Utopias and Dystopias

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I just have a few thought provoking questions that I think will make for good discussion.


Do we live in a utopia or a dystopia? Or are we somewhere in between? And if our society becomes a utopia or dystopia in the future, will the people of the future recognize it as such?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I don't think either of them are actually attainable based on their definitions.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I don't think either of them are actually attainable based on their definitions.

For the purpose of this thread, we'll ignore that.


For example, I could make the argument that we are living in a utopia right now. People 200, 300, or 1000 years ago would think that a place where everyone is wealthy (absolutely, not relatively), has cheap food, freedom, modern technology, etc. would be heavenly.

 

[Gogf]

I'd say somewhere in the middle.

 

[Mirc]

I know perfectly what an utopia is, but I don't know what dystopia means.

 

[punkbass2000]

I think we're in a utopia which few recognize.

 

[CartesianFart]

I wonder with all the moderating from the mods is trying(or are unaware of it) to somewhat shape and mold some kind of Utopia.

I wonder if we are selves are doing the very same thing by informally trying to moderate over one another inorder to ingrain thoughts and change behavior in this goofy community that we inhabit.

 

[Fifty]

new-agey punkbass stuff aside, I think it's fairly obvious that we're living somewhere in between.

 

[CartesianFart]

new-agey punkbass stuff aside, I think it's fairly obvious that we're living somewhere in between.

Prove it!Tell me,are you saying ideally that our social,moral,and political structures are really rooted foundationally from terror and oppression?

 

[Murky]

I just have a few thought provoking questions that I think will make for good discussion.


Do we live in a utopia or a dystopia? Or are we somewhere in between? And if our society becomes a utopia or dystopia in the future, will the people of the future recognize it as such?

Depends who you are and where you live. Some communities are thriving while others are stagnant or in economic decline. Some people are increasing their wealth while others are living in extreme poverty. There used to be a lot of people in-between but now it seems more polarized.

I think the ultimate utopia is when there is no poverty or extreme wealth but some people are recognized for extraordinary achievements and rewarded accordingly.

 

[Swedishguy]

We live somewhere in between. And I'm not directing this towards Africans.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I think the ultimate utopia is when there is no poverty or extreme wealth but some people are recognized for extraordinary achievements and rewarded accordingly.

I can understand no poverty, but why no extreme wealth? Does Bill Gates make you unhappy because he is so rich?


Another real world example. I would consider North Korea a dystopia but if the North Koreans don't know what the rest of the world is like, do they consider their country a dystopia?

 

[CCA]

I can understand no poverty, but why no extreme wealth? Does Bill Gates make you unhappy because he is so rich?


Another real world example. I would consider North Korea a dystopia but if the North Koreans don't know what the rest of the world is like, do they consider their country a dystopia?

No one needs to be extremely wealthy or extremely poor.
After you get 1 million dollars the rest is just for show
...

 

[Babbler]

Uptopias and dystopias are just literary constructs, allowing the writer to comment on certain features of society and culture without too many complicating factors involved.

 

[Murky]

I can understand no poverty, but why no extreme wealth? Does Bill Gates make you unhappy because he is so rich?


Another real world example. I would consider North Korea a dystopia but if the North Koreans don't know what the rest of the world is like, do they consider their country a dystopia?

Extreme wealth for a few often results in extreme poverty for many others.

I'm glad that Bill Gates has decided to be charitable.

There is still a fundamental problem with the level of inequality in the world today. If everyone could be wealthy that would be great but not everyone can be wealthy because there are finite amounts of resources and other contributing factors to becoming wealthy. I think we need to redefine success to be something other than a measure of wealth. Then the extremely ambitious people would have something else to shoot for instead of wealth.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Extreme wealth for a few often results in extreme poverty for many others.

That doesn't seem to follow. If Mr. Gates wasn't rich, billions of people would still be living in poverty. Same for Mr. Buffett. They haven't made their billions by taking it all away from others.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

No one needs to be extremely wealthy or extremely poor.
After you get 1 million dollars the rest is just for show
...

No one really needs 6 pairs of shoes, so we should ban owning excessive amounts of shoes as well?

Again I just don't see how an extremely rich person prevents others from being happy.

 

[Murky]

That doesn't seem to follow. If Mr. Gates wasn't rich, billions of people would still be living in poverty. Same for Mr. Buffett. They haven't made their billions by taking it all away from others.

Gates may be the exception. Because of his generosity, many people are better off. That doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly on the primary operating system of most computers systems in the world. For a relatively modest investment in software development, they are able to extract huge sums from the economy through their license agreements.

If you look at the group of billionaires in depth and see how much they are taking from the world economy vs how much they give back and you might be surprised. When an economy is lop-sided a small group of people get rich while the rest barely get by or live in poverty. Some rich people do generously give to the poor but it would be better if there were no poor people to begin with.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Gates may be the exception. Because of his generosity, many people are better off. That doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly on the primary operating system of most computers systems in the world. For a relatively modest investment in software development, they are able to extract huge sums from the economy through their license agreements.

If you look at the group of billionaires in depth and see how much they are taking from the world economy vs how much they give back and you might be surprised. When an economy is lop-sided a small group of people get rich while the rest barely get by or live in poverty. Some rich people do generously give to the poor but it would be better if there were no poor people to begin with.

Obviously it would be better if there were no poor people to begin with, but to continue to use Mr. Gates as an example, let's forget about his philanthropy and dwell on Microsoft. While you could say that he charges too much for it, it's a popular operating system which has allowed great improvements to be made in information technology and therefore the economy as a whole. Sure, people pay plenty to use Microsoft's system and programs, but that allows them to better their business, hire more employees, etc.; it's an investment that pays benefits to more than just Gates.

Call it extracting from the economy if you want, but how much of that economy would be in the shape it's in without Microsoft in the first place?

Cue Erik Mesoy in 3, ...2, ...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Cue Erik Mesoy in 3, ...2, ...

I am very grateful to Microsoft for helping to make the personal computer widespread and cheap.

(hmm, 3...2... 6 minutes. Spider-sense needs improvement.)