It would take too much time to outline complete ideas of a Utopian society so I wondered if members could post ideas, one at a time, of what a Utopian society might consist of. Even if it is a broad idea like "equality" from which we, as a group, could then consider the details of.
Forget what exists, forget what is "realistic". Can we at Forumgarden define what we want? What society would make us happy? If we can't make these decisions as a small community, how can we expect the world to ever work things out?
I'll start it out with equality. What does this mean to you?
Utopia
Utopia
Equality. For me, equality is the equal status of all races, all sexes, all sexual preferences (among consenting adults), and all economic groups.
I propose a second requirement: Understanding. What does that mean to you?
I propose a second requirement: Understanding. What does that mean to you?
Utopia
Utopia, approval coming soon, in my area. The former Norwich State Hospital is planned to be named Utopia. Near the most fasinating casinos in the world. You want to talk about Canada, where the fun is, well- Utopia if it comes to Norwich will boost my sales. As an mineral recyling business, i like the idea. As I have made my business foundation on behalf of the Foxwoods Casino & the Sun, I call only tell you, all dealings are profitable. 
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Utopia
Fyrehawke wrote: Equality. For me, equality is the equal status of all races, all sexes, all sexual preferences (among consenting adults), and all economic groups.
I propose a second requirement: Understanding. What does that mean to you?
To expand equality: equal status for all people regardless of their differences, no matter what those differences may be.
Understanding: Treat everyone and everything with compassion. When you see no difference between the sacred and the profane, the Saint or the Sinner, that is the ultimate understanding.
Feel free to expound on the qualities mentioned and add new ones.
Peaceful resolution to problems.
I propose a second requirement: Understanding. What does that mean to you?
To expand equality: equal status for all people regardless of their differences, no matter what those differences may be.
Understanding: Treat everyone and everything with compassion. When you see no difference between the sacred and the profane, the Saint or the Sinner, that is the ultimate understanding.
Feel free to expound on the qualities mentioned and add new ones.
Peaceful resolution to problems.
Utopia
deal with a Mind Game, I am a woman construction worker, laugh at me once and then twice, I work hard for a living, and i make BUNCHES of money. Grab a shovel and help, never mind pay for a new one, equipment, coming soon. Girls rule, dig in! :-2 :-2 :-2
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Utopia
For Ever Happend, I made a lot of money...Today, lets see about today...Proud..Thank you...
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Utopia
Paula,
If you have something sensible you need to say to me...why don't you private message?
As it is, you are disrupting what is meant to be a serious discussion.
Yes, I do construction. It keeps me sane...you should try it.
If you have something sensible you need to say to me...why don't you private message?
As it is, you are disrupting what is meant to be a serious discussion.
Yes, I do construction. It keeps me sane...you should try it.
Utopia
I don't private message any-one, i have nothing to hide, i just signed a $700,000.00, yes a (seven hundred (thousand) dollar real-estate transaction). I'm a bit mixed up at the moment, the ability to pay is not the issue, the issue is things are moving here too fast for me. Thanks for the scolding, I need to get to work now. :guitarist :-3 :-5 i don't think you could do my job, these guys would eat you up and SPIT you out. No snap dragons in the garden. What kind of a plant do you think you are? :rolleyes:
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Utopia
koan wrote: To expand equality: equal status for all people regardless of their differences, no matter what those differences may be.
Understanding: Treat everyone and everything with compassion. When you see no difference between the sacred and the profane, the Saint or the Sinner, that is the ultimate understanding.
Feel free to expound on the qualities mentioned and add new ones.
Peaceful resolution to problems.
Well Wandering Jew, i wish the engineers had that attitutude, there is No compassion in business, no saints, Sinners only honey. Nothing is equal in my field, its all about winners and losers, if the job isn't done and accepted we lose, money that is. Yes i donate to many charities.
Understanding: Treat everyone and everything with compassion. When you see no difference between the sacred and the profane, the Saint or the Sinner, that is the ultimate understanding.
Feel free to expound on the qualities mentioned and add new ones.
Peaceful resolution to problems.
Well Wandering Jew, i wish the engineers had that attitutude, there is No compassion in business, no saints, Sinners only honey. Nothing is equal in my field, its all about winners and losers, if the job isn't done and accepted we lose, money that is. Yes i donate to many charities.
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Utopia
Equality - opportunity available to every person regardless of who or what they are.
Understanding - accepting that other people hold different views, and being willing to judge them not on what you personally feel is right, but by how well they live up to their own ideals.
My own would be to live with caution, not fear.
Understanding - accepting that other people hold different views, and being willing to judge them not on what you personally feel is right, but by how well they live up to their own ideals.
My own would be to live with caution, not fear.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Utopia
A Karenina wrote: Equality - opportunity available to every person regardless of who or what they are.
Understanding - accepting that other people hold different views, and being willing to judge them not on what you personally feel is right, but by how well they live up to their own ideals.
I really like your definition!
My own would be to live with caution, not fear.
This implies living with a sense of safety. If we feel safe, there is no reason to live in fear. This is a big one.
How do we live without fear? Being raised with respect in a world where people are consistent and logical makes the environment friendlier. What other ways could we breed a sense of safety?
Understanding - accepting that other people hold different views, and being willing to judge them not on what you personally feel is right, but by how well they live up to their own ideals.
I really like your definition!
My own would be to live with caution, not fear.
This implies living with a sense of safety. If we feel safe, there is no reason to live in fear. This is a big one.
How do we live without fear? Being raised with respect in a world where people are consistent and logical makes the environment friendlier. What other ways could we breed a sense of safety?
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Utopia
Thanks for the compliment on my definition.
The fear versus caution idea...I don't think people can live without fear completely. But I do feel that there are levels of fear (as there are levels to everything). If we can learn to control fear, to reduce it to caution instead, then how much happier we'd be overall.
I would also like to clarify that there is no way to find certain types of security - anyone can become ill, for example. Everyone is subject to things that nature controls, like natural disasters. So we waste our time and energy trying to feel secure against such things. Which is not to say that we are powerless, either. We can take a common sense approach to things that may harm us or cause us fear. We can eat healthy and exercise to help ward off disease. We can be smart and prepared in advance for emergencies like floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.
Ok, so I'm discussing other types of fear - specifically fear of trying new things or ideas. We fear things that are different, that are unknown, that are beyond our scope of understanding...and that fear often controls us instead of the other way around.
How can we do this? It's an individual thing. Each person has to reach inside of themselves and figure out what they fear and why...and then learn to control it. Reduce it. Make it become caution - make it work for you, not against you. This requires self-insight, honesty, and courage. We have to truly believe that we are not bad people when we admit that we occasionally do bad things.
I don't think we can breed this, or create it in a societal form. But individuals can inspire from time to time, and one hopes that this ability grows within us as well as around us.
The fear versus caution idea...I don't think people can live without fear completely. But I do feel that there are levels of fear (as there are levels to everything). If we can learn to control fear, to reduce it to caution instead, then how much happier we'd be overall.
I would also like to clarify that there is no way to find certain types of security - anyone can become ill, for example. Everyone is subject to things that nature controls, like natural disasters. So we waste our time and energy trying to feel secure against such things. Which is not to say that we are powerless, either. We can take a common sense approach to things that may harm us or cause us fear. We can eat healthy and exercise to help ward off disease. We can be smart and prepared in advance for emergencies like floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.
Ok, so I'm discussing other types of fear - specifically fear of trying new things or ideas. We fear things that are different, that are unknown, that are beyond our scope of understanding...and that fear often controls us instead of the other way around.
How can we do this? It's an individual thing. Each person has to reach inside of themselves and figure out what they fear and why...and then learn to control it. Reduce it. Make it become caution - make it work for you, not against you. This requires self-insight, honesty, and courage. We have to truly believe that we are not bad people when we admit that we occasionally do bad things.
I don't think we can breed this, or create it in a societal form. But individuals can inspire from time to time, and one hopes that this ability grows within us as well as around us.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Utopia
This fear concept is, to me, one of the most important aspects of freeing society so forgive me if I wax on. Whenever I think of the kind of society I would want to live in this is a primary concern. I hate insurance! The only insurance anyone needed was the doctrine of "Love thy neighbour". People used to take care of each other as a community and, as part of that community, you didn't have to fear the way we do now.
If your house burnt down, the neighbours would shelter you and help you build a new house.
We are so raped and ravaged by the society we have fostered now that people don't feel they have enough to give. While we feel sorry for our neighbour and wish them well, give them a few handouts, only a few would take them in and put themselves out of comfort to help their fellow man. So....
while the inward process is essential, we must change our selfish attitudes and see our neighbours as our family. It worked before. Who better to trust with our welfare than our community. But the community must be revived. The community has been destroyed and we have to rebuild it. There is so little money left after taxes that people feel they have to live in fear. Taxes were meant to be a temporary measure. Now they are a means of control. What does the government give us for security that we can not give each other? This is not an unproven theory. Why did we stop taking care of each other?
If your house burnt down, the neighbours would shelter you and help you build a new house.
We are so raped and ravaged by the society we have fostered now that people don't feel they have enough to give. While we feel sorry for our neighbour and wish them well, give them a few handouts, only a few would take them in and put themselves out of comfort to help their fellow man. So....
while the inward process is essential, we must change our selfish attitudes and see our neighbours as our family. It worked before. Who better to trust with our welfare than our community. But the community must be revived. The community has been destroyed and we have to rebuild it. There is so little money left after taxes that people feel they have to live in fear. Taxes were meant to be a temporary measure. Now they are a means of control. What does the government give us for security that we can not give each other? This is not an unproven theory. Why did we stop taking care of each other?
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Utopia
koan wrote: This fear concept is, to me, one of the most important aspects of freeing society so forgive me if I wax on.
Oh, I wax on all the time so it doesn't need forgiving from me!
koan wrote: The only insurance anyone needed was the doctrine of "Love thy neighbour". People used to take care of each other as a community and, as part of that community, you didn't have to fear the way we do now.
If your house burnt down, the neighbours would shelter you and help you build a new house. I hope you'll forgive me if my reply seems rude, but I wonder what time and place you are referring to where neighbors took care of each other? From the stories of my parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, quite the opposite was true. There have always been exceptions to the rule - and still today some people will take in other people (like you yourself do).
This is my problem with utopia - it doesn't completely mesh with human nature.
Oh, I wax on all the time so it doesn't need forgiving from me!
koan wrote: The only insurance anyone needed was the doctrine of "Love thy neighbour". People used to take care of each other as a community and, as part of that community, you didn't have to fear the way we do now.
If your house burnt down, the neighbours would shelter you and help you build a new house. I hope you'll forgive me if my reply seems rude, but I wonder what time and place you are referring to where neighbors took care of each other? From the stories of my parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, quite the opposite was true. There have always been exceptions to the rule - and still today some people will take in other people (like you yourself do).
This is my problem with utopia - it doesn't completely mesh with human nature.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Utopia
I'm thinking of longer ago, tribal societies.
Just because there is technology now doesn't mean a tribal society would not still be workable. But the point that people of cruel nature couldn't suddenly be "converted" to community is still valid. Some people can not see the value in giving until they need to receive.
Just because there is technology now doesn't mean a tribal society would not still be workable. But the point that people of cruel nature couldn't suddenly be "converted" to community is still valid. Some people can not see the value in giving until they need to receive.
-
persephone
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:14 pm
Utopia
Tribal governments were harsh. In Europe, Asia, Africa, and Native American tribes, clans, and extended families had harsher penalties for minor social infractions than we do now. They all had governments: eldest, strongest, best hunter, etc. Violations could be punished with dismemberment, exile, abandonment, and in other ways that we find unacceptable today. Fights over who was in control were common with the losers and their supporters enslaved or put to death.Some still have punishments like this, there are still women who accused of adultery by a husband can be sentenced to death by stoning, just as an example, sorry I can't think which country it occurs.
Just looked it up, Middle East still have extreme punishments, and Iran still do stoning and lashing.
Just looked it up, Middle East still have extreme punishments, and Iran still do stoning and lashing.
Bad Girls have very high standards, but they love you even if you sometimes fall short.
-
persephone
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:14 pm
Utopia
It was this one I was thinking of that was recently in the news, of course when it manages to make the news before the event, the courts are likely to reverse the sentence under the pressure of the world wide media eye.
Nigeria court overturns stoning
Nigeria court overturns stoning
Bad Girls have very high standards, but they love you even if you sometimes fall short.
Utopia
My position as an anarchist who also believes in social order is where I come from in my opinions, it does not mean that I think this is the only way to social happiness.
Strange ideas of what is fit punishment for those who err against society is always a possibility and does still exist. Rivalry for leadership has always existed and still exists. By reducing the size of government to smaller communities, there is more chance that the decisions of the group will reflect the will of the group. It is possible for everyone to be heard.
I want to move to another aspect of society that is fear based.
In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. If the road between two villages is impassable, the peasant says, "There should be a law about parish roads." If a park-keeper takes advantage of the want of spirit in those who follow him with servile obedience and insults one of them, the insulted man says, "There should be a law to enjoin more politeness upon the park-keepers." If there is stagnation in agriculture or commerce, the husbandman, cattle-breeder, or corn- speculator argues, "It is protective legislation which we require." Down to the old clothesman there is not one who does not demand a law to protect his own little trade. If the employer lowers wages or increases the hours of labor, the politician in embryo explains, "We must have a law to put all that to rights." In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human indolence and cowardice.
--Peter Kropotkin,
"Law and Authority"
The preoccupation with law making is a stumbling block to community. Do we need written laws so extensively. Think of how we view lawyers that are the servants of this system. It is a common opinion that courts do not successful, the one with the best lawyer wins. Can we not enforce courteousness by peer pressure? Maybe not, but is there a better way?
Strange ideas of what is fit punishment for those who err against society is always a possibility and does still exist. Rivalry for leadership has always existed and still exists. By reducing the size of government to smaller communities, there is more chance that the decisions of the group will reflect the will of the group. It is possible for everyone to be heard.
I want to move to another aspect of society that is fear based.
In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. If the road between two villages is impassable, the peasant says, "There should be a law about parish roads." If a park-keeper takes advantage of the want of spirit in those who follow him with servile obedience and insults one of them, the insulted man says, "There should be a law to enjoin more politeness upon the park-keepers." If there is stagnation in agriculture or commerce, the husbandman, cattle-breeder, or corn- speculator argues, "It is protective legislation which we require." Down to the old clothesman there is not one who does not demand a law to protect his own little trade. If the employer lowers wages or increases the hours of labor, the politician in embryo explains, "We must have a law to put all that to rights." In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human indolence and cowardice.
--Peter Kropotkin,
"Law and Authority"
The preoccupation with law making is a stumbling block to community. Do we need written laws so extensively. Think of how we view lawyers that are the servants of this system. It is a common opinion that courts do not successful, the one with the best lawyer wins. Can we not enforce courteousness by peer pressure? Maybe not, but is there a better way?
Utopia
...and laws that Bush's Bullies make up as they go along. :wah:
Based on your experience, how many levels do you think are required?
I was thinking, this afternoon, about the possibility of a UN type gathering of elected representatives to prevent war crimes and other global issues with minimalist powers and then communities run by "villages".
What would the world be like if there were no borders between countries? What if people could freely travel where they wanted and seek gainful employment? Is there a concern that everyone would go to the same place and battle it out for prime real estate? Don't you think it would be like looking for a seat on the subway...if the car is full you go to the next one?
Based on your experience, how many levels do you think are required?
I was thinking, this afternoon, about the possibility of a UN type gathering of elected representatives to prevent war crimes and other global issues with minimalist powers and then communities run by "villages".
What would the world be like if there were no borders between countries? What if people could freely travel where they wanted and seek gainful employment? Is there a concern that everyone would go to the same place and battle it out for prime real estate? Don't you think it would be like looking for a seat on the subway...if the car is full you go to the next one?
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Utopia
Jack Sprat wrote: If we had a Star Trek type of united world with local jurisdiction and a worldwide government addressing the "bigger" issues, then governmental budgets would be reduced by (guestimate) 70% and, allowing for cultural diversity, there would be more freedom and acceptance of differences.
Even Star Trek simply moved problems we currently have with each other onto the inhabitants of other planets. They boldly explored brand new worlds and imposed the same moral values we hold here...not to mention Kirk's possibly perverse interest in alien females.
I'm thinking that we're not gonna solve world problems until we progress as a species.
Even Star Trek simply moved problems we currently have with each other onto the inhabitants of other planets. They boldly explored brand new worlds and imposed the same moral values we hold here...not to mention Kirk's possibly perverse interest in alien females.
I'm thinking that we're not gonna solve world problems until we progress as a species.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Utopia
It could also be said that we are not going to progress as a species until we solve world problems.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Utopia
Jack! :wah:
koan wrote: It could also be said that we are not going to progress as a species until we solve world problems.
Koan, you're a beautiful optimist. It's my job as a bitter realist to puncture your balloons.
Let's look quickly at some of our current limitations. Racism is a huge one. We have hordes of people who stubbornly choose to live they way their ancestors did. People who refuse to bleach their yellow, red, or black skins. People who insist on being different and wearing saris of silk rather than stuffy pinching business suits. And so on...
Opening everyone's borders and letting people jump about from country to country sounds very nice. But most people will stay where they are unless conditions are too horrific. If conditions are too horrific to stay, and they decide to come live in the US for instance, it's yet one more group for us to despise, to caste down, and to crawl over as we grope for a higher position of the human ladder.
We barely tolerate immigrants who've jumped through unimaginable hoops to be here...do you think we're gonna (overall) accept just anybody from anywhere? Highly unlikely.
I'm gonna sound like an elitist snob here, and I apologize in advance. Tolerance is an art, not a natural human trait.
Education and opportunity to practice tolerance is crucial to eliminating active hate.
The poorest among us don't usually have the combined luxuries of education and time, plus they have a whole lotta anger brewing as they struggle for the basics.
If we want to fix these problems, we have to slowly move as a whole society. We have to embrace every portion of society and ensure they have the elements necessary to mentally grow. Even then it would take generations for these new-fangled notions of tolerance to take root and develop as an accepted fact.
The progression of our species and the improvement of our world are irrevocably linked. But we can't pile on new challenges (wow, that was very PC of me!) and expect people to get it...not when we clearly demonstrate we can't handle what we've got now.
Government is supposedly a neutral tool we use to ensure equal rights under law. It cannot and will not ever be able to change a person's thought process. It can and often does protect a right given to everyone by law, but denied to certain groups in practice.
I'll finish these thoughts in a bit. I need more coffee.
koan wrote: It could also be said that we are not going to progress as a species until we solve world problems.
Koan, you're a beautiful optimist. It's my job as a bitter realist to puncture your balloons.
Let's look quickly at some of our current limitations. Racism is a huge one. We have hordes of people who stubbornly choose to live they way their ancestors did. People who refuse to bleach their yellow, red, or black skins. People who insist on being different and wearing saris of silk rather than stuffy pinching business suits. And so on...
Opening everyone's borders and letting people jump about from country to country sounds very nice. But most people will stay where they are unless conditions are too horrific. If conditions are too horrific to stay, and they decide to come live in the US for instance, it's yet one more group for us to despise, to caste down, and to crawl over as we grope for a higher position of the human ladder.
We barely tolerate immigrants who've jumped through unimaginable hoops to be here...do you think we're gonna (overall) accept just anybody from anywhere? Highly unlikely.
I'm gonna sound like an elitist snob here, and I apologize in advance. Tolerance is an art, not a natural human trait.
Education and opportunity to practice tolerance is crucial to eliminating active hate.
The poorest among us don't usually have the combined luxuries of education and time, plus they have a whole lotta anger brewing as they struggle for the basics.
If we want to fix these problems, we have to slowly move as a whole society. We have to embrace every portion of society and ensure they have the elements necessary to mentally grow. Even then it would take generations for these new-fangled notions of tolerance to take root and develop as an accepted fact.
The progression of our species and the improvement of our world are irrevocably linked. But we can't pile on new challenges (wow, that was very PC of me!) and expect people to get it...not when we clearly demonstrate we can't handle what we've got now.
Government is supposedly a neutral tool we use to ensure equal rights under law. It cannot and will not ever be able to change a person's thought process. It can and often does protect a right given to everyone by law, but denied to certain groups in practice.
I'll finish these thoughts in a bit. I need more coffee.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle