A Future Utopia?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I was under the impression that you were my uncool Nazi brother.

But, yes, I believe in this. I'm sure you can see how my past opinions continue to agree with what I'm saying now. I've never swayed from this perspective.

Well I believe that you are not that wrong, my utopia might look similar (just with more Robots) but I take a more peaceful approach. It's obvious that the population has to be reduced, but whiping out people just does't fit my beliefs. There are different other options, emigration (other countries, other planets), don't allow them to reproduce, just no Holocausts.

Originally posted by silver_tears
I'm sorry I just don't see how giving people freedoms would work. "Freedom is never free." By allowing them to maintain their religions. political views, and their freedom of choice, this would separate the population and would result in fighting. 😬

Let me illustrate what I mean. You are a member of political party A, I am a member of political party B. I think the economy is best served by option A, you believe that it is best served by option B. Both points of view can be expressed, supported and then one can be ratified and made policy. But, there would be no need to figure out how to relate to other economies, because there would only be one. Internal politics, while devisive, can be handled in a more cohesive manner.

As for religion, freedom of religion and worship are one thing. Allowing ANY aspect of religion into the process of government can NOT be allowed. Your god is your god. My god is my god. However, legislation that caters to one religion over another wouldn't be allowed. Churches would be taxed like any other buisness. Religious based intolerance would be done away with.

Freedom of choice is in regard to non political/religious life. Want an abortion, get one. Wanna marry someone of the same sex, do it. If you want to look down on someone for getting an abortion, that's fine. You have your opinion, but that opinion, once it interferes with the right of another to live the way they choose to, then you are breaking the law. Bomb an abortion clinic, be prepared to be put to death yourself. Beat a Muslim in the streets, be prepared to forfeit your life for that action.

But I just don't believe you can change or control people's minds. Oppression would only go so far. Eventually someone would be like "My beliefs are more valid than yours." and then that would result in war if they formed a following of enough people. Then would you eliminate that whole group of people? Eventually there would be no one left.

I just don't think people have the ability to put aside their natural urges for being better than someone else enough to live in peace.

Originally posted by silver_tears
But I just don't believe you can change or control people's minds. Oppression would only go so far. Eventually someone would be like "My beliefs are more valid than yours." and then that would result in war if they formed a following of enough people. Then would you eliminate that whole group of people? Eventually there would be no one left.

I just don't think people have the ability to put aside their natural urges for being better than someone else enough to live in peace.

Originally posted by silver_tears
But I just don't believe you can change or control people's minds. Oppression would only go so far. Eventually someone would be like "My beliefs are more valid than yours." and then that would result in war if they formed a following of enough people. Then would you eliminate that whole group of people? Eventually there would be no one left.

I just don't think people have the ability to put aside their natural urges for being better than someone else enough to live in peace.

I'm not saying that people's minds need be changed. There is room for different opions, but they would be considered on the basis of "better for everyone" rather than "better for this group or that one." In time, this mindset would prevail.

By removing boundries, both physical and mental, there will be no need for anyone to fight.

As for "forming a following"....such notions would have to be crushed before they got off the ground.

I'm also not saying it's unreasonable to be better at something, that's called aptitude. Removing the descrimination that comes along with that in today's culture, is the point.

The point here isn't to stop people from thinking, it's to make people know there is a price to pay for such beliefs, when translated into action. You can hate a gay man, but as soon as your beliefs are put into action by way of descrimination or violence...then that person will be put to death.

I don't think it's even a matter of wanting to be better than someone else. Just wanting to live up to potential. Some people are always gonna have more potential than others.

-AC

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm not saying that people's minds need be changed. There is room for different opions, but they would be considered on the basis of "better for everyone" rather than "better for this group or that one." In time, this mindset would prevail.

The point here isn't to stop people from thinking, it's to make people know there is a price to pay for such beliefs, when translated into action. You can hate a gay man, but as soon as your beliefs are put into action by way of descrimination or violence...then that person will be put to death.

Just found that first bit interesting as it reminded me so much of Plato's Republic.

And for the "if your beliefs are put into action by way of dicrimination or violence..." well is that not in what we live now? other than the put to death part......

Originally posted by silver_tears
Just found that first bit interesting as it reminded me so much of Plato's Republic.

And for the "if your beliefs are put into action by way of dicrimination or violence..." well is that not in what we live now? other than the put to death part......

A utopian society isn't possible as long as humans exist, humans aren't capable of perfection.

Originally posted by silver_tears
Just found that first bit interesting as it reminded me so much of Plato's Republic.

And for the "if your beliefs are put into action by way of dicrimination or violence..." well is that not in what we live now? other than the put to death part......

I have drawn my ideas from many infulences. Greek philosophy, communism, modern American politics, even Nazism.

Secondly, we have a bastardized version of this policy...unfortunately controlled by people who descriminate themselves.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Woah...now that's unjust...Capt_Nazis view is nothing like Platos Republic. There is no freedom at all (in Plato's now).

The whole better for everyone rather than individual groups, or people if you will was what Plato's Republic was all about from what I've read of it 😛

I wish I lived in an hedonistic Utopia.

Orwell said that it is unlikely due to the fact that there would be no need of governments who therefore will not let it come about.

A hedonistic utopia is too subjective to encompass everyone. You would have to live on your own to fulfill it 😬

Originally posted by Bardock42
Woah...now that's unjust...Capt_Nazis view is nothing like Platos Republic. There is no freedom at all (in Plato's now).

There's plenty of freedom in my utopia. There just comes with it an understanding of consequence and responsablitiy. What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
There's plenty of freedom in my utopia. There just comes with it an understanding of consequence and responsablitiy. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, that's why I said to compare it to Platos Politeia is unjust.

I don't believe we'll ever have a Utopia.

Utopia on a small level can be achieved....but the world will burn first before large scale peace is achieved...any messing with the genes of humans won't work either, we're more likely to kill everyone or make everyone go crazy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nothing, that's why I said to compare it to Platos Politeia is unjust.

My misunderstanding, I was unclear as to which system you were addressing.

Originally posted by Julie
Utopia on a small level can be achieved....but the world will burn first before large scale peace is achieved...

True, but the sad part, is that it doesn't have to.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm not saying that people's minds need be changed. There is room for different opions, but they would be considered on the basis of "better for everyone" rather than "better for this group or that one." In time, this mindset would prevail.

By removing boundries, both physical and mental, there will be no need for anyone to fight.

As for "forming a following"....such notions would have to be crushed before they got off the ground.

I'm also not saying it's unreasonable to be better at something, that's called aptitude. Removing the descrimination that comes along with that in today's culture, is the point.

The point here isn't to stop people from thinking, it's to make people know there is a price to pay for such beliefs, when translated into action. You can hate a gay man, but as soon as your beliefs are put into action by way of descrimination or violence...then that person will be put to death.

yes, but by saving those who agree, don't oppose, and those that are ready to accept whatever they're told, aren't you in effect destroying the conscious mind? you would be eliminating those who have the aptitude to think for themselves, to come up with new ideas, notions, and beliefs. how can society move foreword?

if it weren't for inventive minds, we wouldn't have the technology, science, or luxury we have today... or the mentality to think beyond what other people have already come up with. you wouldn't be encouraging people to think, you would be oppressing their minds. people would be too afraid to speak out for fear of their ideas being too "radical" or too "inventive." .

society would be at a stand still as we know it... or even worse, we could all revert to a more primitive state of mind where everyone is passive and no one DOES think.

Originally posted by Fallen Jedi
yes, but by saving those who agree, don't oppose, and those that are ready to accept whatever they're told, aren't you in effect destroying the conscious mind? you would be eliminating those who have the aptitude to think for themselves, to come up with new ideas, notions, and beliefs. how can society move foreword?

if it weren't for inventive minds, we wouldn't have the technology, science, or luxury we have today... or the mentality to think beyond what other people have already come up with. you wouldn't be encouraging people to think, you would be oppressing their minds. people would be too afraid to speak out for fear of their ideas being too "radical" or too "inventive." .

society would be at a stand still as we know it... or even worse, we could all revert to a more primitive state of mind where everyone is passive and no one DOES think.

Pay attention to what I'm saying. No where in my posts did I express the desire to elimiate free thinking, or the ability to influence society. In fact, I believe I was in total support for a new and better idea....one that would help society. I'm not saying that advancement should be crushed...I'm saying opposition to such an ideal can be dealt with.

Subversion is one aspect. But, useless subversion is another.