How did you two get all sexist in this disucssion? — Chet Hawkins

Without even trying. I said a good society would let women make their own decisions as to the bearing of young. My purpose in saying so had little to do with sex and much to do with overpopulation. My naive notion of a good society is a community of self-regulating individuals who all contribute to and share in the welfare of the whole.

The willingness to fight comes through the belief in the extent of the 'evil' perceived. — I like sushi

And the threat being perceived. The protection of loved kin and territory is also a strong animal instinct. But there is a huge difference between willingness to fight for one's convictions and loyalties, and a desire for war.

In your "good" society, you would get something for nothing. Fine, but not from me. — Tarskian

How does not being forced to procreate equate to getting something for nothing? Your reasoning, as often happens, eludes me.

In the West, men have heard women loud and clear. That is why men don't provide anymore. If you manage to provide for yourself, fine. If not, then also fine. That is obviously not our problem, is it? — Tarskian

And this is your idea of a good society?

If you don't like the deal, then you bring your body elsewhere, while I bring my wallet elsewhere. Simple, no? — Tarskian

And this is your idea of a good society?

Outside the West, there are still lots of women who eagerly want to exchange favors. — Tarskian

And that is your idea of a good society.

My personal opinion is if you are not willing to kill an animal you should not eat meat. — I like sushi

That's how we turned vegetarian. When we moved to the country, my OG asked where he should build the chicken coop. I said, we're not having chickens. Why not? Because I won't kill them and I bet you won't, either. But that's hypocritical. Yup. So, let's try not eating what we don't kill. Okay. It's worked for 40 years, so, I guess...

But that's a digression from the question of war. If men want to go war, and men have pretty been in charge of things through history, why has there ever been conscription? I'm supposing that the men who run things and want wars are not the same ones who actually have to fight the wars. Most of the latter would prefer to be left alone to work their farms or looms or forges and play with their kids on a sunny day.

As long as society agrees that men have no obligation to provide for women who only recognize that they have rights but do not accept any obligation, everything should be fine. If women have no obligations, then men shouldn't have any either. Everybody rows his own boat, while people with only rights and no obligations cannot sit in mine. — Tarskian

Why should women in a good society need men to 'provide for' them? Every member of a society has obligations, but they do not include submitting one's body to another's will.

In Australia we often regarded strident American patriotism as amusing - the hand on heart stuff is something alien to the Australian sensibility of my youth. But since the late 1990's, we've begun to resemble the US in as much as we borrow their identity politics and right wing tropes. — Tom Storm

Ad yet Australians (relation to natives notwithstanding) have always been valiant in their aid of their sovereign (who was not even of their physical country) and of the Commonwealth, just like Canadians. We're independent now, but we didn't stop being patriots. The traditions and loyalties persist.
Neither Australians nor Canadians tend to be especially bellicose or demonstrative by temperament. The American jingoism had always struck me as 'protesting too much', as if trying to convince themselves. But maybe they just like theater - to do everything big and splashy and shiny and noisy.
I guess it's contagious... Hey, we're good patriots, too!

Post agreement utopia where everyone in that society has the same criteria, ideal and vision where the only disagreements would come prior to its founding then AI would not be necessary in that regard. — kindred

No, that will take two generations of contentment and new horizons. The first fifty years or so would be full of strife, claims and counterclaims, old feuds and grudges, gripes about lost kingdoms, redistributed wealth, eroded superiorities, and the great big headache (even for AI) of placing all the displaced people and establishing universal reproductive rights for women.

Yet this paints a static ideal of what a utopia is, for it is after all a perfect society without the need for a political class because those ideals would be entrenched in every individual. — kindred

What makes you think it would static. People don't cease to aspire, tinker and imagine just because they have have enough to eat and up-to-date vaccinations. People don't stop getting on one another's nerves, bickering and jockeying for advantage just because they're not allowed to subjugate others. People don't stop being human when they're happy - but at least they behave like better people.

Perpetual peace would be the norm and wars would be anti-utopian and unnecessary because in such a society there would be nothing to disagree on when it come to this fundamental such as perpetual peace. — kindred

Peace between nations is generally desired by most individuals. While some enjoy the idea of killing (they're not the ones recruited for the peace-keeping force), nobody likes trenches, field rations and having their limbs blown off.
Internal disagreements wouldn't be political, but there is still plenty to disagree about - the state of your neighbour's yard, his taste in music, the behaviour of his child and dog, the way he cut off, willy-nilly, a branch of your cherry tree just because it hung over his gazebo, and then, of course, how he stole the girl you were sweet on in middle school....

There could however be disagreements but they would be constructive or philosophical disagreements such as that found in academia rather than political because there would no longer be a need for politics. — kindred

Lively international conference on all kinds of academic subjects - yes! - and the way forward in technology and how best to deal with the detritus of climate change damage.

Since many people seem incapable of loving other people, one wonders how they fair with the nation state. — Tom Storm

It's easy to declare a passionate adherence to something that makes very few demands.

Such states and its citizens would be required to be collectively enlightened to avoid wars by being more collaborative than confrontational when it came to differing interests. In addition a world government level of politics rather than nation states would eventually lead to a great minimisation of wars if not completely making them redundant. — kindred

War can be made redundant - along with the unimaginable waste of resources we currently plough into armaments, spying, vehicles and other expensive with no purpose but destruction and no possible fate but obsolescence. Not to mention the people, lands and infrastructure wars destroy. Of course, to accomplish that, a world government would be required with the power to arbitrate disagreements and a compact, mobile enforcement agency made up of armed forces from all member nations. (That in itself - an international fraternity of global police - would help to cement lasting peace.)
The human rights set out by he UN could work fine. Add mutual assistance among nations and a bar against oppressors who seek to curtail other people's rights, plus universal general education at least to Gr. 10 level, heavy on life science.

Since almost no three people can agree on whether or how such a world government should be constituted or how it should function, the whole thing will have to be handed over to a sophisticated AI program with control of the energy and a prime directive to promote the welfare of the planet, including humankind. (I know, lots of people would scream about that, too.)

A utopia could in theory be isolated from the rest of the world where a sufficiently advanced civilisation has no need to impose its ideals on other nation states and sufficiently strong enough to be unbothered by wars waged on it by other nation states or actors — kindred

On another planet, maybe.

So, for a starters, according to you, people should not seek to improve their own lives because there are other people who are poor? — Tarskian

Seek to, sure. Options available at the bottom of society: nothing even remotely as you so quaintly depict. All you need is faith? Get real!

"Love" is a great big, amorphous, elastic Santa sack of a word.

For some people, love of country means being loyal to the hierarchy of that country - reverence for the monarch, the president, the constitution, the state religion or whatever system of command is in place. That's pretty much the same as the need to belong, to feel secure in one's place and function within the society. Such people are usually willing to do whatever is asked of them by the system.

For some, it means a culture, a people with language, history and traditions in common. Again, this is about belonging, but more like affection for one's family. Even if some of its members are annoying and troublesome, even if our ancestors did despicable things, even if we can see room for improvement in many of our customs, we can tolerate, even humour our family members, and defend them against all outsiders.

For some, it's an attachment to the geographical place itself, like being rooted - the wild landscape, the productive farmland, the rivers and lakes, seashore, mountains, cities, bridges, prairies, deserts - whatever one's native country looks and sounds and smells like. While such a lover of place may find similar landscapes elsewhere, they can never shake the nostalgia for home. And if some stranger wants to take that home-land from them, or despoil it, they will take up arms, however pacific they may otherwise be.

For some, it's strong belief in the ideology of their nation; a set of beliefs that supports a shared self-image, which is the national identity. These are convictions (or delusions) so intensely held that people kill and die for them. When the image begins to fray, the mirror is tarnished, and lovers of country questions their own belief in it, and maybe even the veracity of the national narrative itself, one of two things happen. A frank discussion, airing of different views, and reform, or that country lapses into social unrest, internal strife, sometimes civil war.

And that wonderful lifestyle is open to all the 712 million people who subsist under $2.15 a day.
Not one frickin' clue!

So, choose another ruling mafia, and go where you are treated best. — Tarskian

You have no frickin' clue, have you?

I believe this all takes place in a certain setting we call society, no? Seems people (by default) have influence over you by default. — schopenhauer1

They do, like it or not. And vice versa. But the influence of each on each is so diluted by numbers that it makes no discernible ripple in our personal decision-making.

We can prevent it for others though, and follow the Pessimistic framework I laid out. — schopenhauer1

By all means, go ahead and do what you think best.
I don't believe there is a "we" for me to prevent or understand or influence.

"Is THIS universe worth continuing if it doesn't meet those type of perfected/utopian standards?". — schopenhauer1

Not up to you or me whether the universe continues. Chances are, it will proceed regardless of our sense of its worth. If you don't want to stay in it, it's you prerogative to leave. When the effort becomes greater than the rewards, I'll take my own leave. I do not presume to direct other people, either way.

Seems like bashing on Stalin really dismantles whatever the Soviet Union was or became after him. — Shawn

What Russia became after Stalin was the devolution of the Stalin era. The satellite states more or less broke away but inherited the basic structure of government and its agencies. He had set up the apparatus, which is still working for Putin. In between, a few dozen capitalists, abetted by local sharks, amassed fortunes and a swarm of opportunistic religious zealots wrought havoc with people's stupefied minds. Still not a whole lot to do with communism.

So you didn't directly address this version of utopia either. — schopenhauer1

no, I didn't. Both non-being and dial-a-wish are perfect in their self-containment, so I didn't see anything to address.

But then again, in just a few months time, you can for example become a licensed truck driver. — Tarskian

...especially if you have kidney stone, three kids and a wife working two jobs...
Okay, so then France will welcome all 4000 of us?

There are solutions but people who are pessimistic will not see these solutions but only see everything as one big insurmountable problem. — Tarskian

The people at the bottom of society don't have the same solutions available to them as people with three months' computer bootcamp and a prestigious resume. But spiritual advisors can keep them afloat with promises of pie in the sky when they die - only they'd better not hurry death!

Was the failure of communism mainly due to pursuing happiness not as a methodology or process; but, as the final goal of the system itself? — Shawn

Happiness wasn't even on the agenda.
The final goal of the idea was the physical welfare of every member of society. The interim goals were to wrest power from the owner class, redistribute wealth, rationalize the means of production and make sure every member of society had food, work, shelter and access to services.
The final goal of the 'leaders' was to take over the rulership from the upper class. Their interim goals were to eliminate their rivals, silence dissent, consolidate their power and control over land, industry, commerce and social organization by appointing their political lackeys - however incompetent, to all key positions and giving unlimited license to their enforcement agencies.

I think the gist here is associated with the simple fact that Soviet communists were really sincere about their intentions of improving the life of every individual, the collective, that is. — Shawn

They were killed or jailed early on; their adherents relegated to positions of no influence.
Communism didn't fail. It was smothered in the cradle.

Is this meant to be practical advice? — Tarskian

Not really. It's a comment on dysfunctional societies.

They can keep you afloat while you evaluate your options. Sometimes it is indeed preferable to start all over again elsewhere. — Tarskian

The poor and afflicted have options? Other countries welcome them? Nor do spiritual advisors 'keep you afloat', unless you mean that some monastic orders run homeless shelters and hospices.

As a digital nomad and nomad capitalist, I do not hesitate to engage in extensive jurisdiction shopping. — Tarskian

How nice for you to be able to do that 'at the bottom of society', buoyed up, no doubt, by your pastor.

People at the bottom of society or other vulnerable individuals do not always choose to suffer from deep mental anguish. — Tarskian

Yes, they do. They're bullied into it. More appropriately, they should be mad as hell. Instead of escaping into 'spiritual' whatnot, they should rise up and fix the bastards that shoved them down to the bottom of a bad society.

They may need help from others as well as the inner strength to keep striving for improvement in their situation. — Tarskian

And that's the point of a good society - or Utopia. Not pie in the sky.

In my opinion, synagogues, churches, and mosques are well-positioned to offer material and spiritual assistance. In my opinion, someone in serious trouble needs both. — Tarskian

Bullshit. The pastor, imam or rabbi may offer some psychological support, family relations guidance, community adjustment advice, but they can't do squat about your economic or legal woes.

A society can only survive through history if it can keep its very bottom alive and afloat. Otherwise, the whole thing will just keep eroding, with every new bottom disappearing, until nothing will be left. — Tarskian

An interesting thought-experiment, tops of societies continuing to exist after the bottoms have eroded. Try this at home, see how far up the pyramid you get.
Then, just for fun, try it upside-down. How many top tiers can erode before the bottom one starts dying?

This merely means that you cannot make use of spirituality to address deep mental anguish. — Tarskian

No, it means you don't need the deep mental anguish in the first place; you're imposing it on yourself for no good reason.

If a society as a whole could survive without spirituality, the history books would definitely mention it.
They don't. — Tarskian

Because history wasn't written until after people had been imprisoned by agriculture, walled cities and stratification of society.

Every misbehavior tends to be its own punishment. That is why there is no compulsion in religion. — Tarskian

Racks, disembowellings, beheadings and pyres in the public square notwithstanding... you're a free agent. Good to know.

I think you missed the entire idea behind #1. — schopenhauer1

Which was? This can't happen, so why bother thinking about it?
So why bother responding to it?

But yes, we can try. — schopenhauer1

We could. It's harder now we've overcomplicated and pissed on everything, but I guess we could try.

In other words, isn’t being the same person throughout space and time an essential element of what it is to being a human? — Thales

Isn't being the same reindeer throughout space and time an essential element of what it is to be reindeer?
It's an essential part of consciousness. The only uniquely human aspect of this is talking about it.

Have I fallen into the abyss? — Thales

No, you just dug an all to familiar philosophical hole.

If so, can someone throw in a lifeline and pull me out? — Thales

Only you can do that. Hint: change your perspective.

And if you are able to pull me out, how will you know it’s still me?! — Thales

By not having questioned your identity in the first place.

God coulda this, god coulda that... No, he bloody couldn't, because God doesn't exist!

But what if these are just post-facto excuses for a less-optimal world that we cannot control? What if these are simply psychological justifications that we broadcast over and over the generations to make sure people don't get resentful?

It doesn't matter whether people are resentful or grateful, happy or miserable; the world is what it is. Whether you make up excuses or justifications for why this is the right way for it to be, or rant and rail against a cruel universe, this is what you have to cope with. Some of us are lucky enough to experience more pleasure than pain, or, indeed, very little hardship at all - and these lucky ones are most likely to tell the less fortunate to bear their burdens gladly; that some divinity has a plan for them, if only they persevere and look for the silver lining, keep the faith, whatever.

Each person can, in some way, however small, make their little bit of the world less awful, less miserable, less frightening - for themselves and others. Some have prodigious talents, resources and opportunities to make a bigger portion of the world better for many of his fellow organic entities. If people pooled their talents, resources and opportunities, they could create something very close to the fabled human-based Utopia.

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death. — kindred

Without pain - no; so long as biology and physics prevail, biological entities equipped with a nervous system cannot avoid some pain. A good society would inflict as little pain as possible and alleviate as much of the unavoidable pain of its members as possible.

Without suffering - unlikely. The word is poorly defined in the first place; one 'suffers' unrequited love, boredom, nightmares, halitosis, bone cancer, the prattle of fools... so many natural human experiences are described as suffering.

Without disease - again, unlikely in an organic world. A good society would develop protocols and methods to deal with disease, so that it causes the least possible damage.

Without wars - sure. A single society need never go to war within itself. In a good one, the possibility would not even arise. However, if there is a second society, which isn't very good, that casts a covetous eye on the territory or resources of the peaceful society, war may be unavoidable.

Without poverty - easy as pie. A good society divides its pies, loaves, pickled herrings and apples equitably. There is no natural cause for poverty: if humans don't create it, poverty can't exist.

Without even death - no. Sorry: dying is an inherent attribute of life.

whether it’s philosophically possible. — kindred

Sure. Where do you suppose we got the concept and the word?

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death? — kindred

Everything an animal experiences is real. Lust, comfort, affection, hunger, relief, loss, confusion, joy...
It doesn't need a meaning; it just is. If humans didn't twist their brains around purpose and meaning and the deeper whatever, their life would be easier.

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human. — kindred

That's not what Utopia is. Utopia is just a country where you can live, be happy, sad, silly, creative, responsible, angry, competent, honest, amorous or whatever combination of traits, abilities, moods and potentials you are, without other people bullying you, taking your stuff, forcing their beliefs on you, refusing you help, or preventing you from making your best possible contribution to the welfare and happiness of your neighbours.

Huh?

I mean, I failed miserably to understand that message.

I for one have had a few bosses that are incapable of doing the job they have me do. — TiredThinker

Most bosses are. And maybe you could do their job as well as they do, and maybe you could do the jobs of every other employee - or maybe not. I don't see the connection to higher or lower moral standards. Presumably, every one of those people is equally capable of lying, cheating, backstabbing and pilfering, but some refrain more consistently than others.

Children learn their behaviour from many sources, of which public entertainment (including video games) is a considerable part. A major influence, too, is the peer group. My teenaged son once told me, "Practically all my generation steal." (Practically none of mine did!) I'm sure most of their parents taught them that stealing is wrong, but by about age 10, parents have very little influence. Teachers very rarely have any moral suasion - that is, only a few, rare, charismatic teachers leave a mark on their students' character.

Whatever their own shortcomings, parents have only a few years time and limited power to instill values in their offspring. The society, its ambient ethic and aesthetic, takes over once the child is out of the home for half of its waking hours. Which is fitting, because the child will have to navigate all of its adult life in a social environment that's different from the one in which their parents operate.

I have no need for people to follow standards, but I create people and now they follow standards. — schopenhauer1

And are those moral standards higher (i.e. more stringent, more exacting, more rigorous) than the ones you set for yourself?

I went into town today and got a brand new space-age library card. It's a little wee tag that goes on my keychain. Go away for a mere decade, and they change everything! Floor layout, organization, procedure, available services, access - everything.
Anyway, I borrowed The Doors of Eden , all 597 pages of it, which I have to finish by my dental appointment on the 20th. Better start going to bed earlier.

That is to also say that, "bring up" a child is a (de facto) political act. — schopenhauer1

Fine. But it doesn't answer the OP question.
If you don't raise kids, you have no values to impart.
If you don't generate offspring but bring some up that were generated by other people, you do have to set standards of behaviour for them. For a parent, that's unavoidable. And to some extent, the standards are pre-set by the society in which they live, because nobody wants to nurture a child until puberty, just to watch them fall prey to a regime or neighbourhood inimical to differentness.
However, whether those standard are higher or lower than the parents hold themselves to depend on several variables.... possibly including the origin and early life of the children in question.

Worth reading that whole essay. There is other material available, and he may give you footnotes and references.

It all lies there as to what and why we are wanting other people born to get out of life. — schopenhauer1

Lots of people have kids without having thought it out. Just seems to be the natural thing to do. (It is.) Many couples want a baby as a testament to their love - something wonderful they create together. Some people just want a kind of immortality. Some want "someone who belongs to me"; someone to love and cherish. Some have a kid or more foisted on them by an insistent partner eager to replicate. Some do it as a duty to the nation and their forebears.

None of these motives determine the ethical upbringing of the resultant progeny.
Here's one that might: The child was begotten as a pledge to the Church, in return for some divine favour, and is raised for the priesthood or cloister. Not so common these days....

Talk about blindsight, I don’t think I would have made that blunder if we had this conversation in person. — praxis

Interesting observation! Worth a topic on its own? Must think about ways to formulate a question.

I meant no disrespect to you or your mother. I apologize if you feel I've been disrespectful or vulgar. — praxis

That's no problem, though the absurd extreme was uncalled-for. I just think I've explained as much as I'm prepared to.

Many things we observe, if not most, are beneath our conscious awareness, and we can react to them emotionally. — praxis

Yes. And machines don't.

I'm imagining baby Vera Mont in her crib expressing her needs (not desires yet?) and your mother trying to satisfy those needs. The cries are relentless. — praxis

Needs - identification - desire: it's a transition over some period of time. Forgive me if I don't recall minute-to-minute events of my first few weeks. You are imagining incorrectly. My mother was attentive and often anticipated needs; I was a healthy, happy infant and - if my parents' and relatives' are reliable witness - hardly ever cried.

How could you possibly have known what you wanted so specifically at such a young age? — praxis

How old do you have to be to distinguish feeling cold from, from feeling tired from feeling hungry?

I'm pretty sure you had no trouble differentiating between a steak sandwich, grilled asparagus, and mama's teat. — praxis

I think you've reached the limit of my indulgence-tether.

So you didn't conceive desires as an infant, yet you still had them. — praxis

Wrong order. Had needs. Learned to identify them. Received appropriate care. Developed desire. Learned to differentiate and express desires.
I may have used the word 'conceive' in an ambiguous context. It means initiate a biological process, and also to think of; originate a new idea. Cognition begins with the first, develops into the sacond and culminates in the last.

Y'll take care now!

Dae ye no' ken I'm a hard-nosed, Glaswegian bitch from hell...with the fuckin' filthiest mouth ye widnae touch wi' a barge-pole. Ma Hielan' grannie is worser than dried heather stuck up yer arse. — Amity

They'd shoot you dead, just for being incomprehensible. Red-blooded, gun-totin' 'Merickans hate it when they don't understand something.

As for Pratchett on audio, I'm holding out for Paul McGann. He did a bunch of Doctor Who stories and a GK Chesterton that I wouldn't mind hearing.