Your own Utopia

[Rapscallion]

Bit of a personal challenge I've had - thought I'd throw it out there.

How would you design a perfect society from scratch?

What would make it ideal for you?

Bear in mind that you could change the beings in there, or make a society that would fit around human foibles.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

Damn, that's a difficult one, isn't it?

I certainly wouldn't want to fundamentally change humanity so much that it's no longer humanity, I like free will. But I also don't know what society all people would be happy with, and I think a change in humanity is necessary, because I think once humanity has undergone a shift, to seeing other people as people more easily, then we'll have a better society no matter how it's structured.

So...

I really, really don't know. Hmm.

[Rapscallion]

The change of humanity would be more or less a bonus. What I think I'm really after is a decent alternative to the capitalism and cash society that we currently have.

Rapscallion

[s_stabeler]

the problem is, a true Utopia more or less requires changes to humanity- if nothing else, you would need to remove both greed, and lust for power. ( both of those being what brought down the USSR, in effect. The USSR wasn't truly communist- in a true communist state, you don't get people having more than others, and in the USSR, while everyone could theoretically aspire to what the elite had, in practice...)

however, it isn't inherently capitalism as such that is the problem- it's the ability of big companies to influence the legislature- and the democrats and republicans are both pro-large businesses, the Republicans are just more obnoxious about it.

[AccountingDrone]

Fun question!

If I were absolute ruler of the world, some things gotta change. I have long been a fan of Old Man River City. One problem with the world as it is now is that we have oodles of resources, but the dispersion of the resources is patchy, resulting in slums and famines, and well off areas.

I think that a major problem with many cities is a combination of aging infrastructure, crowding and inadequate economic spread. In many SF stories they have achieved a moderate run at a utopia - people are guaranteed an adequate income, medical care, education and housing.

I could see a network of OMRCitys connected with high speed rail with a skirting area of agriculture to reuse the grey water and composted wastes of whatever plants are suitable to that zone. In the city there would be a combination of light industry and service industries, and in areas where mining is the thing, the city would be less agribusiness oriented and mining and processing oriented. People would live in the cities and take local commuter options to their work station. The areas between the cities would have recreational areas set up, and one could sign out small vehicles to recreate with [RVs, water vessels, single family vehicles for day trips and so forth] Certain historical cities would effectively become recreational areas with some readjustment of removing nonhistorical buildings to create greenspace and the addition of well designed hotels for the vacationers.

I was in a school that did the year around thing for a while and liked it so I am thinking that would be good - and it scattered decent amounts of vacation around the calendar. And working adults should get adequate vacation and sick time, and the maternity leave should be 2-3 years for the mothering partner and 3-4 months for the other partner. I think that we need to get away from the whole trades are lower class - if it were not for tradesmen building and repairing, the white collar workers would be fucked - but I also don't think that everybody needs to be in the university track - trade school is just as honorable a career choice. If wages vs salary vanished, and everybody had the same basic stipend and you made bonuses by your non-work beneficial-to-society activities people might be less assholish about things.

I know, not going to happen. *sigh*

[fireheart17]

I think the main thing I would want to modify is downplaying religion as having a major influence over society. As it stands, religion plays a BIG part in just about everything and it often comes to the harm of others.
My society would force people to make their own choices around religion and stop demanding that society bend backwards for them...to a point. For example, no "scripture" classes in public schools*, no religious influence in public schools period, same-sex marriage would be allowed because the only real thing holding it back is pandering to the religious nuts, abortion clinics would be protest-free (there are very few protesters there these days that are NOT religious) and shops would be open as often as they wanted to be.
That said, things like providing halal and kosher products is not an issue, although it would come with the proviso that the money from being halal/kosher certified is to go to charity and actually helping the community.
Charity and community would also come with the proviso that it's non-judgemental and that you cannot proselytize.

[kamn]

Utopia? Huh, hard one. The biggest problem being that I LIKE diversity, which includes the asshole idiots part.

Lets try. Religion has no business in legislature, that would be the first change. Politicians have to demonstrate a fundamental ability for empathy, as the first requirement for the job. Everyone has a guaranteed income, albeit a small one (enough to get by with a few luxuries, not mansions) and a "fundamental right" to food, education, medical assistance (physical and mental and emotional), firefighters and police. A lawyer is not a requirement for court, the court system being constructed well enough that a 4th grader could understand it. An encouragement for achievements, both personal and professional, as a societal core, be it a perfect waiter, butler, doctor or lawyer (mostly feel good-tactics). No additional prestige for doing a certain line of work, not even the risky ones.

Ethics and morality (and religion) having no place in the court system, practicality perhaps closely following (so we don't get the "ban alcohol" or "ban abortion" idiocy). Practicality is mentioned, because it would be practical to make it illegal to not vaccinate a child or oneself, but I can't say that it should be illegal, just as much as someone not helping a stranger in time of need isn't illegal...

Acquired wealth is constantly diminished, little by little. Someone leaving an inheritance of a million to their child, should not make that child immune to many of their peers problems. But at the same time, Someone getting a million should be able to get whatever they can buy with it at the time. So, either a wealth tax (something like 0.5%) or crazy inflation (probably not). Would rather have something else, something inherent in the wealth system, not something that takes away, but rather simple devaluation, much like what one did 5 years ago having much less of an impact than what one did yesterday.

Everyone is welcome to improve on themselves in whatever way they want and for free. Be it how to become a farmer, a soldier, a terrorist, a saint, a soldier, a medic...
Terrorist is in there because it is a mindset, not an occupation, and hiding it or making it harder to get to hinders those that wish to know how to counter it, not those that wish to perpetrate it. Obviously, this would require an oversight on suspects and dedicated people against it, who would not (not "could not", WOULD not, due to mindset, perhaps empathy?) abuse the tools at hand.
This means that school is available to anyone that wishes to learn. That said, manual labour is not belittled.

I know I'm forgetting some things, I'll write it in later, if need be. Being sick sucks...

[TheHuckster]

I thought about this long and hard, and I'm going to use the "mold humanity as you see fit" as much as possible for this. In many ways I'm scared by my own vision, but the only reason this might work is because humanity would have had this for their entire history.

I think a lot of society's woes is stemmed from dishonesty and lack of integrity. Dishonesty breeds lack of trust, which in turn breeds prejudice. It also leads to disparity between those who conned their ways to the top and those victimized by their dishonest scheme. Debates can be argued simply by accusing the other side of being a liar (read: FUD), and ironically using dishonest statistics or flimsy evidence to do so.

This leads to a society of people who are so unsure of the future, thanks to the works of dishonest people in power.

Therefore, a completely and perfectly transparent society where nobody can tell a lie may bring about a Utopic society, where people always knows eachothers' intentions in their actions, and therefore wrongdoing and "evil plans" by those who want to cheat their way ahead are quickly squashed.

Such a society sounds very controversial to us, since we do value our privacy in our own society. In this hypothetical society, the concept of "hiding their intentions" from another person in the name of privacy would be foreign to them, and humanity would have had this trait for thousands of years, so they would have long since adapted to the peculiar effects of such a "limitation."

People would still have free will, but they would simply make their will known to others if asked. Certain professions like law enforcement might still be necessary, as one could announce their intentions to do wrongful acts if they feel nobody is capable of stopping them. However, most people wouldn't even try to do wrong because they will be found eventually.

[Rapscallion]

I think I really put in the option for changing humanity because quite simply any equitable system I can conceive of is going to be hampered by the lack of equality of humans. There are the high achievers, who do more than they really should. There are the ones who don't want to do anything other than take what little they can from the state (under current circumstances) and are satisfied with that. There are those who want to do better and are unable to. There are thousands of shades of grey between that.

Rapscallion

[TheHuckster]

Ah, gotcha.

I'd argue that high achievers don't necessarily do more than they really should, but rather they should fit into a specific role or profession that fosters this kind of attitude. Surgical doctors and world leaders, for instance, have a profession where you really do have to strive for achieving high and not just being "adequate" at your job. Other professions have a little more leeway as to how much overtime is expected from you, and what is at stake if your fail.

That said, pretty much every job requires at least adequate performance, so on the other side of the spectrum, those who either to the bare minimum or worse, either by choice, or due to a limited capacity, might hinder a utopic society. If we could alter humanity to both take away underachievement and disability, that might help.

The only problem that's left on this vein, then, is the supply and demand of professions. Another source of happiness in society, in terms of equality, is the proportion of people who wish to accomplish their career goals. A lot of people who want to (and are qualified to) become a world leader cannot, simply because there is an extremely low number of people who can. If we find ourselves in a society where 50% of people wish to become doctors, there isn't a need to have a 1 doctor per capita, therefore you're going to have a segment of people who are unable to fulfill their dreams. If there are fewer people who want to be janitors than there is demand for janitors, either those discouraged would-be doctors would fill those professions or we'd simply not have enough janitors. Either there will be unhappiness due to people not having their dreams met, or due to overflowing garbage cans. And unhappy people can't be in a utopia.

So, what do you do, then? Would changing humanity to somehow enforce a magical caste system that naturally wires peoples' dreams based solely on society's demand work?

[cindybubbles]

Honesty would be the best policy. So would keeping the bigoted at home and away from children and computers.

[cindybubbles]

Anyone else have any ideas of their own utopia?

Also, I would get rid of gender entirely. Use gender-neutral pronouns and bathrooms. Allow all women to wear pants and all men to wear skirts and dresses.

Finally, anyone who doesn't want to see or hear anything offensive should be able to blind and/or deafen themselves through the use of earplugs or opaque contacts and/or shades, and then rely on friends or family members to guide them. It's stupid, but if men don't want to be "tempted" by what they think are scantily-clad women, the MEN themselves should do something about their eyes and ears.

[the_std]

I'm actually pretty okay with the future as told by Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". Lots of happy drugs, lots of sex, a life devoid of strife and existential angst... It would just require that there were no "wild" people or societies left over, since that is where it all broke down in the first place.

A large part of me likes the idea of spending life floating in a cloud of unthinking happiness. It just doesn't seem like a good idea to us right now, since our natures don't allow us to attain that level of not caring.

[siead_lietrathua]

a utopian planet? probably one devoid of any life.

i've come to the point where the idea of a utopia is moot. there will always be some one or some thing that will be going through a crisis. or, as Mrs. Addams puts it, "what's normal for the spider is chaos for the fly"

even if all humans got along, we would still be at odds with many of the other species in our planet. and i'm not even talking about prey or predator animals. viruses alone would still be able to wreck havoc on us. toxic plants. the weather. and if we ever eliminated all risk through some sort of bio-engeneering? god knows what that would do to the overarching ecosystem.