No. I defined it as a society that satisfies peoples needs and provides opportunity for people to satisfy their own and one another's wants. This should not be such a difficult concept, since all functional societies have a mandate to do this. They just don't do it very well. — Vera Mont
What is a better way then? The problem is people believing they can solve this problem to the kind of degree you may be speaking of?
I say that if we don't have to fight over the necessities, we are better able to choose and create the luxuries. You say the luxuries must come with the package. You demand more than is possible and then argue that it's not possible.
A place where there is nothing left to try and nothing left to desire is not Utopia - it's death.
If you prefer fish and I prefer pasta, we don't need to fight over either. All we need are some very basic laws regarding personal liberty and responsibility. (Not the million contentious laws we have been trying to uphold and knock down in civilized countries.) — Vera Mont
I would say this is an instance of oversimplifying the problem. Hopefully the next response will outline this a little ...
And all these differences grate on you? You want to kill all those 'other' people? Me, I find uniformity rather a bore. — Vera Mont
No? This is not about me. Kill? That is a bizarre interpretation of what I outlined.
Some may find uniformity 'boring' but what if others do not. This would be something that would grate between a group of variety loving people and those who prefer conformity (liberal and conservative principles as an example we see commonly enough in the political world).
The fundamental point being people have different preferences and will wish to live in different ways that conflict with others. One way to deal with this is with uniformity. This would create a common belief and worldview among everyone at the price of everyone being more or less identical in abilities, preferences, wants and needs, etc.,. Maybe there is some room here to argue more for this case but it would be a hard sell.
The very basic laws and liberties are not so very basic when others are looking in at them. What seems reasonable and fair to some may seem obnoxious and repressive to others. This is DUE TO the variety of views different people hold, so adhering to set laws and liberties would be a type of conformity.
It is contradictory to set liberal laws because these laws inhibit freedoms. Of course people can, and do, move the goal posts by stating they are 'protecting liberties' rather than 'enforcing them' but both essentially amount to the same thing.
If the only basics you mean are in fact the basic means of sustaining life and giving everyone equal opportunities this does not solve the issue either, it only pushes it down the road (which maybe just the way we do things as a species?). To explicate further, I mean there is a problem with deciding on how equality is measured. The difficulty, again, lies in individual differences and preferences. A carpenter has more use of wood than a potter, yet if we are looking at beginning from an equal footing then both would possess equal access to the resources clay and wood. This 'equality' is nonsensical and as services and resources are measured out between peoples the disparities will multiple. The problem will then become exacerbated as the communication and sense of relation thins in larger populations.
In fact, I don't see the logic of variety as an obstacle to social cohesion. — Vera Mont
We are talking about a proposed utopian society. You are advocating for aiming for a utopian society. I am saying it does not work and it is harmful too.
The difference between people's becomes exacerbated because we are limited to social circles of 150 (generally speaking). What one group may do can effect another far away - as we well know - and the distances involved are social more than physical. Meaning, a mile apart is nothing if the cultures and preferences are conflicting. If they live closer then they can come to understand their immediate nieghbours a little, but short term they would grate and longer term new preferences and differences would arise and the whole process would repeat again.
Of course one solution to this problem would be for conflicting societies to live at a greater distance from each other assuming both had limitless resources.
If you cannot see how variety is an obstacle to social cohesion I do not know what to say. I am not saying it is always an obstacle only that it can grow more easily when populations and groups form with different ideas to other members of the population. If there is variety in societies this will happen. If you wish to contain so social cohesion is maintained then this inhibits some liberties of some people giving rise to inequalities within the 'basic laws' of personal liberty and responsibility.
To Steelman the position of a society containing multiple ideas and views, I guess we could take the 150 community into account and then devise a scheme that allowed for a fluid communication between differing groups so as to balance out conflicts. Something like having communities structured in such a manner so as to optimise overlap between communities. The vaster the overall population though the more unwieldly the scheme would become (parallels with the modern world in some ways!) and even if such a scheme could be achieved successfully how long would it last? I ask this because such a monolith of societal networking would effectively reach a point where the integrity of the structure would buckle under the strain of expansions and diversification. With growing equilibrium a greater decrease in integrity would ensue. It may even lead to complete collapse, or possibly human society would actually find another way to hold things together.
I'm not opting for it. The option was never open to me. I'm saying it's theoretically possible. And also that having a destination in mind is useful in choosing one's path; that a clear vision of how society should work is helpful in making incremental improvements. .... — Vera Mont
I know you are not opting for it. I have said that trying to improve things is fair enough, but I am arguing against (strongly opposing) the scheme of aiming for some proposed ideal. I can certainly see the attraction in thinking this AND have thought like this before in the past. Not any longer though. I just see people massively overreaching and potentially making things much worse rather than slightly better more often than not.
I have guarded this by saying I would wholly endorse this mentality for personal individual exploration and shaping ones own future, BUT not as a sensible approach for shaping society as a whole.
The 'clear vision; people may have of some proposed future utopia is too often simplistic and prone to tunnel-vision.
In actuality, we're just hanging on the precipice of extinction by our fingernails. Survival is still possible, but it's not going to be any picnic. — Vera Mont
Actuality? No. Not in the slightest. Well ... in terms of any species on the planet in general, and the entire (pre)history of the human race, we have always been on a 'precipice' of sorts. I can give you that and no more.
Did you look at the book by Nozick btw? It is an interesting read. I have mostly focused on the final chapter regarding 'utopia'. Perhaps if you find the time to browse it we can share thoughts on it and have some kind of common ground to talk on.
Is anything I have been saying made any sense whether you agree or not?