Long ago I was fortunate to be part of a community along such lines, although these days I get such needs met through talking with individual friends. Anyway, I'll PM you, because a public forum isn't a very good place for discussing such things. — wonderer1

Ok :up:

And yet consistent with your (Ligotti's) defeatist premises that's still a MALIGNANTLY USELESS "notion", no? :smirk: — 180 Proof

I'm not sure why it isn't consistent. As I answered here:

THAT it is malignantly useless, doesn't mean we are thus malignantly indifferent to it. — schopenhauer1

@wonderer1 @180 Proof
If the perpetuation of an unjust system is seen as problematic, then a collective understanding of the situation, would make sense. This thread is about utopia. It is precisely that this isn't a utopia, that it is unjust to perpetuate and force it. Absurdism is a response, similar to existentialism, but it doesn't see the problem for what it is. Only PP does that, and hence the correct modern approach to the existential situation. It need not be "defeatist". Rather it is acknowledging the situation and acting in a way that works within this knowledge communally through catharsis and empathy. It isn't distracting or ignoring or waving away the problem, but directly confronting it collectively and knowingly to better understand the plan of action in the face of it.

I agree: not "malignantly indifferent", just reasonably indifferent to MALIGNANT USELESSNESS – courage – like e.g. (non-academic) epicureans, stoics, spinozists & absurdists. :fire:

Absurdism is a response, similar to existentialism, but it doesn't see the problem for what it is. — schopenhauer1

Apparently, as your 'dogmatic ontophobic idealism' shows, you do not grok absurdism as expressed by (e.g.) PW Zapffe, A. Camus, C. Rosset ... Instead, schop, you fetishize the lyrical "antinatal" musings of a minor horror novelist and latter-day disciple of a haute bourgeois, misanthropic, dyspeptic pessimist (who also happens to be a great neo-kantian philosopher).

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

That to me does not define utopia but what some assume to be an Abrahamic Heaven somewhere up in the skies. I fully agree that suffering - as possibility if not actuality - is part and parcel of existing, and that to in any way exist in manners where no suffering can ever occur will be a strict metaphysical impossibility.

That said, as to the question of whether utopias are possible, go back far enough in human history and the world as it currently is can only be described as a societal utopia relative to the former times addressed. This not only technologically but, again, societally. If nothing else, I'm here thinking in relation to Homo Sapiens cave men.

So, to then claim that it is impossible for global humanity to live in a utopia by today's standards, this in say a thousand years from now (this were humanity to still then occur), can only be an unsupportable opinion.

Then again, that a future utopia by today's standards of humanity is possible does not entail the future actuality of such.

Why would people drag 'happiness' into social organization? — Vera Mont

Satisfying people's wants and needs is part of the utopian ideal.

What is a singular society? — Vera Mont

Utopian. The very principle of a utopian society is one that is furnishing everyone's requirements.

This is one basic assumption about humans on which you and I disagree. All living things have needs in common; all members of a phylum have even more in common; all members of a family have even more in common; all members of a species are more like one another than they are like any other species. — Vera Mont

Yes, but people still differ. the larger the population the prominent differences become as they grate harder on each other. With Dunbar's Number we know that societal ties breakdown over a certain population threshold. Separate communities in a utopian society cannot stably coexist because of this limitation.

Like I mentioned briefly in the video Nozick does speak of a 'existential utopian' framework, but it exists as a holistic whole separated from other different utopian models. The 'existential utopian' position is conducive with multiple existing utopian models but not with them existing as a holistic whole.

Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia Pages 317-20 should cover what I am referring to. Subheading "The Framework as Utopian Common Ground"

You're parroting a watered-down, feel-good version of stoicism and absurdism, dressing it up as "reasonable indifference," when it's nothing more than a coping mechanism for those too prideful to face the malignant uselessness of existence head-on.

The real question isn’t about abstract notions of courage or indifference. It’s a simple "Yes" or "No" to the continuation of this "way of life" of existence foisted upon people. It’s inherently political because it’s a choice made on behalf of others- those yet to be born. You can throw around pseudo-intellectual insults and castigate those who don’t buy into your hollow philosophies all you want, but the truth remains: your mindset dictates the rules of the game, and right now, those rules are designed to continue a cycle of unnecessary suffering.

So, spare me the self-congratulatory nonsense about "grokking" absurdism. The real courage lies in confronting the malignant absurdity head-on, recognizing it for what it is, and choosing not to perpetuate it- something your "reasonable indifference" can never achieve. That is to say, what I am proposing recognizes and deals with the structural problems as they are, and its political nature as a perpetuation of a "way of life" (voting "Yes").

Satisfying people's wants and needs is part of the utopian ideal. — I like sushi

Needs, yes. Wants are individual; all the society can or should do is provide the opportunity for people to satisfy their own wants.

Separate communities in a utopian society cannot stably coexist because of this limitation. — I like sushi

Why the hell not? Native tribes on various continents managed quite well to remain separate, and yet trade and party and look for marriage partners.

Yes, but people still differ. the larger the population the prominent differences become as they grate harder on each other. — I like sushi

Why should they? What - aside from cultural indoctrination - are these prominent differences? Even with cultural diversity, people can get along just fine. Toronto used to enjoy a thriving Chinatown, a Jewish district and market, the Italian strip, the Ukrainian and Hungarian, Greek and Caribbean, Irish and Portuguese neighbourhoods. Yonge Street got pretty raucous during FIFA playoffs. St. Patrick's day was a lot of fun, and so was Caribana. If there is no scarcity of resources or ethnic dominance to compete for, and nobody inciting one group of people against another, what have they to grate about? Anyone is free to associate with those they find pleasant company and avoid people they don't like.

With Dunbar's Number we know that societal ties breakdown over a certain population threshold. — I like sushi

And yet, cities and nations consist of many million citizens, and don't break out in civil war. Why does everyone need a direct tie to everyone else? How long has the place where you currentIy reside existed? If you can tolerate the presence of strangers there, in spite of whatever inequalities, injustices and annoyances exist there right now, why could you not accept them in a fair and benevolent society?

Of course a utopian or optimal society cannot be brought about in our present state of affairs. And maybe too many of us are too crazy to want it. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a theoretical possibility.

"Real courage", as you say, would be to quit your "maliciously useless" life asap instead of cowardly whining on and on that you (we) "should never have been born". A coward's "coping mechanism" is living by the resentful hypocrisy of this kind of defeatist pessimism. Like daoists & epicureans, pyrrhonians & spinozists, pragmatists & absurdists..., otoh, my coping mechanism for 'radical indifference' begins and ends with defiance – memento mori :death:, memento vivere :flower:.

So, for all us dead men & women walking, to each his or her own: your cowardice (i.e. futility of preaching "nonexistence") OR our courage (i.e. agency despite existence), your defeatist pessimism (re: ideality) OR our defiant pessimism (re: reality): no doubt for many, maybe most, an involuntary – unreasonable – decision. :fire:

Needs, yes. Wants are individual; all the society can or should do is provide the opportunity for people to satisfy their own wants. — Vera Mont

So you define a utopian society as being one that keeps people alive rather than one that also satisfies people's wants? I do not. This in itself part of the problem of utopian ideals. If we all envisage different things they also contradict each other.

I would very strongly argue that individuals are more important than some scheme that meets a minimal means of sustenance - which would also differ from individual to individual.

Why the hell not? Native tribes on various continents managed quite well to remain separate, and yet trade and party and look for marriage partners. — Vera Mont

Because they would not be able to communicate and negotiate well enough leaving many on the fringes of society. Too many will be overlooked (this is commonplace in any nation you look at today). If their are people missing out then it is not really much of a utopian ideal is it.

Why should they? What - aside from cultural indoctrination - are these prominent differences? — Vera Mont

Height, sex, weight, intelligence, personal preferences, tastes, fortitude, vulnerability, sociability, etc.,.

Toronto used to enjoy a thriving Chinatown, a Jewish district and market, the Italian strip, the Ukrainian and Hungarian, Greek and Caribbean, Irish and Portuguese neighbourhoods. Yonge Street got pretty raucous during FIFA playoffs. St. Patrick's day was a lot of fun, and so was Caribana. If there is no scarcity of resources or ethnic dominance to compete for, and nobody inciting one group of people against another, what have they to grate about? Anyone is free to associate with those they find pleasant company and avoid people they don't like — Vera Mont

Is Toronto a blueprint for a utopian society? Not sure what this is meant to be arguing against here. Sure, diverse cultures can coexist together to some degree with mutual respect and consideration.

And yet, cities and nations consist of many million citizens, and don't break out in civil war. Why does everyone need a direct tie to everyone else? How long has the place where you currentIy reside existed? If you can tolerate the presence of strangers there, in spite of whatever inequalities, injustices and annoyances exist there right now, why could you not accept them in a fair and benevolent society?

Of course a utopian or optimal society cannot be brought about in our present state of affairs. And maybe too many of us are too crazy to want it. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a theoretical possibility. — Vera Mont

I stated above why there will be confliction. To repeat, people's wants and needs differ and this causes disharmony. In a smaller community these kind of disagreements can be resolved more readily as people know each other. If another group passes by insisting that their wants and needs outweigh yours then it gets progressively harder to negotiate as the more disparate groups are the more obstacles there are for communication on any reasonable level of understanding.

Utopian societies would not have inequalities, injustices or annoyances. This is what utopia means.

Utopia cannot be brought about under any state of affairs without causing mass harm, genocide, homicide or some means of 'levelling the playing field'. Even then, difference would arise and the whole process would begin again from square one; in clueless ignorance most likely.

Of course a utopian or optimal society cannot be brought about in our present state of affairs. And maybe too many of us are too crazy to want it. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a theoretical possibility. — Vera Mont

I hope to convince you otherwise in due time. We do seem to have a pretty similar view in many ways, but I do not feel that you appreciate the danger of opting for some utopian scheme rather than just trying to improve the current state.

My thinking is based on premises that include our ignorance of what is better and worse for us alongside the distinctions between individuals rather than a reversion to grouped ideologies set out as universal principles.

So you define a utopian society as being one that keeps people alive rather than one that also satisfies people's wants? — I like sushi

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.

If we all envisage different things they also contradict each other. — I like sushi

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.)

Height, sex, weight, intelligence, personal preferences, tastes, fortitude, vulnerability, sociability, etc.,. — I like sushi

And all these differences grate on you? You want to kill all those 'other' people? Me, I find uniformity rather a bore.

Because they would not be able to communicate and negotiate well enough leaving many on the fringes of society. — I like sushi

And yet they did. And we do, with people around the whole globe. (We're even trying to communicate with other planets.) Even now, with all the strife over territory and resources and population movement. So why would we suddenly stop being able to communicate if the strife ended and there was nothing major to negotiate? I don't see the logic of people being on the fringes (whatever fringes are when the needs of all are satisfied) because they're less able to communicate with people they don't choose for company than the ones they do choose.
In fact, I don't see the logic of variety as an obstacle to social cohesion.

I do not feel that you appreciate the danger of opting for some utopian scheme rather than just trying to improve the current state. — I like sushi

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. ....

.... in theory. 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.

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?

No? This is not about me. Kill? That is a bizarre interpretation of what I outlined. — I like sushi

Well, if you're not inclined to kill people for being different, why assume everyone else is? Why assume diversity equals conflict? I have lived peaceably among enough people who are different from me and different from one another not to believe that.

Utopia cannot be brought about under any state of affairs without causing mass harm, genocide, homicide or some means of 'levelling the playing field'. — I like sushi

It cannot be brought about in one fell swoop. I have several times stipulated as much: the good society is an ideal to aspire to and work toward, not a state that can be created wholesale.
We have too much deeply entrenched, deeply invested disparity of power and means for any reasonable distribution of the necessities. We have too many ideologies and creeds that deliberately promote strife. And we have too large a population for the planet to sustain in comfort.

The field will level itself as the result of our previous bad decisions, harmful intentions, wrong directions.
Afterward, the survivors will have to do something. They can make all the same mistakes and commit all the same atrocities again, or they can set off in a new direction. In my theory, it can be a better direction.

Is anything I have been saying made any sense whether you agree or not? — I like sushi

It all makes sense from a certain perspective, based on a certain set of assumptions. You may be right; humanity may be altogether irredeemable. I was speculating based on a different POV.

Did you look at the book by Nozick btw? It is an interesting read. — I like sushi

I will try.

Well, if you're not inclined to kill people for being different, why assume everyone else is? Why assume diversity equals conflict?I have lived peaceably among enough people who are different from me and different from one another not to believe that. — Vera Mont

Killing? Conflict does not mean 'killing'. There would be disharmony of a sort.

Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions. That is what differences are. They are different due to some degree of confliction. The greater the differences the more likely the possibility for conflict.

Irrelevant. I am talking generally not about specific personal examples here.

You may be right; humanity may be altogether irredeemable. — Vera Mont

Believe it or not I am optimistic for humanity :)

Killing? Conflict does not mean 'killing'. — I like sushi

I didn't drag genocide into this discussion.

There would be disharmony of a sort.

There would be all kinds of local disharmonies. So what? Any functioning society can institute a mechanism whereby people can resolve their arguments and restore harmony to the community. It's certainly not an existential problem.

Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions. — I like sushi

Then why is every society on Earth not tearing itself apart over the existence of all those fat and thin, dark and fair, tall and short, clever and dull, brisk and relaxed men, women and others, some of whom like jazz while some prefer rock, some of whom eat rice while some like potatoes?

Believe it or not I am optimistic for humanity — I like sushi

And yet consider us so short-sighted and intolerant that we can't live in a society with people who are unlike us, or share resources among occupations.

I didn't drag genocide into this discussion. — Vera Mont

You brought it up on that particular point and I have no idea why.

I mentioned that to achieve utopia could involve something along those lines or some other means of levelling the playing field. Instances of these kinds of actions were obvious enough in the 20th century. We had communism pursuing economic equality and nationalist attitudes pairing up with genetic ideals on the other side of the spectrum.

There would be all kinds of local disharmonies. So what? Any functioning society can institute a mechanism whereby people can resolve their arguments and restore harmony to the community. It's certainly not an existential problem. — Vera Mont

Because there is today. Remember what the argument is about please. I am stating that aiming for a utopian ideal is wrong and you are saying it is right.

Aiming for a utopian ideal would involve having a target to aim for, not merely the incremental pursuit of some better world. There is no current utopian state (I think we can agree on that at least?) so arguing about the present situation helps your position how? Everything I am saying to you is in regards to opposing the pursuit of a utopian ideal because I strongly believe I am justified in saying that it necessarily will lead to everything I have been saying for the reasons I have given.

I have not seen much of what I have said addressed yet. Like below ...

Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions.
— I like sushi
Then why is every society on Earth not tearing itself apart over the existence of all those fat and thin, dark and fair, tall and short, clever and dull, brisk and relaxed men, women and others, some of whom like jazz while some prefer rock, some of whom eat rice while some like potatoes? — Vera Mont

Evasion and then silly examples of something that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Maybe read with some generosity perhaps rather than dismissive and lampooning scorn?

I said this:

Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions. That is what differences are. They are different due to some degree of confliction. The greater the differences the more likely the possibility for conflict. — I like sushi

We can see currently that rich and poor and differences in status or cultures does cause confliction. you can se this literally anywhere on the planet. When there is a problem with resources or large cultural disparities - basically conflicts of interest - then things can turn nasty fairly quickly. This is not new news to anyone. Understand?

That you are attempting to make out that I am saying something like people who are different cannot live together in peace is frankly idiotic. What I am saying is that as population grow and conflicts of interest appear then there is growing social strain - this should be apparent enough from what I have previously written surely?

And yet consider us so short-sighted and intolerant that we can't live in a society with people who are unlike us, or share resources among occupations. — Vera Mont

Bludgeoning your way through what I have said and then putting words in my mouth is not really going to help this discussion progress. Drop the empty rhetoric and make a point please. I am not interested in some combative debate where one of us pumps the air with our fists at the end taking delight is 'winning an argument' rather than exploring ideas.

Back to the argument ...

Aiming for utopian ideals does nothing to give us a roadmap to a utopian ideal, because it is a mirage. Your reference to me bringing up genocide and such, or some other means of leveling the playing field, was in regards to feasible pathways to a utopian ideal. The reason is the utopian ideal springs from equality and true equality can only be achieved if everyone is basically the same - which we are not.

The simple example of the carpenter was small illustration of this. I assumed you could extrapolate from that positions and see quickly enough how differences in beliefs, opinions and obligations would confound the problem beyond merely distributing material resources. If material resources could be distributed in a manner everyone was more than satisfied with - endless resources perhaps - there would still be matters of religion, pride in the group, politics, traditions and of course individual abilities.

Why this is all dangerous is because there is no road to the top of this utopian mountain. Anyone can look up and admire the idea, but to pursue it is folly where the road ends. And where the road ends could easily be far worse than anything down in the comfort and security of the valleys. We do not know. Our ignorance is the main point regarding our ability to foresee the future. Any new enterprise carried out reveals unforeseen problems.

Maybe ask yourself this question:

- If the head of state in your country decided to reveal an incremental roadmap towards some vision of utopia would you back them over someone looking to make some improvements to the existing scheme without any idealistic goal?

You know what I would choose and why in part (see this page of posts and the previous page too). I know what you would choose but I do not know why.

This is where we stand at the moment in this discussion as far as I can see. It might help if you repeat what you think I have been saying in your owns words? Then I can point out where you are correct or incorrect.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

You brought it up on that particular point and I have no idea why. — I like sushi

Show me. In context, if at all possible.

I mentioned that to achieve utopia could involve something along those lines or some other means of levelling the playing field. — I like sushi

Could - not must. OK

Instances of these kinds of actions were obvious enough in the 20th century. — I like sushi

Instances of ideological conflict were obvious. To what extent they were utopian, or even sincere, is questionable.

I am stating that aiming for a utopian ideal is wrong and you are saying it is right. — I like sushi

Yup. Fundamental difference of opinion.

Aiming for a utopian ideal would involve having a target to aim for, not merely the incremental pursuit of some better world. — I like sushi

Yup. "some better world" is too vague for my taste. Better than what? Better for whom? Better in what ways?

arguing about the present situation helps your position how? — I like sushi

It wouldn't, had I done so.

We can see currently that rich and poor and differences in status or cultures does cause confliction. — I like sushi

Yup. That has to be one of the first problems needs solving - assuming there is time to solve problems before the whole house of cards collapses. Is it a conflict between two individuals, or between two equal sized groups of persons? Or between a very few people and an enormous number? I wonder how that would play out, hand-to-hand, without a mercenary army on one side.

What I am saying is that as population grow and conflicts of interest appear then there is growing social strain - this should be apparent enough from what I have previously written surely? — I like sushi

What's causing the growing strain in your scenario? Differences among persons, disparity of resource distribution, ideologies or goading by demagogues with their own agenda?

our reference to me bringing up genocide and such, or some other means of leveling the playing field, was in regards to feasible pathways to a utopian ideal. — I like sushi

There is nothing feasible about means that would destroy the ends they aim for.

We can see currently that rich and poor and differences in status or cultures does cause confliction. you can se this literally anywhere on the planet. When there is a problem with resources or large cultural disparities - basically conflicts of interest - then things can turn nasty fairly quickly. This is not new news to anyone. Understand? — I like sushi

Yes, and that's pretty much the point. Up front, I said that a utopian vision depends on eliminating wealth disparity, uneven distribution of resources and ideological indoctrination. You seem to assume these things are inevitable and unavoidable. I believe they will crumble with the current world order.

there would still be matters of religion, pride in the group, politics, traditions and of course individual abilities. — I like sushi

As I've said several times already: You can't get there from here, except with many, many baby steps (some of them backward). Nationalism and religion have to go. Politics has to change dramatically. Tradition is okay, in the form of parades and festivals, as long as it doesn't try dictate decisions for the future.

The reason is the utopian ideal springs from equality and true equality can only be achieved if everyone is basically the same - which we are not. — I like sushi

We are basically the same. Two arms, two legs, one head, opposable thumbs, warm blood, insufficient body-hair, big brain, needs air, water, food, shelter, mating opportunities, companionship, something to think about, something to do, respect of peers...
How basic is your basic? How short do you think we have to mow human potential to make people capable of tolerating one another?

If the head of state in your country decided to reveal an incremental roadmap towards some vision of utopia would you back them over someone looking to make some improvements to the existing scheme without any idealistic goal? — I like sushi

In general, I would prefer a leader with vision. In particular, I would want to know what improvements they proposed to make.

I am not interested in some combative debate where one of us pumps the air with our fists at the end taking delight is 'winning an argument' rather than exploring ideas. — I like sushi

All right. I won't do that.
I believe - or try very hard to believe - that you (and Nozick) are wrong about human nature.

I said that a utopian vision depends on eliminating wealth disposition, skill and determination disparity — Vera Mont

Wealth may get us someway to equalizing these things, but they are not a good indicator at all. These problems will persist whether wealth even exists. Some will do, some will not do. That's the basis for the entire conversation, if one wants to think about it a bit further than 'wealth' which is a bit of a cop out when it comes to human behaviour.

What's causing the growing strain in your scenario? Differences among persons, disparity of resource distribution, ideologies or goading by demagogues with their own agenda? — Vera Mont

All of them and more we have not even considered or expect.

Yup. "some better world" is too vague for my taste. Better than what? Better for whom? Better in what ways? — Vera Mont

Well, what are you offering in the utopian ideal? Better for whom and how? Same problem only exponentially more problematic especially if it cannot actually be reached. What could happen is we hit an optimal for the time but people still push onwards towards some utopian ideal and essentially make things worse rather than better by doing so.

arguing about the present situation helps your position how?
— I like sushi
It wouldn't, had I done so. — Vera Mont

Maybe your anecdotal evidence was not meant to represent the current state of affairs in Toronto then. Unimportant. Which only begs the question of why you brought it up.

Yup. That has to be one of the first problems needs solving - assuming there is time to solve problems before the whole house of cards collapses. Is it a conflict between two individuals, or between two equal sized groups of persons? Or between a very few people and an enormous number? I wonder how that would play out, hand-to-hand, without a mercenary army on one side. — Vera Mont

And this is achieved by aiming for a utopian ideal. How? I think it would be far safer and prudent to act with caution than to announce some ideal goal. It is pie in the sky thinking that leads to more severe upheavals.

our reference to me bringing up genocide and such, or some other means of leveling the playing field, was in regards to feasible pathways to a utopian ideal.
— I like sushi
There is nothing feasible about means that would destroy the ends they aim for. — Vera Mont

Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao. You may argue that they were not trying to create an ideal society, but I believe what they said they aimed to do.

If am being generous then tell me how any idealist can stop people from taking their plan on for themselves and running away with it. Lenin, via Marx, justified his actions because the outcome was the main focus. The violence was deemed necessary.

Yes, and that's pretty much the point. Up front, I said that a utopian vision depends on eliminating wealth disparity, uneven distribution of resources and ideological indoctrination. You seem to assume these things are inevitable and unavoidable. I believe they will crumble with the current world order. — Vera Mont

So something akin to the communist view of a utopian society? If not elaborate.

Yes, I think disparity is inevitable wherever there is diversity. If there are differences there will be disparities. It is not merely that I THINK this I cannot possible see a situation where it is false. I can say that it may be more or less pronounced, but when it comes to larger populations I see no obvious way of coping with this problem (Dunbar Number playing out as it will). Of course, we can fantasize about some sci-fi future where we are all hooked up to some computer and able to expand our social capacities and empathy more ... but that is just sci-fi and sounds more like a dystopian society than a utopian one as it would - as all utopian ideals tend to - point towards reducing individualism.

As I've said several times already: You can't get there from here, except with many, many baby steps (some of them backward). Nationalism and religion have to go. Politics has to change dramatically. Tradition is okay, in the form of parades and festivals, as long as it doesn't try dictate decisions for the future. — Vera Mont

And as I have said many times baby steps towards an ideal are relative leaps and bounds compared to considered incremental steps that are not working towards some ideal fantasy.

How do national and religion have to go? Why? You cannot throw a bombshell like that without some kind of follow up unless you have realised you have lost the argument.

How is aiming for a utopian ideal not a 'tradition that dictates decisions for the future'? I you starting to see the contradictory nature of utopian ideals yet?

The reason is the utopian ideal springs from equality and true equality can only be achieved if everyone is basically the same - which we are not.
— I like sushi
Rubbish! — Vera Mont

What is rubbish. That we differ or that true equality can only be achieved if we are all the same? I was stating the extreme end in terms of TRUE here. Clearly if everyone is the same we all have the same ideas, wants and needs and therefore one or two simple rules would satisfy everyone as much as it would not satisfy everyone. How could any society be more equal if everyone agreed on everything?

I can sympathize with a lot of your arguments. An “utopian ideal” without any specificity is nothing more than a nondescript generality. So, for the sake of argument, I’ll provide one specific to what I would deem to be an utopian society: A society where humans do not rape nor murder other humans. (Of note, I take non-coercive angry sex and the justified killing of other humans, such as in times of war, to constitute neither rape nor murder, respectively.)

In today’s world, a society where humans neither rape nor murder is not possible. There’s too much immorality and endorsement of it from nearly everyone (e.g., our glorification of criminals in a good sum of the movies we watch with glee and, so, in the stories we tell ourselves) to make such a society viable.

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today?

The economic and political specificity of the hows aside, I take it that this would in part require that people become better parents of their own volition, thereby resulting in future generations of people that have less childhood psychological trauma, that have less defense mechanisms as adults for the traumas they / we experienced as children, and that thereby grow up having more scruples. (Though only part of the story, I do deem this step requisite to any actualization of the aim just specified.)

If it is metaphysically possible for people to of their volition become better parents (say, maybe, in part due to changed societal constraints), then it is possible for next generations to become more moral. And were this to persist we would attain a society wherein people no longer rape or murder other people. And this, to me, would be a utopian society. One whose very notion and possibility many nowadays will scoff at.

In short, should this ideal of humans no longer raping and murdering other humans – which is quite utopian – be denounced and shunned by everyone the world over? This on grounds that some of the possible means toward such an end can only result in dystopias?

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today? — javra

The assumption is believing this would be a good thing and that belief in morals existing/matters is important for a utopian society. Let's assume these two things as a given.

Even with this there is a question of how we can possibly measure morality let alone dictate what degree of morality is optimal. There is probably way too much in here to unpack so maybe asking another question would be more useful? If not answer it yourself and I can respond to that once I have a better idea of what exactly you are thinking.

The economic and political specificity of the hows aside, I take it that this would in part require that people become better parents of their own volition, thereby resulting in future generations of people that have less childhood psychological trauma, that have less defense mechanisms as adults for the traumas they / we experienced as children, and that thereby grow up having more scruples. (Though only part of the story, I do deem this step requisite to any actualization of the aim just specified.) — javra

A perfect example of how doing something that seems good, like protecting children from trauma, actually results in something bad. Making mistakes and having 'traumas' as children is a good thing. Children need to learn how to deal with difficult situations rather than be protected from them. The assumption that such parenting would lead to more 'morality' in society could just as easily do the exact opposite.

If it is metaphysically possible for people to of their volition become better parents (say, maybe, in part due to changed societal constraints), then it is possible for next generations to become more moral. And were this to persist we would attain a society wherein people no longer rape or murder other people. And this, to me, would be a utopian society. One whose very notion and possibility many nowadays will scoff at. — javra

So we are playing out a hypothetical where the utopian society is where there is no sex crimes or homicides, but what about items like poor people starving, discrimination by religion/race/sex etc.,? Or are you basically framing this as a more progressively moral society will extinguish all of these inequalities to the point where we all see each other as being equal? If so, this is 'leveling the playing field' and I think it would fall apart fairly quickly in larger populations for reasons I have outlined.

Forgive me if I missed the point here. Maybe I am on the wrong track. Have a feeling I am?

In short, should this ideal of humans no longer raping and murdering other humans – which is quite utopian – be denounced and shunned by everyone the world over? This on grounds that some of the possible means toward such an end can only result in dystopias? — javra

I see was on the wrong track :) but, if such an ideal comes at the cost of increased discrimination then is it utopian? Can utopia be a utopia if there is no equality in some areas? Certainly having no murder or rape sounds pretty damn good to me, BUT to blindly pursue this ideal would - obviously - overshadow other societal dilemmas such as resource discrepancies (including education, wealth, property, skillsets, access to materials, access to means of production, etc.,.).

In short, what you are proposing is a ideal but does not look anything like a utopian ideal as it is looking at societal problems as being ONE problem and in pursuing with the same vigor as a utopian ideal would leave other pressing matters floundering in its wake.

Pursuing the idea of adopting a optimization where murder and rape is reduced does not overshadow other possible lines of optimization. The ideal pursuit in one area ignore the others in a utopian framework unless everyone agrees that said ideal is the best ideal to pursue - in which case everyone will suffer its consequences equally and have no one to blame but themselves ... then again, I am sure some would still manage to point the finger as in times of strain any little differences in society are generally attacked/blamed.

If something we would refer to today as a utopian ideal was to come into existence in our lifetime, via some unknown paradigm shift, I absolutely do not believe anyone would purposely have instigated it. Some will always claim to have predicted this or that, but that is human nature. If things go our way we claim authorship, yet if things go against what we say we are even more quick to distance ourselves from immediate participation (the neuroscientific evidence for this is pretty conclusive)*.

* I am talking about an experiment where two participants had to press a button for correct answer, but one person had their finger on top of the others. The results showed that when the answer was wrong they were not likely claim authorship (when there was), yet when it was right they were likely to claim authorship (when there was none). Cannot find the paper atm.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/the-spirit-level/
http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html
https://jerichowriters.com/utopian-fiction/
https://www.ic.org/?srsltid=AfmBOopnTJ7l767Y98HDi5oF_NonWVLBuSCE0VPqxOn6zbplLCB0-kTY
Just some other people's thoughts on what a good society is.

I am talking to you and have no intention of looking at those.

And I'm tired of repeating my own thoughts. I did look at your philosopher, and much prefer John Rawls.
We are not likely ever to agree on this subject, so why waste any more time?

Shame. I have not actually seen much offered tbh. If that is all you have I guess that is all you have.

bye :)

Even with this there is a question of how we can possibly measure morality let alone dictate what degree of morality is optimal. — I like sushi

To me this is a wrong framing of the question. One cannot in any way accurately measure quantitatively physiological pain, much less physiological pain. Yet they do occur qualitatively and we all (mostly) can discern that having a splinter in one's finger is vastly overshadowed by having that finger amputated without anesthesia, this in terms of pain - both physical and psychological. As to optimal morality, I don't see any endpoint in sight where morality becomes optimal - unless we start philosophizing about metaphysical issues and thereby entertain such notions as possibilities of a universally obtained Nirvana, which would be an endpoint to morality. But in more practical terms, the sky's the limit to better morality.

A perfect example of how doing something that seems good, like protecting children from trauma, actually results in something bad. Making mistakes and having 'traumas' as children is a good thing. Children need to learn how to deal with difficult situations rather than be protected from them. The assumption that such parenting would lead to more 'morality' in society could just as easily do the exact opposite. — I like sushi

I wasn't addressing parents' reprimanding their children or the like but to all various forms of child abuse. I for the life of me can't see how, for one example, the raping of children can be a good thing (such as on grounds of preparing them for adulthood), yet it occurs far too often. Parenting aside, with sex trafficking of children on the rise in more developed societies today. Again, pointing to a lack of scruples.

if such an ideal comes at the cost of increased discrimination then is it utopian? — I like sushi

Or are you basically framing this as a more progressively moral society will extinguish all of these inequalities to the point where we all see each other as being equal? If so, this is 'leveling the playing field' and I think it would fall apart fairly quickly in larger populations for reasons I have outlined. — I like sushi

As in being equal in potential if not intrinsic value, not in height, sex, abilities, etc. And yes, as has always been the case so too it shall always be: one rotten apple will more easily spoil the bunch. It's why a functional society will always discriminate against rotten apples such as mass-murderers, for one extreme example. Maybe more pertinent in some ways, for tolerance to be ongoing there needs to occur a discrimination of, or intolerance toward, intolerant people - here with a slight equivocation in terms of "intolerance" - otherwise the formerly tolerant society perishes via its own complacency.

I still affirm that a tolerant society in which no one rapes of murders is by today's standard a utopia.

In short, what you are proposing is a ideal but does not look anything like a utopian ideal as it is looking at societal problems as being ONE problem and in pursuing with the same vigor as a utopian ideal would leave other pressing matters floundering in its wake. — I like sushi

Ah, but I can see no way in which such a society can come about sans a restructuring of some sort of both (always human devised) economics and politics. As just one example, today's globalized economy of "greed is good" is antithetical to a moral society wherein greed is disparaged and one seeks to help out one's fellow man - rather than hording as much financial and social capitol for oneself at expense of others whom one couldn't care less for. The valuing of greed is antithetical to the valuing of empathy - and the valuing of greed is intrinsic to the lives of all today: if not directly then by constraining what one can do with one's life via societal (which I take to include both economic and political) pressures.

If something we would refer to today as a utopian ideal was to come into existence in our lifetime, via some unknown paradigm shift, I absolutely do not believe anyone would purposely have instigated it. — I like sushi

Within our lifetime I find it exceedingly doubtful, if not laughable. Still, I agree with this conclusion. It would by entailment need to be purposefully enforced by everyone (or at least the vast majority) from which the society is constituted.

If things go our way we claim authorship, yet if things go against what we say we are even more quick to distance ourselves from immediate participation (the neuroscientific evidence for this is pretty conclusive)*. — I like sushi

And yet I deem self-honesty to be deeply entwined with scruples. The less honesty one has with oneself the less scruples one has. Trump as but one prevalent and unfortunate example of this.

As to the very notion of utopia, it reminds me of these lyrics from a song by Sting: "To search for perfection is all very well, but to look for heaven is to live here in hell." All humans have faults and so no human can be perfect, this by sheer fact of being human, if not, more generally speaking, a living being; e.g. perfectly innocent (in the sense of perfectly devoid of blame and hence perfectly guiltless). This then thoroughly applies to all members of any society, be it past, present, or any future one. But just as things in a society can get worse, they can likewise get better - over time, of course. (BTW, plenty of people seek redemption from their past and present vices - one can even say it's sane to so want - but far too many expect it to come from the skies as thought by the wave of some magic wand rather than through the hard work of it being actualized, to whatever extent, from within in one's future interactions with others and with oneself.)

A society - to drive the point home, say a global society - wherein humans neither rape nor murder is by today's standards a pure utopia (a nowhere place). I'd like to live there though I know I never will. Granting its future possibility, though, once humanity might get to such a place, new utopias will then present themselves. Again, here paraphrasing, to aim for perfection in incremental steps is all very well, but to assume a place where egos occur with no suffering is to always live in misery. So to me, there is no such thing as a final utopian dwelling to be validly envisioned. If this is what you conceive of by the term "utopia", then I agree. But, again, who would deny that a world devoid of rape and murder is not sheer utopia from today's vantage? That it's a worthwhile aspiration, however, is another matter - one that I personally endorse in so far as more of us ought to be looking into possible means of better approximating such, currently, nowhere place, i.e. utopian ideal.

Within our lifetime I find it exceedingly doubtful, if not laughable. Still, I agree with this conclusion. It would by entailment need to be purposefully enforced by everyone (or at least the vast majority) from which the society is constituted. — javra

I was thinking more along the lines of it just happening because it happens, not because anyone actively intended it. The kind of paradigm shift I am talking about is something like some imagining a society like today back in 1800 and aiming for it. It is inconceivable for this to happen.

I wasn't addressing parents' reprimanding their children or the like but to all various forms of child abuse. — javra

My point was more or less that what some called child abuse others call learning. The world is strange full of people with strange ideas. Overprotection is abuse of some kind. I see you are talking about more blatant examples here though alongside rape and murder, so fair enough.

But, again, who would deny that a world devoid of rape and murder is not sheer utopia from today's vantage? — javra

Me. And I did. Given that the term has a specific meaning fixing one ill in society at the expense of ignoring others seems reprehensible. I guess others would disagree because people grade different problems in society at different levels.

And to repeat. I am all for people pursuing their ideal self, it is just when anyone points at some utopian ideal as being the answer I cannot see any good coming from it. Undoubtedly I am sure all sane individuals like the sound of John Lenon's Imagine and perhaps in some far flung future such an existence will be possible, but to AIM for that kind of thing now seems utterly insane and logistically incomprehensible.

I have stated elsewhere that humanity could perhaps make some leap forward perhaps even with in our life times. I think it would be initially messy though - talking about the possibility of the singularity.

Inside I am John Lenon's Imagine, but outwardly I know it is better to stem liberal views because they can often cause way more harm than we intuitively expect.

I have attempted to steelman the "aiming for utopia is good" but it seems to end in a situation where humanity becomes something like H.G. Well's Eloi.

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today? — javra

Have I in anyway managed to cover this question to your satisfaction? I doubt I have! Feel free to reform it in some way as I cannot possibly begin to answer it without writing a few thousand words.

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today? — javra

Jordan Peterson has an interesting opinion on that:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cIDopS5C1Ck

A wallflower guy might benefit from some training in narcissistic psychopathy, you know, sort of to balance him out a bit.

In other words, don't be too nice.