future utopias

[opeltonop]

I'll give you the TR;DR up front: what's a cool future society you've envisioned before? Is it based on any philosophical principle?


Imagine humans colonize space. One government for and by the people unifies all 80 human colonies which are on 80 separate planets, all nearly identical to earth. The people and government collectively decide their lives will be more interesting if each planet goes through its own cultural evolution, separate and distinct from one another. Each colony develops their own customs, legal system, traditions, etc which is grounded on some past philosophical work.

You get the chance to design one of the worlds, what would it look like? It's just 1 planet out of 80, so it needs to be unique.

[Googol]

@tedere12 @analworsher9 thoughts ?

[deleted_user]

no borders, free market, no men

[TheFrozenStrelet]

I don't even think human nature would allow for a Utopia to exist even if it were 100% possible.

[Amsel_]

Rome's hierarchical society is really fascinating to me. I think I would recreate the nobility with all of its powers and privileges, but also add in the element of social-mobility. These modern societies where power is splintered off in a thousand directions are so unappealing. I admire people who strive for a better position in the world. They should have more money and authority than someone who's fine sitting on their couch all day.

Economically it would be very socialist, but in mostly in the form of safety nets; there is still substantial wealth inequality. I'm just talking about basic stuff like health-care, college, a job guarantee. Banks and natural resources would be nationalized, but normal businesses are allowed to function freely. Unions would be replaced with centralized wage-bargaining. Men would be conscripted at 18. They're taught some important skills, like how to drive, cook, and other basic life tasks; education wouldn't be mandatory, so you need to make sure these people can function properly. Socially I think it would be the kind of society where everyone is well dressed and polite in public, but behind closed doors they're all drinking and partying. Art would have a heavy focus on romanticism.

The government executive would be a Philosopher King. There would also be a Senate which represents the aristocracy, and an assembly of workers - they're picked up from the centralized wage-bargaining people. Senators are appointed for life; assemblymen come and go all the time. There would be a common law justice system.

[[Armag] diarouga]

A society with garja as a dictator

[deleted_user0]

Rome's hierarchical society is really fascinating to me. I think I would recreate the nobility with all of its powers and privileges, but also add in the element of social-mobility. These modern societies where power is splintered off in a thousand directions are so unappealing. I admire people who strive for a better position in the world. They should have more money and authority than someone who's fine sitting on their couch all day.

rome already had that element of social mobility built in, provided you were a man and in the right trade, you could rise high. Some emperors came from "humble" beginnings.
But what you say about having a nobility with its powers and priviliges and also wanting to give people who strive for better position more money and authority than those who sit on a couch all day kinda contradicts each other.

[Amsel_]

Rome's hierarchical society is really fascinating to me. I think I would recreate the nobility with all of its powers and privileges, but also add in the element of social-mobility. These modern societies where power is splintered off in a thousand directions are so unappealing. I admire people who strive for a better position in the world. They should have more money and authority than someone who's fine sitting on their couch all day.

rome already had that element of social mobility built in, provided you were a man and in the right trade, you could rise high. Some emperors came from "humble" beginnings.
But what you say about having a nobility with its powers and priviliges and also wanting to give people who strive for better position more money and authority than those who sit on a couch all day kinda contradicts each other.

The idea I was trying to get across was that noble ranks are based heavily in merit, more than blood. These noble ranks give people economic and legal advantages. Nobility might not be the best word, but ranks would have some element of hereditaryness.

[deleted_user0]

if it's based on merit, then why make it hereditary? inheritance drives unjustified inequality, it doesn't solve it. When you're talking about inequality that comes from unequal input that's one thing. But inheritance basically ensures that those who're already ahead will always stay ahead. Great from the individual's point of view. Not so great if you want to achieve utopia.

[TheFrozenStrelet]

People like Amsel_ make a Utopia impossible.

[Amsel_]

if it's based on merit, then why make it hereditary? inheritance drives unjustified inequality, it doesn't solve it. When you're talking about inequality that comes from unequal input that's one thing. But inheritance basically ensures that those who're already ahead will always stay ahead. Great from the individual's point of view. Not so great if you want to achieve utopia.

The idea of it passing onto children is to provide an incentive to parents. People obviously want what's better for their children, so that's a great motivator. Although, it probably should decay after some time. I haven't really worked that part out.

[deleted_user0]

if it's based on merit, then why make it hereditary? inheritance drives unjustified inequality, it doesn't solve it. When you're talking about inequality that comes from unequal input that's one thing. But inheritance basically ensures that those who're already ahead will always stay ahead. Great from the individual's point of view. Not so great if you want to achieve utopia.

The idea of it passing onto children is to provide an incentive to parents. People obviously want what's better for their children, so that's a great motivator. Although, it probably should decay after some time. I haven't really worked that part out.

This isn't true. There are plenty of recorded instances where people don't care only about their own children, where that concept of a nuclear family doesnt even exist, but people take care of everyone in the tribe. There is a saying: it takes a village to raise a child, and if you look at history, it's quite a recent anamoly that the "burden/privilige" of raising a child or multiple falls solely to 2 people, and sometimes just even one nowadays.

Inheritance may incentivise the parents in some way. But it doesnt incentivise the offspring, as they know theyre already taken care off. Inheritance creates that type of couch lingering elite you say you wish to avoid.

[Amsel_]

if it's based on merit, then why make it hereditary? inheritance drives unjustified inequality, it doesn't solve it. When you're talking about inequality that comes from unequal input that's one thing. But inheritance basically ensures that those who're already ahead will always stay ahead. Great from the individual's point of view. Not so great if you want to achieve utopia.

The idea of it passing onto children is to provide an incentive to parents. People obviously want what's better for their children, so that's a great motivator. Although, it probably should decay after some time. I haven't really worked that part out.

This isn't true. There are plenty of recorded instances where people don't care only about their own children, where that concept of a nuclear family doesnt even exist, but people take care of everyone in the tribe. There is a saying: it takes a village to raise a child, and if you look at history, it's quite a recent anamoly that the "burden/privilige" of raising a child or multiple falls solely to 2 people, and sometimes just even one nowadays.

Inheritance may incentivise the parents in some way. But it doesnt incentivise the offspring, as they know theyre already taken care off. Inheritance creates that type of couch lingering elite you say you wish to avoid.

I'm not really talking about the history of the family structure. I'm just saying that my imaginary Utopian planet thinks of family similar to how modern men do. I'm also not worried if some people are able to do nothing just because of their parent's accomplishments. Not doing anything might be a side-effect of bad parenting, or the person could just be lazy; either way, these aristocrats would be good for filling the ranks of poets and artists.

My comment on people who "linger on the couch all day" was talking about the type who are perfectly fine doing the bare minimum amount of work it takes to live a comfortable life. It was contrasting the consumer-society with a society which reaches for the stars.

[gibson]

Glad I dont live in your "utopia"

[spanky4ever]

why not make it more realistic
https://youtu.be/qWoiBpfvdx0

sorry if I spoin your fun with some reality

[forgrin]

no borders, free market, no men

Are you the only remaining man in this situation?