If you could create your own state,
what would it look like?
What do people find attractive in the Jetsons like future?
To me it seems like a bleak picture of the future where there is nothing of classical beauty anywhere...
100/2 GET
>>49
One word: flying cars. :)
Oh, and they don't seem to have any wars. All those tall buildings... or maybe wars are raging on ground level and that's the why of such high altitude buildings?
I would like to create a state whose power was far-reaching, stable, but corrupt and utterly incompotent leadership. They would go to war, from time to time, but not many people would be killed because the only people killed would be the ones dumb enough to sign up for the military (Conscription would not be allowed).
They should have no idea whether they want to be a socialist state that shovels money to the poor people who have no idea how to use it, or an utterly capitalistic state where capable people are rewarded, but poor stupid schlubs simply get poorer. It should be the strongest who survive, but the weakest would still be taken care of, if only barely.
My point is that your Utopias are bad ideas. There has to be conflict or it simply isn't attainable. I think that in order for society to work, in order for people to build, they have to be able to compete. Like an A-frame. It's the two parts that want to fall down in their own directions that keep the thing standing. But at the same time, we can't overlook compassion or else we lose our foundation.
And flying cars.
It was an interesting read until the "...your Utopias are bad ideas... there has to be conflict or it simply isn't attainable".
Have you actually read this thread?
no
"An interesting read"? Have you been reading Slashdot again?
Der Flitterkars!
Fliegenauto?
>>58
It's called polite fiction.
Whatever you say, Mr. Western Europe.
Actually, I was referring to that exact phrasing you used, which in my mind is one of the archetypal Slashdot news article clichés, but your interpretetaion was funnier.
Utopia itself is a bad idea. Idiots.
You say it's bad, so support the asse>>66 is DQN
When a civilisation thinks that war is a good thing, that civilisation is degraded and on the way out.
War occurs when negotiations (aka politics, in the good sense of the word) have failed.
IOW, warring civ's are DQN.
> An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
A utopia is, by definition, a good idea. >>64 is nonsensical and also DQN.
It could be said, though, that >>64 has a philosophical point of view that rejects all forms of idealism and that thus all ideas that involve any ideals are bad.
I'd still assert he's DQN, though.
You're too wrapped up in new age nonsense. I don't reject idealism, I just have a darwinist ideal. I think that war is a often a good thing, for ensuring the best states with the best governments survive. Like the British during their imperialist era, or the whole thing with the USA winning the cold war (ok, not a real "war" but whatever).
Utopia usually can't involve war or often even conflict, so it is not a good idea. Also, the idea of a Utopia is that it's completely stable, and so things can never change. Perfection leaves little room for growth, conflict = improvement.
> Also, the idea of a Utopia is that it's completely stable, and so things can never change.
Please point out where in the definition I quoted, or in another definition taken from a dictionary of your choice, that this claim is made.
You seem to take "utopia" as some sort of objective ideal - this is of course impossible to achive, and this is why the concept is interesting - it is very subjective. And exploring that is the purpose of this thread.
So you're expecting me to call a world where people could kill each other, where poor people are allowed to suffer, where medical care is not metted out generously, and where intellectual and/or spiritual advancement is secondary to simply surviving a utopia?
By "could kill" i mean something else. Just ignore that.
If you think that would be the ideal world, yes. That is the meaning of the word.
I'd still call you DQN, though!
I don't buy that there's no objective definition for utopia. From the first time it was written about, it was always a place of good or light, limitless supply of food ETC... Nobody ever writes about a dark Utopia.
> Nobody ever writes about a dark Utopia.
You're free to do so itt.
Others might call your vision a dystopia, though.
A real life implementation would not be utopia but eutopia :v
This is relevant:
● The Ten Stupidest Utopias!
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050905/stupid-utopias-a.shtml
> Smith is like most American libertarian sci-fi writers in that he's essentially a small-town boy trapped in a big world populated by people and ideas he doesn't understand...
Ouch, snarky!
This isn't really relevant at all:
I'd form a confederacy of all the people in my country. Each area would send ten people to the capital to decide issues of common interest. I would only have the power to make a decision when the delegates cannot come to a conclusion, meaning that 75% of them agree on the issue at hand.
The groundrules of my Confederacy:
1.) No human can tell another where when or how to pray.
2.) No human can harrass or bring another human up on charges for mere speech.
3.) No law can forbid an act that causes no harm to others (thx Heinlin)
4.) All humans are created equal. None can be held as unequal under the law.
5.) Once a man buys his land, he can never be forced off of it for any reason.
6.) All must learn a trade, thus public education would be funded.
>4.) All humans are created equal. None can be held as unequal under the law.
Not really true. Some will work harder and become better than others. Some are more qualified to some task than some other. Some are naturally gifted and may perform better.
By levelling everybody down to the lowest common denominator, one ends up with a Swedish-like country. :P
> Not really true.
He said:
> groundrules
Rules aren't subject to being true or not.
>By levelling everybody down to the lowest common denominator, one ends up with a Swedish-like country. :P
What, a prosperous one? ; )
high, probably due to lack of sunlight. And for males, seeing all the Swedish models and not getting one.
And I wasn't talking about economics, just politically.
> 2.) No human can harrass or bring another human up on charges for mere speech.
What about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, causing a stampede that kills several people? That's mere speech.
> 3.) No law can forbid an act that causes no harm to others
What's "no harm"? No physical harm? No mental harm? No financial harm?
> 5.) Once a man buys his land, he can never be forced off of it for any reason.
Oh, so land owners are special? I thought you said everyone was equal under the law, but apparently land owners have a refuge from the law that others don't.
>>91
I suspect there is a relation between pretty girls and male apathy. The more the males are in low spirits, not even trying, the prettier the girls can be, because there is no risk for them. Also because the girl has to work much harder to get the attention of the guy she wants. :)
anyone can own land. yesh.
Oh, they hand it out to just anyone these days, do they?
Don't pick too much on that irrational fixation on land - we all have sides like that, including those who happen to be intelligent. ; )