, respectively. Sorry.

Ya see? Ya see? No conversation on Utopia will ever get anywhere on this cursed site because nobody is serious about the topic.

Now Dystopia, I am sure we'll be able to get enough people interested in *that*. So should I unleash my visions of real hell here, and see if these fluffy folks can stomach them? Nahhh... rather not. I honestly think Utopia is more interesting.

Grief, the problem in general is that while everyone will say "Utopia is a good idea", no two of them will envisage it in the same way. So, what is Utopia for one person won't be for anybody else...

But do you think perhaps people might agree on what constitutes a dystopia? If we can have that, we at least know the direction *AWAY* from which we ought to be heading.

That might work to a degree, at least as far as finding the "middle ground". However, once you've passed the "middle", the direction to continue in is once more a subjective thing...

History might also suggest that merely recognising a dystopia isn't usually enough for the people involved to break away from it without external help - once it's been created, it's hard to destroy. That's why we have imagination, so we can picture the results of our actions before we perform them. Sadly, we don't always use it to best effect.

What we have right now, like I said, is close enough to a dystopia. We now only have to imagine things being the opposite from the way they are!

Btw I think there is more or less only one dystopia, but an infinity of possible utopias.

Not really... There is too wide a variation in "personal preference". Utopia and Dystopia are "global states"; if you say a condition is "Utopia for some", that's a contradiction in terms.

For example, some people like to hang around with crowds, and find large, empty spaces unpleasant and disturbing. Others, like myself, like about a foot of "personal space" around them, and find crowded rooms disturbing. There is no single utopia/dystopia which both will agree on. And, that's just a single point of disagreement... My Mother isn't comfortable unless she's in a room decorated with twee little china figurines; I find that the things just creep me out. Two examples, without giving it any real thought. Some people love being around small children; again, the things just creep me out. () Three examples, and I haven't broken a sweat yet...

For either Utopia or Dystopia to exist, everyone on earth would have to think the same way. Then, it would come down to a simple choice of: Utopia, if everyone was *happy* that they thought the same way, or Dystopia if they *weren't*.

(Is this a serious enough conversation yet? My brains hurts... )

Well my own vision of Utopia is one where the society is extremely diverse and there are ways to get everybody into a situation where they can be happy - so there will be wide open spaces for some, crowded high-density urban areas for othersl; places with lots of china figurines, or children, and places without them. It is not necessary for Utopia or Dystopia that people must think the same way - what is necessary is that, whatever way it is that people think, they be put either in the position where they can do so freely, or in the position where they are maximally oppressed. I say there is a single state of maximum oppression for any kind of good quality, but an infinity of states of maximum freedom of expression for those qualities.

What about people who are only happy creating a Dystopia for others? Where would they fit into your idea of Utopia for all?

They're the only ones who don't fit. You can't please EVERYBODY! Like I said in my first posting here - you can't eliminate all badness. The people you describe will necessarily be unhappy - but they can perhaps be given a modicum of happiness for instance by creating virtual realities for them where they believe themselves to be in charge of dystopias.

In Aldous Huxleys 'Island' they educated and socialised children with pyshco / power-trip / violent tendancies, diverting their attention to healthy activities and work.

The whole notion of Utopia makes a *lot* of assumptions about a society which is radically different to our own, so we Utopiaists can say ~ well there wouldn't be anyone who wanted to make a dystopia because there would be a supportive societal and educational structure so there wouldn't be these monsters. (which is a handy get out clause untill you burst my bubble )

Little baby Hitler would have had a happy homelife, and soon grew out of the idea of 'ruling the world and killing lots of people.' The population of Germany would not have faced economic disaster and impossible reparations and would not have voted for him. Hitler could have settled down to a quiet life in the civil service or railways office.

*ahem*

The thing that fascinates me about Utopias is that they are often not far-fetched from where we are / were / could be. Its a smashing and important imaginative leap to visualise the best way things can be.

I could say more but will only ramble.

Glad you like the entry.

pj

A true utopia could only exist following a true dystopia. Man has always existed in a state of providing the question before providing the answer. If someone could create a Utopia and presented it to people today, the most common answer would be "But why? Things aren't that bad". However if a true dystopia existed and the same idea was introduced people would be more ready to take on the suggestions.
This can be thought of as social evolution. The laws of evolution state that evolutionary change follows great climatic changes. Most of Humanity's greatest social achievements always follow a time of strife. For example the United Nations and the Bill of Human Rights followed one of the most devestating events in human history.

I'm afraid things are that bad right now. Well, I'm alright (jack) but there are massive numbers of people without food, medicine, education, or lemon-scented paper napkins.

And thats not even mentioning the people being bombed. If things, as they say, will get worse before they get better then can we please declare now worse than before get going on the 'better' thing.

Not that I'm a golden age of yesterday type, because I reckon that overall and in the long term things are improving. I'd rather be here now than here 2000 years ago, where there were a few mud huts, the roman army and no computers.

But I do wonder what it might be like here in London in 4000 AD. Wet, probably.