Utopia

[helgi]

Supposing the most effective government, are there enough resources for a utopian society?

 

[nick_m100]

No, there are nowhere near enough resources that humans can use to actually sustain a utopian society. In a utopia everybody is happy and in order to keep everyone happy everyone needs to be equal and fed well and taken care of. In order to do that everyone needs to be kept healthy and health problems arise constantly so there are not enough resources to keep all in perfect health.

 

[silverseason]

One of the issues designers of utopias always struggle with is whether Helgi's "effective government" is enough or whether individual people have to change. The Shakers, for example, evolved a form of theocracy which was very effective at managing the communities for the benefit of all. Much of their energy, however, had to go into developing the Shakers to live in it - by prayer, exhortation, meetings with ritual dancing, segregation of the sexes, a strict work schedule, and more. It worked at the time, but it could not be sustained.

So, with an effective government and cooperating utopia members, yes there would be sufficient resources. The reason? The utopia would limit population, both now and in the future. With our current technology, if population could be reduced and then controlled so that it did not grow again, a very good life could be available to all.

 

[helgi]

One of the issues designers of utopias always struggle with is whether Helgi's "effective government" is enough or whether individual people have to change. The Shakers, for example, evolved a form of theocracy which was very effective at managing the communities for the benefit of all. Much of their energy, however, had to go into developing the Shakers to live in it - by prayer, exhortation, meetings with ritual dancing, segregation of the sexes, a strict work schedule, and more. It worked at the time, but it could not be sustained.

So, with an effective government and cooperating utopia members, yes there would be sufficient resources. The reason? The utopia would limit population, both now and in the future. With our current technology, if population could be reduced and then controlled so that it did not grow again, a very good life could be available to all.

over-population is a crisis that doesn't seem to be openly acknowledged in the USA, even though the effects of over-population are well established in discussion; independent of their common cause. If non-exclusive, moraly correct and humane quotas may exist, they represent a common solution to an indefinite number of potential and existing hazards caused by over-population. But this is not a realistic platform for any present day U.S. politician, I think, because the subject holds such a strong distaste for everyone that for the most part it is only expressed in horror movies like Soylent Green.

 

[helgi]

One of the issues designers of utopias always struggle with is whether Helgi's "effective government" is enough or whether individual people have to change. The Shakers, for example, evolved a form of theocracy which was very effective at managing the communities for the benefit of all. Much of their energy, however, had to go into developing the Shakers to live in it - by prayer, exhortation, meetings with ritual dancing, segregation of the sexes, a strict work schedule, and more. It worked at the time, but it could not be sustained.

So, with an effective government and cooperating utopia members, yes there would be sufficient resources. The reason? The utopia would limit population, both now and in the future. With our current technology, if population could be reduced and then controlled so that it did not grow again, a very good life could be available to all.

I was interested in your mention of theocracy. It occurs to me, that if all else was to go well, the ultimate reason for internal failure of monarchies is that they have historically been under a theology, and so the king was not afterall an absolute authority, and could be replaced. Even a pope or pharoah, kept closer to divinity than a king, are still admitted distinct from God or other gods. Then perhaps, if theocracy was ever to work, the ruling earthly figure must have been acknowledged a god, standing in the shadow of no god in heaven either, as the pharoahs did. However, the greatest argument for the success of theocracy being determined by the ruler's divinity is Egypt, whose remains suggest such a great civilization. Perhaps the only reason for Egypt's failure is that they were pagans. A mono-diocratic society could represent a society with the greatest likelihood for no internal failure.

 

[helgi]

I was interested in your mention of theocracy. It occurs to me, that if all else was to go well, the ultimate reason for internal failure of monarchies is that they have historically been under a theology, and so the king was not afterall an absolute authority, and could be replaced. Even a pope or pharoah, kept closer to divinity than a king, are still admitted distinct from God or other gods. Then perhaps, if theocracy was ever to work, the ruling earthly figure must have been acknowledged a god, standing in the shadow of no god in heaven either, as the pharoahs did. However, the greatest argument for the success of theocracy being determined by the ruler's divinity is Egypt, whose remains suggest such a great civilization. Perhaps the only reason for Egypt's failure is that they were pagans. A mono-diocratic society could represent a society with the greatest likelihood for no internal failure.

When I think of it, the good reception and relative non-discresion of people towards some celebrities may represent a common, but yet unsuccesful sociological instinct to select an earthly figure to acknowledge as an uncontested god\authority.

Insect society may represent an example of no internal failure, I think. As one would imagine, the instinct towards choosing a queen existed before the specializations of the queens evolved. A similar specialization may be destined to occur in homosapeans.

I suppose the virtue of insect society is that the monarch will never betray the subjects, and the subjects will never betray the monarch. It may be regarded as an accomplished society, as it is a biological society.

 

[helgi]

I was interested in your mention of theocracy. It occurs to me, that if all else was to go well, the ultimate reason for internal failure of monarchies is that they have historically been under a theology, and so the king was not afterall an absolute authority, and could be replaced. Even a pope or pharoah, kept closer to divinity than a king, are still admitted distinct from God or other gods. Then perhaps, if theocracy was ever to work, the ruling earthly figure must have been acknowledged a god, standing in the shadow of no god in heaven either, as the pharoahs did. However, the greatest argument for the success of theocracy being determined by the ruler's divinity is Egypt, whose remains suggest such a great civilization. Perhaps the only reason for Egypt's failure is that they were pagans. A mono-diocratic society could represent a society with the greatest likelihood for no internal failure.

by mono-diocratic society, I mean a society ruled directly by a single god, or earthly figure acknowledged as an uncontested god/authority.

 

[silverseason]

Helgi,

A couple of things.

1. Regarding population control, we are talking about utopia here, not what politicians may or may not be willing to do.

2. Theocracy does not equal god-king. Read about the Shakers. They were a utopian community ruled by religious elders who were self-perpetuating, that is, existing ones selected new members to their exclusive group. Perhaps influenced by the checks and balances concept of the US constitution, there was never a single person. Usually there were four, two men and two women.

 

[helgi]

Helgi,

A couple of things.

1. Regarding population control, we are talking about utopia here, not what politicians may or may not be willing to do.

2. Theocracy does not equal god-king. Read about the Shakers. They were a utopian community ruled by religious elders who were self-perpetuating, that is, existing ones selected new members to their exclusive group. Perhaps influenced by the checks and balances concept of the US constitution, there was never a single person. Usually there were four, two men and two women.

1. we both refered to population control. I was mentioning polititions in connection with why the problem of over-population is not always brought to public attention.

2. I don't think my posts confuse a theocratic ruler with a god-king, but suggest a concept of rule which may not belong to such an established term as theocracy. My interest was to suggest the possible effectiveness of a ruler that is acknowledged as an uncontested god/authority. As far as I know there is no such example in history, and I wonder if such a government has the possibiltity for no internal failure, or even utopian qualities.

 

[nyse]

Supposing the most effective government, are there enough resources for a utopian society?

A real democracy (where political parties have been abolished), seems to me as the only possible Utopian government: as it is good for everyone equally.

Capitalism seems to spur growth and efficiency better than communism did, but communism seems a better system for administering a public assistance program. IE. All homeless and other people requiring help should automatically recieve the minimum requirements for food and shelter, If they want a better standard of living on the public's coin, then they can earn credits through work.

 

[helgi]

The Need for Democracies and Republics and Theocracies

some of my posts refered to isolated effeciencies of government, which I think can ultimately serve utopian discussion, but in this case may have illuminated a subject alterior to utopia. I meant to suggest a correlation of singular authority with no/little internal failure by citing insect society and Egypt as positive examples, and also to suggest (Y) that gods alterior to a ruler impede his authority. (Y) seems obviouse when it is capitulated as (X) authorities alterior to a ruler divide his authority, but such an obviouse suggestion can be applied to argue to some effect answers to important questions; why rome fell/why egypt fell. They were pagan societies, and so if they did not fail from external assalts or natural shortages, they may have been destined to fail eventually from internal dissent.

...of course, rulers have historicaly delegated immediate powers to subordinates, but subordinate power is not of neccesity a contest of the authority that warrants it. Alterior gods to an authority are likely in all theologies to be equal or greater than the earthly ruler, and are recognized as contest by the subjects, and this is the device that impedes the effectiveness of the ruler.

...a ruler who must share his authority with gods is impeded in this way; that the subjects recognize that their leader is expendable, and that the acknowledgement of alterior gods is irrefutably recognized as their leader's expendability by the subjects [even when it is not expressed among them] despite any doctrine that lists the ruler as infallible and neccesary.

...It may be suggested that societies fail because of gods, and that societies are not meant, by the order of things, to be lasting. The specific pursuit of an earthly Utopia, rather than a simply practical, decent, god fearing society, may be irreverant, just as the tower of Babel was irreverant.

...if it is accepted that societies fail because of their gods, then a godless society which is suggested here to be of no internal failure, is only checked by other countries, and such may be the fullest and most Reverent function of democracies, republics and theocracies, which rise and fall in service of gods and kind ideals.