A Utopia Could Work.

a reply to: Edumakated

You would still have your own thoughts and desires, how are you being limited by anything I said?

A group of lower-rating trolls would not have much rating power based on their percentages they would have to effectively troll you 24/7, which could be handled. It would be useless. They'd be better off being normal citizens. You would not be able to manipulate the ratings, they're in real-time. Friends, family, co-workers and random strangers.

a reply to: omniEther

You think having others judge your place in society is a good thing?
I'm going to pass on that one.

Your definition for utopia has a key word. "Imaginary"
This will continue to be imaginary as long as humans are involved.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Others do not judge your place in the society.

a reply to: omniEther


So what does this mean?

"Friends and strangers would be able to rate your popularity out of five stars"

a reply to: Bluntone22

I agree on that the word was a bit too vague, I had already changed it to reputation and prevalence.

Friends and strangers would be able to rate your reputation and prevalence in society, although continuous negative ratings could host certain variables that may or may not indirectly affect your socioeconomic status thereby limiting certain options and possibilities, sorta like regular society.

originally posted by: omniEther
The likes of Teachers, Brain surgeons, Firemen, Doctors, Astronauts, Astronomers, Geologists etc.. Would be among the elite of society bankers would be maybe 3.0 depending on their socially attained ratings by friend families and co-workers and random strangers, it would be mandatory to attain a 4.4 or higher to attain such positions of the publicly attained socially sponsored elites(Brain surgeons, doctors, astronauts, astronomers etc..) functions of society.

The system would have to allowed many different variations on people's desires and motivations. Take the optimization of education. Everyone learns at different rates. People have different ways of learning. If order to maximize success you need lessons that are not too hard because people will get discouraged and lose interest. You need lessons that are not too easy or people will become bored and lose interest. And on top of that, people have different needs at different times. For example, going on a job interviews a month after your father died you might not have your best interviews. In order to have a Utopian system you would have to take into account a huge number of variables.

The other problem is not everyone agrees on what measurable factors are to be considered part of the Utopian success. There are lot of really wealthy people who think the way things are right now is Utopia. If you have abundance of wealth and privilege why would you ever want to change anything?

I would say our current system is about as close as you can get to a Utopian society if you just got rid of the Federal Reserve and had the US Treasury distribute legal tender without interest. It's pure insanity to think the American people are not capable of producing enough wealth that everyone would have plenty of leisure time to study the mind of God.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
It can work just fine... in a video game.

LOL!! funny you mention that. Bioshock was a utopian city,but well you see how that ended.

Appleseed is a good example of how a "utopia" will never be perfect due to mans inherit weaknesses. Im with deunan on this. Utopia is just another cage.

We would live in a world where currency is obsolete and to to get out you would have to put in. Friends and strangers would be able to rate your reputation and prevalence out of five stars, on the worlds first governmental state-sponsored app It would be called "Ether" , it would be a blend between the most popular social platforms like Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, but it would be mostly like periscope, it would work with both smartphones, VR technology and standard smart lenses that display everyone's name and current rating in real-time.

OMG no. This is not ripe for government abuse at all.
Did you hear about Bill? They turned off his score. Ya he is **********. Get that guy away from me.

originally posted by: [post=21650983]omniEther
utopia (noun) an imaginary land where every one is happy. Utopia is an imaginary place where only good things happen, and good people live ...

It would be more than 'imaginary', they use words that show ignorance of the subject.
'Happiness' is an unconditional Virtue of unconditional Love!
As the 'Love' increases, the 'will/ego' (illusion thereof) decreases.
All ego will be gone in a couple of centuries when here will be Universal Enlightenment/unconditional Love!
With no ego, there will be no judgment between 'good' and 'evil', there will only be the Beloved!
Heaven is the state of unconditional Love, Paradise! Here! Now!

All people dream of paradise.

Not me, son, I live here!

No matter what your perspective of paradise might be, for my hypothetical it is described as the age old dream of a world where everybody would live in harmony, united by a single common will and faith.

As we are All united/assimilated (resistance is futile!) by unconditional Love/Enlightenment, so is 'Faith' another unconditional Virtue of unconditional Love!
So... yes! *__-

a reply to: omniEther

A Utopia could work if you were to push out all the foolish people onto their own islands to fight it out and leave the wise people on their own island far away from all the bs. Those wise people will then have their Utopia!

After posting this I thought that after a while though, that Utopia might get boring and people would want some action.... like in the film with Wesley Snipes & Sylvester Stallone... Demolition Man.

'Utopia' is a philosophical/metaphysical thought experiment and is not practically applicable.

That is like saying 'infinity could work' or 'can we implement heaven?'.

Hi all,

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

Sorry omniEther, I think you lost me at "and so the rulers of paradise".

You believe that there would (out of necessity) be rulers over paradise? That implies that there would be enforcers of the rules, which, in turn, implies that there would also (out of necessity) be courts, lawyers, and a justice system. And this leads to political hierarchy, which inevitably leads to "haves and have-nots".

Furthermore, you stated that "We would live in a world where currency is obsolete and to to get out you would have to put in".

One - having a currency will lead to individuals hording it (this is human nature, and undeniable). Individuals who cannot horde it will just take it by force from those that have horded it. I know you stated above that currency would be obsolete, but the implication of courts, lawyers, and justice system implies that compensation would necessitate some form of currency, regardless if monetary or not.

Two - those who put in (living by the rules) will always be taken advantage of (never truly getting back what they put in) by those that consider themselves above the rules, or by those in charge of defining the rules. It is simply a matter of human nature.

Sorry, I chose not to read any further than that. The "Utopia" described to that point, is not a "Utopia" at all, in my humble opinion.

In my point of view, a true "Utopia" would not require the suppression of human nature, but would be based on it. All human needs and desires would be provided for at all times, which in theory would allow humans to advance beyond where we are now, spiritually, intellectually, and physically.

Please do not mistake this as complete criticism. I know that ones beliefs are deeply personal and adds to each person's individuality. Therefore, I subscribe to the axiom "to each his own".

The easiest way for a utopias is when we have mass planet colonization and the colonies can experiment on government types.
People can travel to the planet they like.

a reply to: jellyrev

Hi Jellyrev,

The easiest way for a utopias is when we have mass planet colonization's and the colonies can experiment on government types

I believe that we have already experienced this form of situation in our past. Think of the isolated peoples across the world in the past. Europeans were isolated from the Americas by vast oceans and for the most part, each continent or even principality had it's own government established. Then when the more powerful governments stumbled upon lesser tribes/governments they claimed them or absorbed them or forced them to change to fit their own style of government. That was not, and is not utopia. This is human nature at work. Usually, one group that is stronger than another group either absorbs the lesser group or forces it to bend to their will (and if they won't bend to their will, they are usually eradicated, i.e.; North American Indians vs the Europeans, and the South American Indian Tribes vs the Spanish).

It is nice to theorize about creating differing governments on different planets and being isolated enough so that each is vastly different, but logically speaking, if we become advanced enough to populate other planets, then the implication is that traveling to all other planets is no longer a barrier, and human nature will assert itself. Meaning, the same or similar scenario will eventually play out again (based on what we know about human nature).

originally posted by: omniEther
At what point do we love our neighbors, stop the baseless bickering and say # it enough is enough I've been thinking and difference does it make, whether destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty, patriotism and/or democracy?
...

utopia (noun) an imaginary land where every one is happy. Utopia is an imaginary place where only good things happen, and good people live ...

A utopia can't work for the very reason you have quoted: "...only good things happen, and good people live...".

Utopia normally requires, often as its first and ongoing step, killing off anybody that does not fit the ideal. The people in charge of deciding who is "good" and who is "superfluous", tend to be the people who think it's a good idea to kill off millions of people to reach their version of utopia. That kind of person is exactly the worst person to have any say in the matter.

I am sure you will cry out - "No! Not my version! Not my utopia! It will be different!"

Unfortunately, it won't. Humans suffer from the incurable disease of "human nature". You can't beat or breed it out of people. Many have tried, all have failed, and in many cases their attempts have made matters worse. Inevitably you will end up with a pool of people who are not "good" people (by your standards) and do not do "good" things (again, by your standards). How do you deal with these people? If you let them live, then your utopian ideal will fail. If you exclude or cast them out, you will have a growing threat both outside your borders (the bad people) and inside your borders (sympathisers). So, your only option is to kill them off (and probably any sympathisers as well, just for safety) - which brings us right back to our first point.

Utopia is hell; those that seek to create it usually become its demon princes in the process.

originally posted by: omniEther
Friends and strangers would be able to rate your reputation and prevalence out of five stars, on the worlds first governmental state-sponsored app

Some people are so obsessed with social media they want a world run by it....

but it would also affect social standing,

More obsession with social media

below 2.5's and lower would be considered lower-class,

Oh look, a society that runs on how many people like the picture you posted of what you had for breakfast!

that would be because their ratings would be able to carry more weight,

Even more obsession with social media, so someone like Kim Kardashian is more important in rating people....

simply to keep their ratings up

You really are obsessed with social media....

it would be mandatory to attain a 4.4 or higher to attain such positions of the publicly attained socially sponsored elites(Brain surgeons, doctors, astronauts, astronomers etc..)

So someone with big tits and a big butt that posts lots of selfies automatically means they should be brain surgeons, doctors etc.

This actually sounds more like a nightmare, with the whole population being obsessed with social media!

originally posted by: hellobruce

So someone with big tits and a big butt that posts lots of selfies automatically means they should be brain surgeons, doctors etc.

This actually sounds more like a nightmare, with the whole population being obsessed with social media!

What's really scary is that we're increasingly living in that very nightmare.

How many educated people have lost their jobs because the all-knowing social media decided to turn on them like a pack of feral dogs?

Nope, social media gives unholy amounts of power to serial liars, plagiarists, and grafters, such as Connie St. Louis and Zoe Quinn. Now that is a thought that scares the bejeezus out of me.

lmao

Have you ever heard of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? Sounds very similar to your "utopia". Unless you breed people to be mentally incapable of it, I imagine the "lower class" would quite quickly rise up and lash out against their designated status.

And who decides what is a good path in life? I have met many intelligent, capable people who don't work highly paid jobs; sometimes it is because they decided to travel instead of study and a lot of them just never really stop travelling - and the stories they have to tell, I think, are important to hear.

If your class system revolves around networking with the right people, then that's just the same as it is in the real world. And the real world is hardly a utopia.