How do you imagine a future utopia?

Humans thrive on challenge, and utopia removes challenge. Utopia implies no struggle, and struggle (so far) is an integral part of the human psyche.
I don't think utopia implies no struggle. To me it implies lots of challenge & 'questing' but not soul-destroying tedious struggles, dealing w human misery, infirm & constant indignity, basically the primitive sufferings that preoccupy us are sorted freeing us to let us follow higher callings.
But if a utopia could exist, there would be lots of cats. And penguins.
Have you ever hung out w a penguin? They do seem cute but that would imply a cold world which doesn't appeal to me (altho there are some tropical penguins iirc). And yes, obviously a utopia w/o cats would be no utopia @ all.
The closest literature depiction of the world I'd like to live in, is the "Noon Universe".
It was quite a long time since I read any of those books though.


Would you recommend? I'm always down for new sci-fi-ish books
I can't see any future scenario that is an improvement (aka Utopia), unless some drastic measures are taken to combat and reverse climate change.

All other challenges our grand children will face, will pale in comparison.
100%

To answer the question, I think the 2nd highest priority (assuming we can transition out of the Anthropocene into a new era where we're not destroying every supportive biological system) would be to master our bodies so we don't have to decay as fast. I had a trip in a sensory deprivation tank once where I really faced death & it made me really angry. On a societal level climate change is our biggest challenge but on a human level I have to agree w El_Mac & Ray Kurzweil that our biggest issue is aging & death. Every experience we have is polluted by the fact that eventual all the physical, emotional, intellectual strides will come to us lying in our beds pissing ourselves & then fading into oblivion. I feel pretty dumb @ age 43, even w all accumulated human knowledge @ my fingertips. I feel like it would probably take humans at least a couple centuries to become truly wise, even in a beautifully supportive society. If we could have proper medical treatment (futuristic 3D body scans & bloodwork that would pinpoint disease processes before they even began) and radical life/youth extension alot of the tactics of consumeristic society trying to distract us from our panic over our inevitable decay would no longer work. Also the accumulation of power & domination over others as a coping mechanism would also be less appealing.

In a utopia we'd all have an opportunity to climb Maslow's pyramid & not be stuck on the lower rungs of survival, life would feel more like a game where you could have the freedom to immerse yourself in challenges of your choosing & you'd be able to align those energies towards the needs of your fellows (not sure how but future schools would teach you how, life would be more about meeting the needs of people & less about finding one's place in a marketplace which mostly sells lies & band-aids for our deep wounds).

I remember listening to some podcast called Philosophy Now late @ night while driving Uber about transhumanism, couple years before Coronatimes. I originally thought of transhumanists as a bit goofy, to be honest, wanting to put their consciousness into R2D2 cause death is scary but the podcast was more about simply getting to a higher level where we still work, struggle & goto work but our baselines level of engagement & joy would be @ a level we could only now reach w drugs or decades of meditation. There's a myth that ultimately joy would lead to complacency & stagnation but IMO it's the opposite, a baseline level of chronic pain & disillusionment sabotages our effots whereas if we could biohack our primitive fearful, anxious brain, constantly comparing ourselves & grasping @ delusions just to cope into something better a more beautiful world could be possible.
 
There is none. Dreaming of it may be nice, but it is better to do something today to help someone in need.
But working towards it helps provide the motivation to improve things today.
We may never reach it but we need to continue working towards it, otherwise we are saying this is the best we can do and that sucks.
 
Would you recommend? I'm always down for new sci-fi-ish books
It's hard science fiction, similar to Arthur Clarke or Heinlein maybe. If you like this kind of books, I do recommend them.
One of authors was a professional astronomer, so they are very accurate in that field.

Some books which I liked and may be good to start with:
"The Way to Amalthea" - About early exploration of Solar System. Cargo ship gets damaged by meteorites near Jupiter and starts falling into it.
"Far Rainbow" - More distant future, technological disaster devastates small planet.
"Space Mowgli" - Attempt to contact non-humanoid aliens.
"Hard to Be a God" - Earth observer works on a planet with Medieval Age society.

"Beetle in the Anthill" was very good too, but it's a second part of a trilogy.
 
I don't think utopia implies no struggle. To me it implies lots of challenge & 'questing' but not soul-destroying tedious struggles, dealing w human misery, infirm & constant indignity, basically the primitive sufferings that preoccupy us are sorted freeing us to let us follow higher callings.

Have you ever hung out w a penguin? They do seem cute but that would imply a cold world which doesn't appeal to me (altho there are some tropical penguins iirc). And yes, obviously a utopia w/o cats would be no utopia @ all.

I have never hung out with a penguin, no. The only penguins near here are in the Calgary Zoo, which is unreachable for me (no transportation).

They are cute, incredibly so. Adult penguin voices seem harsh, but baby Emperor penguins sound like little songbirds, in how they chirp.

Cold world? Hey, I'm Canadian. ;) And while -50C is 25 degrees out of my comfort zone, especially when it's windy, the Antarctic does have summer. And most penguin species don't live on Antarctica itself (though my favorite ones do).

Besides, who says this hypothetical utopia can only have one type of climate? Temperate rainforest of the type in southwestern coastal British Columbia/Vancouver Island are amazing cures for a bad mood or stress. The mountain lakes in the Rockies also serve this purpose. I could happily have spent all day on the shore of Lake Minnewanka, even though it was still mostly frozen over (this was on the Friday before Mother's Day in May). The air had a nice nip to it, and everything was so quiet. It was instant relaxation.

It's hard science fiction, similar to Arthur Clarke or Heinlein maybe. If you like this kind of books, I do recommend them.
One of authors was a professional astronomer, so they are very accurate in that field.

Some books which I liked and may be good to start with:
"The Way to Amalthea" - About early exploration of Solar System. Cargo ship gets damaged by meteorites near Jupiter and starts falling into it.
"Far Rainbow" - More distant future, technological disaster devastates small planet.
"Space Mowgli" - Attempt to contact non-humanoid aliens.
"Hard to Be a God" - Earth observer works on a planet with Medieval Age society.

"Beetle in the Anthill" was very good too, but it's a second part of a trilogy.

I am trying and failing to think of anything Heinlein wrote that could be considered "hard science fiction." Most of his output was space opera that might have had a nod to science, but the focus was on the military or some social thing. That said, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress employed science ("We throw rocks at them, Man"), but for the most part the science in Heinlein's books hasn't aged well.

For an excellent combination of hard science fiction and space opera, I recommend C.J. Cherryh's Alliance-Union series, emphasis on Cyteen and Regenesis. Ben Bova's Grand Tour is also good in that regard, if a bit thin on the human relationship angle. He couldn't write a convincing romance to save his life most of the time, with one exception: Lars Fuchs and his wife, Amanda. Most of their story arc is told in the Asteroid Wars novels, and concludes in Venus.
 
But working towards it helps provide the motivation to improve things today.
We may never reach it but we need to continue working towards it, otherwise we are saying this is the best we can do and that sucks.
I agree. Giving a beggar a dollar today might feel good but helping to solve poverty does more.
It's hard science fiction, similar to Arthur Clarke or Heinlein maybe. If you like this kind of books, I do recommend them.
One of authors was a professional astronomer, so they are very accurate in that field.

Some books which I liked and may be good to start with:
"The Way to Amalthea" - About early exploration of Solar System. Cargo ship gets damaged by meteorites near Jupiter and starts falling into it.
"Far Rainbow" - More distant future, technological disaster devastates small planet.
"Space Mowgli" - Attempt to contact non-humanoid aliens.
"Hard to Be a God" - Earth observer works on a planet with Medieval Age society.

"Beetle in the Anthill" was very good too, but it's a second part of a trilogy.
Thanks!
 
I am trying and failing to think of anything Heinlein wrote that could be considered "hard science fiction." Most of his output was space opera that might have had a nod to science, but the focus was on the military or some social thing. That said, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress employed science ("We throw rocks at them, Man"), but for the most part the science in Heinlein's books hasn't aged well.
Heinlein and Clarke were just first similar Western authors which came to my mind. Thought about Asimov too, but he's a bit different IMO.
Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" was similar to "The Way to Amalthea". Both books were about technological disasters in Solar System, though settings were different. I liked both.
 
I have A Fall of Moondust in my book collection. I think it's been over 40 years since I read it.
 
You've just described Earth in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Nobody wants for anything, other than compassion, as Picard basically rolled his eyes in the episode "The Neutral Zone" and said 'why did you bother' when his crew revived three 20th-century people they found in cryogenic freeze. Picard and Riker made sanctimonious speeches about how superior 24th-century people were because all poverty, hunger, etc. had been eliminated, after chastising Beverly for reviving people who were "already dead", curing them of the diseases that had killed them, thus saddling Picard with tI,thethe inconvenience of having them on board the ship until they could send them back to Earth. That was the episode in which I realized that while I like Patrick Stewart as an actor, I loathe Jean-Luc Picard for his reprehensible arrogance.

Well, elimination of poverty and hunger and even greed may be true on Earth, and in Starfleet. It wasn't true for Tasha Yar as she starved and struggled on her home colony where the government and society had broken down, or for the colonists and Maquis in DS9. As Sisko put it in an episode of the latter series, "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise".

And as someone who grew up with people who were artistic (my grandmother was an artist with paint and with sewing, knitting, and crochet; my dad was an artist with woodworking, leatherwork, and drawing; I'm a needlepoint artist, working in 2-D and 3-D needlepoint and I've composed music)... I've learned that there are some things a machine just can't do.

Well; fiction is really hard to do, period! Fiction without conflict, even more so. Isn't one of the main criticisms of Gene Roddenberry work that the lack of conflict he mandated made writing difficult, and the relations between human characthers, flat?

What really dumbfounded me as I watched the series (a decade ago, I marathoned the entire thing, Original Series to Enterprise + all movies in release order; took a few months) was that the Vulcan are reputed and louded as this overly logical species, so rigorous in their thought process that it can go to their detriment), but everytime an episode centered on them, it was always about something tribal, like a ritual, that generated the issue to solve. They never act logical. I mention this because I always knew it is actually the same problem. You need to create conflict. And logic is not a good candidate if generalized...

That said, you are right, Picard was a snob in that scenario. That's more of an issue of a localized Utopia being oxymoronic. We already have pockets of happiness as it is...

As for machines... it don't underestimate what they could became. Still, my idea never supposed that machines would do everything, just create the conditions for the cheap emulation of everyone's chosen perfection. We still would need subjective creativity to define what that is, and to shape our tastes.
 
Last edited:
As for machines... it don't underestimate what they could became. Still, my idea never supposed that machines would do everything, just create the conditions for the cheap emulation of everyone's chosen perfection. We still would need subjective creativity to define what that is, and to shape our tastes.
As Heraclides of Pontos writes, while humans aren't perfect at all, compared to other beings on the planet they have enough to be almost gods relative to them; likewise, any future where at least problems of health and intellect are solved will deserve to be termed (that is, compared to what we now have) a utopia :)
I think it is inevitable, at least to some level. Unless of course we revert to worse things after a massive war.
 
Well; fiction is really hard to do, period! Fiction without conflict, even more so. Isn't one of the main criticisms of Gene Roddenberry work that the lack of conflict he mandated made writing difficult, and the relations between human characthers, flat?

What really dumbfounded me as I watched the series (a decade ago, I marathoned the entire thing, Original Series to Enterprise + all movies in release order; took a few months) was that the Vulcan are reputed and louded as this overly logical species, so rigorous in their thought process that it can go to their detriment), but everytime an episode centered on them, it was always about something tribal, like a ritual, that generated the issue to solve. They never act logical. I mention this because I always knew it is actually the same problem. You need to create conflict. And logic is not a good candidate if generalized...

That said, you are right, Picard was a snob in that scenario. That's more of an issue of a localized Utopia being oxymoronic. We already have pockets of happiness as it is...

As for machines... it don't underestimate what they could became. Still, my idea never supposed that machines would do everything, just create the conditions for the cheap emulation of everyone's chosen perfection. We still would need subjective creativity to define what that is, and to shape our tastes.

Roddenberry first postulated this "Earth is utopia due to the New Humans movement" in his tie-in novel of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Will Decker was part of it.

TMP at one time was supposed to be a TV series, so some elements of it were used for the movie and some were used in TNG. Decker and Ilia became Riker and Troi, for example, but the Vulcan officer Xon was eliminated from TNG (though the actor had a bit part in TMP; he played Commander Branch, one of V'ger's early victims on the way to Earth before the Enterprise left).

In an interesting twist, fan film producer James Cawley acquired a slew of authentic TOS costumes, other assorted stuff, plus unproduced scripts for the TV series that never got made. So he launched the Star Trek: New Voyages/Phase II series of fan films, using some of those unproduced scripts, plus others. Xon was a Phase II character who had a Bridge position (of course Spock was a character as well). Cawley himself played Kirk for most of the episodes and we the fans got used to seeing a dark-haired Captain Kirk (Cawley's real job at the time was working as an Elvis impersonator, so he had to keep his hair color and style as-is). Some original TOS actors appeared in various episodes - there's an episode that's Chekov-centric, one that's Sulu-centric, and one that features Nichelle Nichols in her last appearance as Uhura.

I found TNG to be mostly boring. Q was interesting, and Tasha Yar is my favorite character in that series. Of course the scriptwriters gave her little to do that actually developed the character, and the actress quit.

The basic difference between TOS and TNG, in addition to the stupid "we don't use money in this century" BS (yes, they do, or Beverly couldn't have charged her account on the Enterprise to buy that hideous cloth on Farpoint), is how initial conflict is handled.

TOS version: Alien is encountered, gets aggressive. Kirk makes a decision that may involve getting aggressive back, even if it includes a punch to the offender's nose.

TNG version: Alien is encountered, get aggressive. Picard calls a meeting where Troi either senses or doesn't sense something, Worf says something in a growly voice about how superior Klingons are, and technobabble ensues. If Kirk had done this in TOS, he wouldn't have survived the first month of his five-year mission, let alone 3 years (plus however long TAS was meant to last).

Roddenberry opted not to use Vulcans in TNG as he said he didn't want a complete copy of TOS. The one who did sneak in was Dr. Selar, who was played by the same actress who played Worf's half-Klingon mate K'eylehr.

To me, the attempt to show a totally amicable, conflict-free crew in season 1 made it a snore. Conflict was introduced in season 2 by adding Pulaski (CMO who replaced Crusher) by having her be racist toward Data (trying to recreate the Spock/McCoy feud with Data and Pulaski). It didn't go over well. The shame of it is that I really liked Pulaski otherwise. She was a breath of fresh air - someone who was smart, knew what she was doing, and never hesitated to tell off the Captain if he needed it. Her first episode (the one where Deanna gets pregnant) was originally supposed to be part of the Phase II series-that-never-was, with Ilia getting pregnant). Some fanon (fan-canon) says that Pulaski was McCoy's great-granddaughter, which would explain her distrust of both transporters and androids, and her abrupt manner. She would have grown up on his stories about the original Enterprise and internalized some of his attitudes.

The Vulcans in DS9 were largely absent, though one did turn up at Quark's, attempting to buy weapons. Quark introduces her to the concept of combining logic with the Rules of Acquisition ("You want to acquire peace, so it makes sense to do it by...").

Voyager did okay with the two Vulcan crewmembers they had, though they handled the pon-farr issue in a ridiculous way (both times).

But Enterprise... Holy crap, that show is awful in so many ways and turning the Vulcans into racists with only one hairstyle for the entire damn planet was one of them. This notion that mind melds were some dirty, perverted thing is not what was established in TOS. They could be, as we saw in ST VI when Spock essentially mind-rapes Valeris for information she doesn't know. But if mind melds are a normal part of Vulcan mating rituals (the two bonded as children after completing the Kahs-wan ritual shown in the TAS episode "Yesteryear") and T'Pau saying to Spock, "Give me your thoughts", not to mention the Kohlinar priestess melding with Spock when he senses V'ger, that only helps cement my assertion that Enterprise does not take place in the same timeline as TOS. (oh, and the katra ritual is yet another type of mind meld, and something the Vulcans have been doing for millennia)


Now about machines. A huge part of art involves the emotions of the creator. In performing art, you need them, or at least the ability to control them to produce the emotions (or lack) of the character you're portraying. Emotions help with music. I've heard note-perfect musicians perform in a very technical way and it doesn't move me. I actually fell asleep at a concert where a note-perfect pianist played and it was just so much boring plink-plunk to me. But get a pianist who puts their emotions into it and it makes all the difference. Or in the case of Wuauquikuna - a group of Andean musicians from Ecuador who play various types of flutes and percussion instruments. They sing in Spanish and Quechua, but they put so much emotion into their performances that the reactions on their livestreams have ranged from people crying in sorrow to one man typing, "My wife is dancing around the living room right now!".

No machine-made or performed music could ever replicate this ability. I've experienced it myself with the organ. I put my emotions into it, which resulted in one of my grandmother's friends throwing her cards down on the table (500 Rummy was something she took Very Seriously and normally would never do that) - and started dancing beside the card table, completely into the music and unself-conscious about it (I was playing a waltz). It was one of the highest compliments I've ever received for my music, and she didn't have to say a word.

For other types of art? Sure, there are lots of digital patterns now, and all you need is a program to convert a photo to a cross-stitch pattern, complete with recommended shades of DMC floss. I'm not averse to trying those; waaaay back, CFC member Bozo Erectus created some beautiful pieces of MS Paint art (they're posted in the A&E forum) and he gave me permission to turn them into needlepoint or rug patterns if I wanted (naturally I'd never try to publish them and claim credit; I just thought they'd make beautiful wall art or rugs and he said I could).

However, no computer could have had the inspiration to create this art in the first place. Same with my own original patterns. I've made a lot of original 3-D needlepoint items either as commissions for other people or for myself when I wanted to make costume items or bookends. I've long had a dream of producing a series of cross-stitch patterns based on the solar system - planets, probes that visited them... that's been a dream for over 30 years. I've only gotten to the preliminary sketch phase; I need some really good drawings of the various probes to go by, not to mention that every so often we get new photos of the planets as they discover more about them. My original ideas for some of them would be inaccurate today.
 
I don't think utopia implies no struggle. To me it implies lots of challenge & 'questing' but not soul-destroying tedious struggles, dealing w human misery, infirm & constant indignity, basically the primitive sufferings that preoccupy us are sorted freeing us to let us follow higher callings.
I was thinking something along these lines. Ways of more or less providing everyone with the bottom of the 'hierarchy of needs.' Low-energy transportation; low-cost housing; low-cost energy generation; and water desalination.

1. Transportation: Delivering food and other necessities at costs that are so low as to be easily purchasable with the Universal Basic Income that everyone will have. I think we can grow enough food for everybody, but getting it to them is still a problem. Robotic cargo ships, trains, and long-haul trucks powered by solar or wind. The "last mile" could still be small trucks driven by people, or maybe we've got small autonomous drones by the time everything else here is in our grasp.
2. Low-cost housing: Maybe some kind of modular prefab (which can then be transported by the above-mentioned network of ships, trains and trucks). Again, the assembly of the modules could still require people with hand tools.
3. Low-cost energy generation: We're approaching the point where just about every single building on Earth will need air conditioning some months out of the year, and billions of people will need to be air conditioned 12 months a year, if they don't already. Even if everybody gets low-energy appliances and lightbulbs, our energy consumption needs are going to keep going up. We need, like, cold fusion or warp reactors from Star Trek or something.
4. Water: Everybody look under your chairs! You get fresh water! And you get fresh water! And you get fresh water! Water desalination plants, powered by warp reactors, using cross-continental pipelines like we currently use to move oil. Like the "Keystone XL" pipeline, but it'll be carrying fresh water from the coast of Maine to Salt Lake City. As with energy, our water usage could be better, but we still need some way to get people more fresh water.
 
We already have the technological means to live in a post-scarcity utopia. Yet we don't.
I'm pretty sure that we (as a species) have too much of an inner desire to dominate to be able to get a real utopia.
 
However we imagine the future in 50 years (for better or worse), we will likely be wrong. Just look at our past attempts. Imagining utopia is for fiction writers, who if they are any good, will inspire folks to dream, or be very afraid.
 
When we do not have the responsibility to carry humanity forward, we live in an utopia; otherwise, there is no utopia for us. If someone has money to buy anything from the market from hard/easy/passionate-working, they are contributing to the overall development of humanity; therefore, they do not live in an utopia, they are miserable. On the other hand, if someone has no money to buy anything from the market, they are living in an utopia since ... no burden at all, it is hard to die in a welfare state.

Eventually, all of humanity will lose their ability to guide the human race, believe in the machine gods they create, free from burden and responsibility, free to explore and do stupid things they wish they have time and resource to do, lives in cheap houses called "mainframe" while their machine gods repeat human activity of exploring and exploiting for humans to have a bigger playground. Human children read the stories of super advanced quantum physics and teleporting-rocket science their machine gods synthesized for leisure not for educational purposes since there is no way they can discover something sooner than their machine gods.
 
I was thinking something along these lines. Ways of more or less providing everyone with the bottom of the 'hierarchy of needs.' Low-energy transportation; low-cost housing; low-cost energy generation; and water desalination.

1. Transportation: Delivering food and other necessities at costs that are so low as to be easily purchasable with the Universal Basic Income that everyone will have. I think we can grow enough food for everybody, but getting it to them is still a problem. Robotic cargo ships, trains, and long-haul trucks powered by solar or wind. The "last mile" could still be small trucks driven by people, or maybe we've got small autonomous drones by the time everything else here is in our grasp.
2. Low-cost housing: Maybe some kind of modular prefab (which can then be transported by the above-mentioned network of ships, trains and trucks). Again, the assembly of the modules could still require people with hand tools.
3. Low-cost energy generation: We're approaching the point where just about every single building on Earth will need air conditioning some months out of the year, and billions of people will need to be air conditioned 12 months a year, if they don't already. Even if everybody gets low-energy appliances and lightbulbs, our energy consumption needs are going to keep going up. We need, like, cold fusion or warp reactors from Star Trek or something.
4. Water: Everybody look under your chairs! You get fresh water! And you get fresh water! And you get fresh water! Water desalination plants, powered by warp reactors, using cross-continental pipelines like we currently use to move oil. Like the "Keystone XL" pipeline, but it'll be carrying fresh water from the coast of Maine to Salt Lake City. As with energy, our water usage could be better, but we still need some way to get people more fresh water.
&
We already have the technological means to live in a post-scarcity utopia. Yet we don't.
I'm pretty sure that we (as a species) have too much of an inner desire to dominate to be able to get a real utopia.

One can expect at least some changes which will help those in the direst need. Although that's minimal and would have happened long ago if not for stupidity and greed.
Still, it's impressive how even those two can sustain a society where the norm in the end (70-80 or slightly above if you are lucky) is you no longer being functional. Probably the small lifespan, coupled with natural degeneration, alone would ensure a very low type of society, so those have to be fixed. Only new tech would suffice.
 
The question is once we get everyone to the top of Maslow’s pyramid, are we peacefully lounging in hammocks by the waves or are we building pillars of skulls from those we sacrificed to our new gods as we freely form new affiliations and see how far we can take life?
 
Back
Top Bottom