Is it really about happiness? — TheMadFool
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.
Think about addiction on an individual level. — 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.
In my opinion our societys in Europe are based on practical utopias. — 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