What would distinguish this practical utopia from modern society?

No chance in our lifetime. I think it is relatively easy to formulate a solution that would benefit everyone equally. The trouble is that you would have to peacefully convince all the rich that they can be happier with the bare essentials.

Human history tends to say otherwise. We all have special skills and appears that about a segment of the human species had the skill of cheating and stealing and are willing to do almost anything for wealth whatever their economic condition.

What would distinguish this practical utopia from modern society? — Reformed Nihilist

Much higher happiness and well being levels all round.

No chance in our lifetime. I think it is relatively easy to formulate a solution that would benefit everyone equally. The trouble is that you would have to peacefully convince all the rich that they can be happier with the bare essentials. — CasKev

I agree that the path to Practical Utiopia .... "Prutopia" if you will, is problematic. But that does not stop us from thinking what Prutopia would look like. What would a formula look like? Given that people are not equal, or expressed more positively - everyone is different, it seems to me that Prutopia needs to accommodate this fact. Some people are going to have rarer skills; some people are motivated to work harder for worldly wealth than others and so forth. So Prutopia needs to retain the concept of rationing by money and rewarding work with money. However, given how much automation is increasingly easy Prutopia should be able to offer choice of lifestyle along a work/consume spectrum. The "lowest" end of this spectrum however could still offer a reasonably high standard of living for those who choose not to work or only work a minimal amount.

Much higher happiness and well being levels all round. — Jake Tarragon

How much higher, and how are happiness and well being measured?

What would distinguish this practical utopia from modern society? — Reformed Nihilist

Sustainability for one. Going for greater happiness is a lower priority than something that can last.

Sustainability for one. Going for greater happiness is a lower priority than something that can last. — noAxioms

Same question. How much sustainability is required to be considered a "practical utopia" and how do you measure it?

Sustainability for one. Going for greater happiness is a lower priority than something that can last.
— noAxioms

Same question. How much sustainability is required to be considered a "practical utopia" and how do you measure it?

It's one of the two main problems with utopias: there is no way to even determine an abstract ideal. There is even less of a chance to determine ones that will successfully compel its denizens to all happily embrace them.

Well, depends on what everything we want in this prutopia. On what scale do we want it? What about environment? Even considerably slowing down the climate change, not even talking of stopping it or reversing the damage done, contradicts both global and smaller scale prutopia.

Was that a reply to me? If so, it didn't address what I said.

How much higher, and how are happiness and well being measured? — Reformed Nihilist

Higher rather than ultra-high.

There are various types of happiness - e.g.

economic security
being close to a few people
being self confident
feeling motivated
having lots of free time and being able to choose how to spend it
having sexual/gender freedom
having knowledge of the world - a personal philosophy

Prutopia would enable all happinesses for all people - or at least it would maximize the chances of all happinesses flourishing within an individual.

I think you're missing the point. Your question is non specific. Your above response is non specific. If you seriously want to make the world better, you need to identify specific deficits in well being, and set specific, measurable and achievable standards to meet, and at that point plans can be made to meet those standards individually.

Think about addiction on an individual level. The more severe cases require a person to spend years recovering; the process is long, and can take a lifetime. Apply that idea to humanity as a whole; the 6,000+ years of history as we know it, and every aspect of the failure of the human will that comes with it; the state of the human condition. Can that same human will alone bring about even the extremely conservative Utopia you're describing?

A way of organizing society in terms of delivering happiness and well being for all?

Everyone who think at himself as a philosopher would have to deal with this question.
I agree with those who says that there are many models of society and not only one model alone. In my opinion our societys in Europe are based on practicals utopias. There are many models that coexist in Europe. For instance : anarchy, Social democracy, communism, liberal socialism, democracy, liberalism, dictatorship, etc. What are these if not all utopistic social forms. These models are all imperfect, coexistent and push parliaments to make laws. Laws that make the model true and actually existing. Our society are on the way of the perfection, but how far the target is? We only have to hope that along the way won't be accidents, war and so on... this would be the very and real Prutopia.

I think we need to rethink the notion of Utopia or Prutopia.

Is it really about happiness? Me thinks the heirarchy of needs is still not clear enough to formulate any plans, practical or not. To me, goodness comes before happiness. I know the two are tied together at a fundamental level - goodness is a means to achieve happiness and all. But, to me, we should place goodness above happiness and make it the primary objective of Utopia/Prutopia. Why? Happiness follows naturally from goodness but the converse isn't true; and where goodness is missing, happiness won't last for long.

This view agrees with the Buddhist point of view. Heaven is a happy place but the Gods, who have human failings, must cycle through Samsara. Only the truly good, like the Buddha, are truly happy.

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

What would distinguish this practical utopia from modern society? — Reformed Nihilist

Oh dear... :s

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 — Jake Tarragon

This is what I was referring to but this is only partially relevant. Your Prutopia must be sustainable on some basis. Your objective is happiness. What are the means by which you'll achieve it? The only instrument that makes Pruotpia sustainable is goodness. Why? I'm simplifying here so judge me leniently. Goodness ensures that happiness isn't ''bad'' as you described it. You're aware of the problem that's why you spoke of it.

If that's the case, why not just change priorities? Make goodness your priority. Happiness, ''good'' happiness, naturally follows. I don't accept the argument that we're good because it makes us happy. No! Because goodness involves the distinction between ''good'' happiness and ''bad'' happiness and this is crucial if your Prutopia is to be self-sustaining and not spiral into chaos.

A lot of "goodness" requires misfortune or badness for it to be useful or effective, thus making it a poor choice to maximize. The "goodness" in wishing others to be happy can exist as a control on happiness however.

Your objective is happiness. What are the means by which you'll achieve it? — TheMadFool

Freedom of choice is the instrument of happiness. As an example, and as mentioned earlier, the freedom to place oneself anywhere on the work-consume spectrum leads to wellbeing and economic happiness. Prutopia must never be about one size fits all. When one accepts that, then many arguments and divisions between citizens vanish. The Universal Basic Income would allow choice regarding self placement on the work-consume spectrum.

Interesting thread for sure. Hopefully later i will contribute. But for now, may i offer an alternative to "Prutopia"? How about "Practopia", perhaps? For some reason, i somehow keep mis-reading Prutopia as prude-topia. :) Which it is not, of course! Just an off-the-wall suggestion to take or leave.

Thank you. Carry on! (Y)

What would distinguish this practical utopia from modern society?
— Reformed Nihilist
Oh dear... :s — Agustino

I think i may know what you are getting at. But at second glance of RN's quote, i think it is actually a fair request to the original poster to define what he meant by "practical Utopia", before even discussing whether such a thing is possible or not, etc. That is at least how i interpreted it, fwiw.

Yes. It was not a value judgement on how good or bad modern society is, but rather an attempt to benchmark attempts at achieving this utopia like state.

Goodness doesn't require misfortune/badness. If you insist it does, can you explain a bit more?

The society from Psycho Pass fits the definition given by OP so I guess we do need a more specific definition, especially since there are people who actually think that society would be a utopia.

Prutopia must never be about one size fits all. — Jake Tarragon

How then are you going to set your goals in Prutopia?

That's why a utopia is impossible, a functioning society cannot make everyone equally happy, and if everyone isn't equally happy, it's not a utopia.

Think instead of a practical Utopia as being an optimum - or even just a "very good", way of organizing society and the economy in terms of delivering happiness and well being for all. Does such a project have a chance, — Jake Tarragon

Not a chance.

People are animals, many lacking the attributes that some idealistically expect in humans, quite unable to live up to what some of us (for some reason) keep expecting of "humans".

Animals will be animals. Just observe the behavior in the Reincarnation topic, if you don't believe it, and want some anecdotal confirmation.

Michael Ossipoff

may i offer an alternative to "Prutopia"? How about "Practopia", perhaps? For some reason, i somehow keep mis-reading Prutopia as prude-topia. — 0 thru 9

"Prutopia" could refer to "prudent Utopia" rather than "prudish Utopia". Or are they related? I think we should be told. Anyway, I do prefer "Practopia" - punchier and pregnant. So Practopia it is!