Utopia vs Dystopia discussion

[Jack]

Perhaps I am too much the engineer, but I don't see any utopia/dystopia discussion as productive. I'd rather see social systems that represent improvements, rather than perfection.

Someone upthread mentioned the problems of variance, J.P. Morgan's utopia being Upton Sinclair's dystopia, for an example. I've always thought that improving the absolute value of the worst-off members of a society was the best possible goal. The top 1% may improve as well (in fact they almost certainly will) but so long as the bottom is rising, there probably won't be any pressure for revolutionary change. In many cases, if both the top and the bottom are falling together for an external reason, there probably won't be such pressure. It's only if the top is rising and the bottom is falling (like 1790's France) that you get really bad stuff likely happening.

People always want to forget spreads and only look at some average or median measure. That's probably why I liked "The Dispossessed", LeGuin showed several facets, good and bad of her societies.

Maybe Bentham should have said "...the least bad for fewest number" as the goal of a just society. It's just not very stirring.

[Jim]

Just to say that I felt that "The Dispossessed" is a good one to bring into the discussion. LeGuin nicely showed three systems, all with their good and bad points, yet all had proponents who claimed they were systems on their way to becoming utopias even if they hadn't got there

[Melinda]

I know Star Trek didn't originate as a book, but the Federation seems pretty Utopian, and that's one of the things I like about it. They still get plenty of drama from outside sources. I'd like to read more books with utopian societies. The fad now is quite dystopian.

[Smallo]

That's why I want a Star Trek series set exclusively in utopian earth.

[Melinda]

Smallo, that would be awesome.

[Smallo]

Unfortunately we're probably only two who wants an earth only based Star Trek series.

[Melinda]

Then, one of us will have to write it. :)

[Neil]

I'm your third, Melinda and Smallo :)

[Art]

I want in on that mission, too, please. Sounds like a great idea.

Arr

[Art]

Oops. "Art"
(IPod keyboard)

[Neil]

I thought that was your pirate impression :P
Space pirate? :)

[Steph]

I thought the point of depicting utopias in fiction is as a device to show how they're unattainable, at least in the long run. Examining real society, that sort of thing. Or just purely hypothetical, like the society examined by Plato in Republic. Are there any examples of long-lived utopias in fiction?

[Leigh]

Steph wrote: "I thought the point of depicting utopias in fiction is as a device to show how they're unattainable, at least in the long run. Examining real society, that sort of thing. Or just purely hypothetical, like the society examined by Plato in Republic. Are there any examples of long-lived utopias in fiction?"

Lost Horizon .

[Melinda]

I think that there's true utopia (really good for everyone), which is impossible. Then there are utopian-ish societies (pretty good for most people and not horrible for anyone). So often sci fi is dystopian and dark, but I hope for something better in our future, and would like to see more novels where humankind (not a tyrannical government) has created a better society.

[Humberto]

Steph. 'Are there any examples of long living Utopias?'

A practical utopia can be achieved. That is a system that is optimum. It cannot guarantee personal happiness.

I am writing a series with that in mind.

[M.L.]

Leigh wrote: "Steph wrote: "I thought the point of depicting utopias in fiction is as a device to show how they're unattainable, at least in the long run. Examining real society, that sort of thing. Or just pure..."

Yes, Lost Horizon. Very interesting approach and factors in the different character's perspectives and asks the reader to weigh it as well.

[Smallo]

Just watched Star Trek ID which confirms stories in working but imperfect utopia are possible:

1. Personal: parents with sick child (as old diseases are cured new ones appear especially given contact with aliens?)
2. Geopolitical: nation-states still exist but in less powerful capacity...

[Steph]

Leigh wrote: "Lost Horizon ."

I've not read that; thanks for the recommendation.


Humberto wrote: "A practical utopia can be achieved. That is a system that is optimum. It cannot guarantee personal happiness."

Without personal happiness, what's the point? It would treat people as mere machines (Hellstrom's Hive springs to mind, albeit with a shudder).

I'd be interested in how you could define an 'optimum' system. I work on government social security policy and I know from experience there will always be someone or something ready to throw a spanner in the works of any carefully-crafted system. Real life is fickle like that.

[Humberto]

Optimum in a system is a computational maxima. In multidimensional systems there could be several. It is a difficult Mathematical problem.
With more powerful computers and with people not concerned about petty issues like $ or power, an AI could administer a society optimally.
The 1st issue in an utopia is not to have material needs. This alone reduces the fight for power.
Right now $ buys and corrupts everybody.

At present, there are more goods and food than $ in the hands of people. If somebody is hungry in America, and in most parts of the world, it is because they don't have $. Not because there is no food. To me that means that we are getting close to an economy of abundance. Under those conditions the economy must adapt and change.

In a SF future of abundance, an utopian system could be optimal. I don't think it could be perfect.

[Humberto]

Most people would be happy. Not like machines. They would have to find their own personal happiness.
A system which guaranties happiness would be rigid and rule based. That is NOT utopia.

[Melinda]

I agree with Humberto's definition of a practical Utopia: it's a system where everyone's physical and basic mental needs can reasonably be met, giving them a chance to find their own happiness. I think that in order for it to work, there would have to be increased societal tolerance and goodwill too, which might be the trickiest part, but I'm hopeful.

[Melinda]

P.S. In a utopian-ish society, the people who are unhappy wouldn't be unhappy because of the system. There are other reasons. Thus comes the drama for all our utopian novels. :)

[Steph]

Melinda wrote: "I agree with Humberto's definition of a practical Utopia: it's a system where everyone's physical and basic mental needs can reasonably be met, giving them a chance to find their own happiness..."

Well, maybe. I should have expanded upon my earlier comment about working in government. I've always found that there will be people ready to complain and blame the administration if things aren't quite right (and you can't please everyone all of the time), even if the fault isn't the government's. Society needs a hate figure, if you like; yet that seems to go against the ideals of a utopia. However, if you try to change people's attitudes against their nature, we're slipping back towards dystopia again.

[Melinda]

Steph, true that you can't please everyone. Too bad we can't make our hate figure something like "poverty," or "cancer." In my view of a utopia-ish society, people will still complain, but there won't be that much in the system really worth complaining about. Thus the "find your own happiness(or unhappiness)" thing.

Of course, when I say that there's nothing in the system really worth complaining about, that really depends on WHO decides what's good and bad and important--leading to a whole other can of worms, which could lead...to dystopia. Urg. It's never going to be true utopia. I just hope, like others have said, that somewhere in the future there's a possibility of improvement.

[Smallo]

Just listened to radio story about Swiss government's plan to give each citizen "guaranteed income" ($2-3k/month). Initial thought is something like above would be foundation to kind of working utopia...

[Smallo]

"There will always be challenges and some of them will be positive in our lives when we grow enough to overcome them."

That's why more and more I'm inclined to conclude humans don't really want utopia because they want "challenges" to "overcome" lest they become bored.

As for the Swiss plan need to check details and think more about it. But initial thought is money might be enough to free some people from "working for living" so they could work on self-improvement like people in Star Trek utopian earth.

[Jim]

The problem is that in the Swiss case the money has to come from 'outside' which actually is the case of many utopias. Classic Greek democracy depended on the labour of slaves (and women but they weren't really people so didn't count) who had no say in the running of the system. So a Greek Utopia would depend upon the contributions from people 'outside' the utopia

[Humberto]

Not having to work on a 'wage slavery' situation does not preclude looking for opportunities, adventure and challenges. In reality it allows that. To have a job is not by any means an opportunity. For most people it is a miserable way of staying alive.

Moreover, productivity due to technological advances is higher everyday. Civilization is heading into an economy of abundance. Basic Income is a good way to give money to those who will not have a way to find work.

I am surprised that people who read SF cannot understand that a job is not indispensable. It is a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. Before people worked, mostly in agriculture. Now 3% work on agriculture and many of the jobs that we have are just to allow people to have a salary. They aren't indispensable.

Basic Income doesn't mean that you cannot work. It only means that your basic needs are covered. Whatever extra $ you try to make is up to you. Even with a job.

[MaryReadsRomance]

Humberto wrote: "Not having to work on a 'wage slavery' situation does not preclude looking for opportunities, adventure and challenges. In reality it allows that. To have a job is not by any means an opportunity. ..."

Have to agree with you. Having a "basic" standard income does not preclude "work". Some of the most innovative periods in history were a result of a populace having enough inherent wealth to educate the populace and to have excess leisure time to think, research, explore, write, invent, create, etc. The Egyptian, Greek, and Roman Empires; the Italian Renaissance; the Spanish and British Age of Exploration; the British Industrial Revolution; the Space Age were all fueled by an excess of wealth in materials and man power. While a few individuals and a small percentage of the population benefitted the most, the excess of wealth also trickled down resulting in the expansion of the ruling and the upper middle class, and creating a populace with enough leisure time to dedicate to or to fund and foster intellectual work beyond just eking out a basic living (i.e. food and shelter) and immediately practical applications.

[Smallo]

Some days I have lots of downtime at work. Today is one of those days. My mental strength is improving by reading/thinking/posting on this forum. In other downtimes my physical strength improves when I do push-ups. When I do actual "work" on the job I become physically weaker -- and mentally if I didn't listen to audiobooks, NPR and CBC.

I'm also surprised SF readers have difficulty imagining life beyond "working for a living" which is just necessary evil at best. Also given our forum how could anyone here not want a utopian version of "time enough at last" to read all the books we want and try to write our own books without being bothered with "working" for a living" and "meeting ends meet"?

[Smallo]

Just listened to radio comment from someone who can't imagine a utopian world without jobs and money. Just because homosapien humans can't imagine now doesn't mean they can't imagine and even create later.

[Smallo]

Again back to distinction between "work for living" and work for self improvement. My job work does nothing for me except meet basic needs because we live in reality that doesn't automatically provide that. My physical exercises, readings and writings improve me personally.

Problem is we think with limited early 21st century homosapien minds. Wouldn't be surprised if homosuperior or some other advanced species looks back and thinks how we wasted so much time on such drudgery. Maybe then they'll also read real utopian fiction without conflict and problems.

[Smallo]

In another part of radio story mentioned above is scientist discussed transferring human minds to machines to do extraordinary things like space travel -- he thought its a good thing -- just expanding notion of being human. I'm inclined to agree.

I vaguely remember...think it's in foundation series...a group of humans who live in a kind of utopian fortress of solitude. Each individual lives comfortably alone with little interaction. They hate sex because they perceive it as a vile and vulgar act.

Speaking of Matrix -- first film refers to early version of Matrix which was perfect world but failed because humans can't live without suffering and struggling. So seek books that have Matrix like utopias which are perfect worlds.