Debate Utopia

Okay... here's the deal...

My response in another debate thread got me thinking and I'm fairly sure this topic wasn't entirely discussed (we might have scratched the surface during another debate).

Anyways, the question is plain and simple. Do you think that a Utopia is possible? Do you find that it's logical, it's possible, or do you just have plain faith that in some, way, shape or form some day we will all reach some state of perfection or harmony?

Or are you like certain other individuals (like moi) that see the world as that full of opposites; there are always opposing forces and there will always be.

Anyway... just blurt out what you think and whyever you think that way and maybe some sparks will fly.

 

Depends on your definition of utopia. If you brainwashed and purged your society, sure it could be a utopia in the loosest sense of the term. Elsewise, probably impossible.

 

As Neph says, essentially the only way to create a utopia would be to make everyone so similar that it would eliminate subjects of conflict. I don't believe that we're ever, in our current state of being, going to achieve true peace - because there are so many differences in the world, and people are really such volatile and self-righteous creatures. We're going to find something to fight about, until such time as we might be able to evolve beyond any level of consciousness we now can fathom and embrace our differences as an enrichment.

So, in short, I'm a cynic. Humans aren't broad-minded enough to create a utopia where individuality is preserved without destroying harmony.

 

I think its impossible if ur not planning on living as a hermit. Everyone's view of utopia is different. Some might want to have complete peace and very quiet while some might want to be at an amusement park.

 

Like Neph said unless we were all brainwashed then i don't think a Utopia will ever be possable. Human nature won't allow it cause we are all so different and there are things that people will always find to figth and argue about.

If a Utopia was to include everybody thinking the same way then i don't think i would want to be apart of it. We may live in a world were theres hate, starvation and war, but at least we all have our own thoughts and we are all individuals. Whats the point in having a Utopia if we cant think for ourselves, i think that it would be boring.

 

Seeing as the term "utopia" was first coined in a satire by the same title written by Sir Thomas More, and every other time it's come up in literature has also been in a satirical fashion...

I think you know from just that what my viewpoint on this subject is.

 

People can never make up their own minds over what they want. So there's no way that we can all agree on a certain way of life, without destroying ourselves arguing on what it should be.

But if we were all brainwashed, it might work.

 

I, personally, would have to disagree with about everyone on this thread. I believe that not only is an "Utopia" possible, but it will be the ultimate outcome of this world's existence. However, in order to elaborate on this theory, I would have to delve into my religion, so you've been warned.
I believe that this Utopia, or as I would call it, Zion, will inhabit people who are "of one heart and one mind, and dwell in righteousness" and there will be "no poor among them." (See, I warned you.) Being of "one mind" does not require brainwashing. These peole will simply share a common goal, namely exaltation. Nor does this mean everyone would have to be a clone. They will all be, as we are, individuals and, therefore, will have different ways to obtain this goal.

Sorry, I had to go all preachy on you, but this is my opinion of the possibility of an Utopia.

 

I heard that book was awwwwful.

Anyway, I'm going to go with the flow of the thread: with human beings being so conceited and power-hungry, it would be impossible. Actually, now that I think about it, there could be a utopia. It would be a scenario in which the result is all people dying, as the natural flow of the universe would never end, and without free-thinking individuals, it would be a utopia.

We should try that.

 

Absolutely not. Not ever, no. Peace? What the hell is this.... peace you speak of? Human beings in nature are not peaceful creatures by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. Hence wars, fist-fights, bar brawls and so on and so forth. Even if you got rid of any thing for opposition, that would only create even more conflict. People would be so bored out of their minds, they would look for any reason to rub others the wrong way. And for aggressive people that can mean a simple scuffle, but it can mean war for countries. Besides. Peace is boring. Even "hippies" get pissed off every now and then and just want to kick the *** of whomever is opposing them. There is no such thing as passive resistance.

 

Uh, yeah, sure there Jackal. Ghandi didn't exactly have any violent tendencies. Besides, you're ignoring the possibility that said peace is not natural. A simple chemical in the drinking water, and bam...

 

I consider myself a "naturally" aggressive, dominating and domineering person. A simple "chemical in the drinking water" wouldn't cure me of that. Unless it was some reallllly good drugs. But then you'd have to keep making it. And then my children would turn out warped and retarded because of my constant drugged state. :anime:

And Ghandi didn't display violent tendencies that I know of, but no. Everyone at some time or another has wanted to beat someone into a coma. Maybe even further than that. At some time or another, most people have actually done such. I'm making a generalization, naturally. There aren't exactly too many people like Ghandi, now is there?

 

"All generalizations are false."

(I'm sorry, I simply couldn't resist. )

 

Whoop de doo. Chemicals can alter everything.

Given their potency, I'm sure it would.

It'd be cheaper than having to fund a military and a heavily armed and armored police force.

Not necessarily. Besides, if we're talking evil government here, how do you know I wouldn't mind a warped retarded kid? As long as he could push a button I'd have all the fodder for factories I'd need.

So? Regardless of their rarity, it pretty much shows your generalization was false. Generalizations are in themselves a debating fallacy as well.


Edit: Ultimately, we see people who have their ADD essentially removed as long as they are under the influence of pills. Same goes for violent tendencies, stressed feelings, depression and many other woes of society. Sing as much praise for your "individuality" as you want, but a huge portion of what makes you up is just chemical interaction with the brain which isn't too hard to change.

 

Really, now? So you have this chemical for yourself, then? You should probably sell it. I'm sure you'd make a good deal of money. Generalizations are made by circumstance; usually the majority of whatever you're generalizing about. So no, when it comes to majority cases (as we are, in fact, referring to the *general* populace) generalizations are rather handy. And as far as my own nature goes, if I were to drink something that altered the way I thought and behaved, I'd stop drinking it. Because not everyone is happy being a sheep. Or happy being happy, for that matter.

And I don't care, really, how the government would feel about my children. If they give birth to 'em, fine, they can have the little retards. But I'd rather not taint the gene pool any further, mk.

 

We're dealing with hypotheticals, but prozac is clearly evidence that you can make someone happy, and the mounds of tranquilizing drugs out there show you can achieve any effect from feelings of euphoric peacefulness to out-right knock outs.

And still you ignored the fact that I mentioned purgings right in my first post, so I could eliminate potentially troublesome people like you from my Evil Utopia. And furthermore, no, generalizations are NEVER valid. Besides, sure, most of us do have violent urges, but how many of us actually act on them? You seem to forget that.

It's not something you'd notice or care about, you dingus, given how it would alter your behavior, particularly if you were recieving this chemical straight from the day of your birth (or even beforehand, given that your mother would be ingesting this chemical too while you form as a fetus).

Since we're talking about a theoretical evil government here, a tainted genepool is precisely what we would want for the lower classes (that is: anyone who isn't ruling) since it'd keep em from getting too smart for their own good.

 

But would that really be a utopia? That things were only peaceful and "pleasant" so long as people were too messed up in the head to know any thing different? A utopia is supposed to be something one enjoys. Would you really enjoy having every thing in common with everyone else? And yes, generalizations are valid when talking about a large amount of people. Giving chemicals from birth? Alright. Where would you start? You would have to start somewhere.

The mothers? And what if the mothers didn't want to? What then? Forcing it upon them wouldn't be a "peaceful" way of handling the situation, or a pleasurable one. Evil in itself is an opinion, a perspective, so on and so forth. I don't believe evil exists. And quite a few people act upon their violent tendencies. Or haven't you watched the news? Or glanced over the statistics for a city's crime rate. Or, you know, the whole point of prisons.

 

Though really if you think about it, the idea that everyone would succumb and be complete affected by this tonic, in itself, can be considered a rather utopian idea.

Not to mention there would probably be a mastermind of the whole subject, if not several.. and what if said mastermind, or one of such, had a change of heart or something, it would be plausible to assume that he could **** up whatever Utopia they had attempted.

Also, using my understanding of human nature and the human psyche... I would think that it'd be plausible, even IF everyone was changed, that somewhere down along the line that something would influence someone, differently. I just believe it's in our nature to differ, part of what comes with being human and such, even with drugs and all.

Plus I still believe, although I could be wrong, the idea that such a plan would be pulled off without a hitch is utopian in itself.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

By many definitions yes, since it'd be getting everyone to get along and be peaceful.

Yep.

I think you'd enjoy the high of the chemical, dearie. That's rather the whole point.

You're confusing sedation with removal of individuality. Of course, the hypothetical drug would leave you too buzzed to realise that.

So in other words, because the majority of people at my school are not white, I suddenly stop being white? No, generalizatioins are NOT alright! They are a fallacy. You can say the MAJORITY of a population is one way but not all of it.

Baby food. Subtle atmospheric gases. Subliminal messages in the radio.

Thats the thing - we wouldn't tell them. The answer is simple. Manufacture a hoax disease. Come up with a cure. Said cure is a primer for the drugs. Begin to slowly introduce light versions of the chemical into the drinking water or food supply (notice how we get big kids because of the growth hormones in beef? If we could work it so an anti-depressant was in those hormones...). Gradually introduce stronger and stronger versions of the chemical into the water, and nobody notices due to the past few weeks spent ingesting slowly increasing amounts.

Alternatively, say it's flouride.

Who said getting to utopia had to be peaceful? Only utopia itself need be peaceful.

So you don't think that Hitler was evil, or that a rape followed by a homocide is an evil act? And I never said everyone restrains themselves.

I never said that people who act on those impulses don't exist. However, I've yet to see any of my friends murder. I've yet to see any of them even threaten with physical violence. Provide the proper outlets for violent tendencies such as sports; weed the troublesome ones out of the gene pool, and eventually you are running very smoothly.

 

I don't think any thing where a person is stripped of their individuality is a utopia, so you've just single-handedly negated any of what you've just said that should matter to me whatsoever, so. I said evil is a perception. An opinion. Really, talking about any thing that isn't considered fact is an opinion.

Do I think it's an "evil" act? What is evil, exactly? Whatever defies the norm in a negative light? The man who perpetrated the act himself probably doesn't even see it as evil, simply as something he wanted to do. Does that make him evil if only because his opinion defies the *majority* of everyone else's opinions?

As for your friends, I'm not even sure what to tell you. I've yet to meet one single person, myself, that hasn't had an argument at least once that didn't result in physical violence. Maybe your friends aren't human. Maybe they're little green men from mars. :dizzy: