What would a "better" society look like?

[Joecoolyo]

We already expect people to follow some of the same principles, I'm just changing/adding to those principles. For example we already expect people to view killing as immoral(to a certain degree...), to tolerate other people's freedom of thought, to "obey the law", etc.

Yes, but those are very basic and don't intrude on a majority of people's lives, because we have authority in place to allow for diversity without things getting out of control.

Your society, with its lack of authority, is in an extremely delicate balance, and your insistence on the destruction of individualism and a total commitment towards society at large seems to imply a very massive amount of conformity in order to work. No longer will there be individuals, free to do as they want, but rather, just this massive, amorphous blob of "society".

That type of society actually scares me to be honest, less of a utopia and more of a dystopia.

 

[Borachio]

But isn't it a matter of enlightened self-interest? If everyone recognizes their common purpose in creating and maintaining this utopia, where would be the problem?

 

[Synobun]

But isn't it a matter of enlightened self-interest? If everyone recognizes their common purpose in creating and maintaining this utopia, where would be the problem?

We are not a hive-mind species.

 

[Disgustipated]

We already have a better society. It's called the United States of America. This country is perfect in every way, and I love it. The only thing I would hope for in the future is a lower crime rate. Other than that, everything is A-OK.

 

[Borachio]

^^I wouldn't be so sure of that. Though I am inclined to agree. But then I would, wouldn't I?

^ The US is perfect in every way, eh? Right. OK. <moves slowly away to nearest door>

 

[Synobun]

^^I wouldn't be so sure of that. Though I am inclined to agree. But then I would, wouldn't I?

There's a difference between hive-mind and group-thought.

 

[Borachio]

OK. In hive mind, I take it, every individual's behaviour is totally determined.

In group thought, each individual agrees on the correct behaviour.

Is this what you mean?

And the difference to an outside observer is what?

 

[Synobun]

OK. In hive mind, I take it, every individual's behaviour is totally determined.

In group thought, each individual agrees on the correct behaviour.

Is this what you mean?

And the difference to an outside observer is what?

I suppose it depends on whether or not we're using strictly technical terms. Not very much difference from a technical sociology point of view.

 

[Leoreth]

We already have a better society. It's called the United States of America. This country is perfect in every way, and I love it. The only thing I would hope for in the future is a lower crime rate. Other than that, everything is A-OK.

This is the winning entry for Poe's Law of this week.

 

[Goodfella]

Remove the private control factor and fear of starvation, homelessness, etc. is all eliminated. Humans are finally emancipated and can truly do what they want to do. And what many, many people want to do is help others. Others still would develop technology because they are interested in the related field(I don't think we're going to argue here that Einstein or Hawking are only in it for the money) and would voluntarily do work towards the development of it. I think if people were freer they'd be happier, and I think if they were happier they would be more productive. So this model seems like a clear improvement.

I feel the obligation to respond but Joecoolyo holds virtually the same position as I do and I don't want to be beating a dead horse.

 

[Disgustipated]

^^I wouldn't be so sure of that. Though I am inclined to agree. But then I would, wouldn't I?

^ The US is perfect in every way, eh? Right. OK. <moves slowly away to nearest door>

And what's wrong with being an optimist and loving life and what you have? My life is perfect in every way. I'm completely happy, and I love where I live. No improvement is necessary. It's not possible for me to be happier than I already am.

That's the difference between liberals and the rest of us. Libs are depressed people who always complain about how bad things are. When the rest of us look at how good we have it. Do you want to be a whiner, or be a positive person?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

That sort of thing will only come about when humans are ready. And it won't be brought about by some change in policy or some "liberation" by a socialist state, it will be brought about by the population at large. As they work in solidarity with one another and spend time fighting against the powers that be they'll also learn to live and structure their communities around those same principals. We've seen lots of historical trends so far, but the ideology is still pretty new. I think the most recent example would be Occupy Wall St. Not perfect, but a very encouraging sign.

Oh, I never doubted the capacity of humans to act cooperatively and altruistically. What I was wondering about is the ability of direct democracy to enact decisions in a timely manner, especially with massive agglomerations of people.

 

[civver_764]

edit: ^ Well what kind of decisions are we talking about here? Most decisions could probably be made within individual communities or workplaces.

So you mean some sort of anarchy? Some people will always have power over others. It may be due to being physically stronger, having more friends to help out or whatever. But there will always be an inequality of power. A just government is a mean to keep that power in check.

If that is its purpose it's been remarkably unsuccessful.

I'm not claiming that government is the only form of unjustified authority in our society. Such structures exist at all levels from the household to the entire world. I think people should recognize both the unhelpfulness of these structures, the unjustness of them, and start working against them. So yes there will probably always been differences of power between people, but we should always be working to eliminate those, and work to fight against those who would use their physical strength or whatever to impose power over someone else. Murder is probably always going to take place, but that doesn't mean we should work against it.

Your society, with its lack of authority,

Lack of unjustified* authority.

is in an extremely delicate balance, and your insistence on the destruction of individualism and a total commitment towards society at large seems to imply a very massive amount of conformity in order to work. No longer will there be individuals, free to do as they want, but rather, just this massive, amorphous blob of "society".

That is absolutely not what I said at all.

That type of society actually scares me to be honest, less of a utopia and more of a dystopia.

That's because you're looking at it wrong. All I'm saying is that people would feel a much greater fellowship with others, would stop putting up mental borders against certain types of people, would have a heightened sense of empathy for all beings, would view the suffering of others as a detriment to their own happiness, and so on.

You seem to think I'm arguing for some system where me and some thugs force people to behave exactly the same. That is not what I want, I just think one of the requirements for a better society would be a change in the mindset of humans. More inclination towards cooperation, rather than competition. Nobody is being forced to do anything, this is just the idea that people will gravitate towards this mindset voluntarily out of their own self-interest.

 

[sophie]

We already expect people to follow some of the same principles, I'm just changing/adding to those principles. For example we already expect people to view killing as immoral(to a certain degree...), to tolerate other people's freedom of thought, to "obey the law", etc.

Yeah, but even in your example that's not necessarily the case. There are plenty of people in the world who don't view killing as immoral, tolerate other peoples' freedom of thought or obey the law.

 

[Leoreth]

That's the difference between liberals and the rest of us. Libs are depressed people who always complain about how bad things are. When the rest of us look at how good we have it. Do you want to be a whiner, or be a positive person?

Yeah, because conservatives never complain about anything.

 

[Borachio]

And what's wrong with being an optimist and loving life and what you have? My life is perfect in every way. I'm completely happy, and I love where I live. No improvement is necessary. It's not possible for me to be happier than I already am.

That's the difference between liberals and the rest of us. Libs are depressed people who always complain about how bad things are. When the rest of us look at how good we have it. Do you want to be a whiner, or be a positive person?

Hey, I'm a happy optimist too. And also quite content with where I live. And my own conditions, thank you.

But I'm also a realist. And I like to think I live with my eyes open. And I see plenty of miserable people who have plenty to be miserable about - very often through no fault of their own.

But seriously, do you think the US is heaven on earth? Really now. That's stretching my credibility to breaking point.

 

[civver_764]

Yeah, but even in your example that's not necessarily the case. There are plenty of people in the world who don't view killing as immoral, tolerate other peoples' freedom of thought or obey the law.

I know, I don't even think we should obey the law, it was just an example of the fact that all societies expect their members to act in some uniform way.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

edit: ^ Well what kind of decisions are we talking about here? Most decisions could probably be made within individual communities or workplaces.

Decisions on an intercontinental scale, such as which experiment to run on the next massive particle accelerator, coordinating relief efforts to a devastated region, etc.

 

[sophie]

I know, I don't even think we should obey the law, it was just an example of the fact that all societies expect their members to act in some uniform way.

Yeah, but if you can't even expect those most *basic tenets* of society to be accepted by the world writ large, how can you expect your additions to be universal? Personally I agree with what joe said. Government needs to strive to achieve an equitable society, but beyond that I don't think there's much we can do.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Lack of unjustified* authority.

That is absolutely not what I said at all.

That's because you're looking at it wrong. All I'm saying is that people would feel a much greater fellowship with others, would stop putting up mental borders against certain types of people, would have a heightened sense of empathy for all beings, would view the suffering of others as a detriment to their own happiness, and so on.

You seem to think I'm arguing for some system where me and some thugs force people to behave exactly the same. That is not what I want, I just think one of the requirements for a better society would be a change in the mindset of humans. More inclination towards cooperation, rather than competition. Nobody is being forced to do anything, this is just the idea that people will gravitate towards this mindset voluntarily out of their own self-interest.

Alright, I see what you mean, I agree with these basic goals, I just don't see why individualism or government need to be taken out of the mix to achieve them. A democratic government can promote a stable society in which people are free to do as they wish, which can include people choosing to be more altruistic and empathetic towards others.