I think it'd be good to have a thread in which we discuss utopian societies, whether or not they're possible, and the advantages and drawbacks of them if at all possible.

In my opinion, as long as human nature still exists and humans have an intellect and feelings, then "a perfect world" will never be.

What do you think?

They are impossible, literally "no place," because people can't agree what one would look like. Maybe folks in communes in forests are close to utopia but I think that may be contingent upon not seeing what other societies have to offer, or if you do see it, keeping your desires under wraps.

I agree with G, though assuming you could get together a group of people who were like-minded enough to agree on what a utopia would look like, you could then set up a utopian society. But I expect you'd have to interact with other groups which wouldn't fit in with your ideal, and that's where conflict would lie.

It may also be that people who speak of utopia have expectations that are too high. If you expect a society where everything is perfect, then of course you're not going to get it, because nothing is ever perfect. If you lower your expectations to something reasonable, it would then be possible to achieve it.

No advanced culture could exist as a Utopia. Technology, options, etc all lead to unhappiness. Utopia could only exist as an extremely primitive society, with hardly any choices, adequate resources for basic survival, and without knowledge of what might be available elsewhere.

Would you say that the Peoples' Temple, the Summit Lighthouse, and other groups were utopias, dystopias, or something completely different (besides cults, of course)?

Hardly. While I am no expert on those places (although I have read a bit about Jim Jones), I don't think that anyone could ever create anything close to a Utopia by running away from something else.

It's like going to a convention for something that you really care about, like the "Three's Company" tv show. It seems like a great idea for everyone to come together with a shared perception of the world, and it can be really cool for a while to share those perceptions, visions, and interpretations of the world with like minded folks, but eventually the differences overcome the commonalities, and you realize that, after spending 2 hours talking about how awesome Larry Dallas was with some stranger, that the dickhead also likes the show "Small Wonder," and you have to kill him for the good of mankind.

Utopia requires the absence of perceived options. Everyone has to have the exact same assumptions, ideas, and expectations of what is possible. Even then, you'll have to kill the occasional freak or two.

Maybe if we all reached enlightenment of some sort. MOAR PSYCHEDELICS!

Utopia is definitely a fantasy. Best you can hope for is to less the hell level of the world we live in a notch or two.

Posted by Oryx Maybe if we all reached enlightenment of some sort. MOAR PSYCHEDELICS!

Society would be at an advantage if everyone did more drugs!

Seriously though, that brought to mind the Haight-Ashbury district of California during 1967. Everyone had their own little euphoria-land for a few months, then homelessness, crime, and drug issues set in and it was all over.

My point is that if a utopia is possible, then it would never exist for more than a short time.

Posted by HarvestmanMan Seriously though, that brought to mind the Haight-Ashbury district of California during 1967. Everyone had their own little euphoria-land for a few months, then homelessness, crime, and drug issues set in and it was all over.

The problem with them is that they depended on others NOT being on drugs to provide them the stuff they needed.

Posted by splumer The problem with them is that they depended on others NOT being on drugs to provide them the stuff they needed.

You're absolutely right.

I can see how a parallel can be drawn towards governments today: we rely upon others with more clout, so to speak, to give us what we need. And more often than not, that doesn't happen. In other words, "this is why we can't have nice things".

Posted by HarvestmanMan You're absolutely right. I can see how a parallel can be drawn towards governments today: we rely upon others with more clout, so to speak, to give us what we need. And more often than not, that doesn't happen. In other words, "this is why we can't have nice things".

Not more clout, necessarily, but more (or just different) expertise. Division of labor.

So (I just discovered this board, much less that I was added to it) and it reminds me of my last weekend.

After a rousing third year in a row at the Big Apple BBQ festival, my entourage (a total of 7 of us) started walking to a bar for libations before parting ways. Upon the way, we stumbled across the annual Hare Krishna festival. One in our group was very well informed about them (and we were told food was stellar) and so we rolled in.

They seem to be a society sort of formed around the basis of utopia. You're off the grid, self sustaining (you grow and cook your own food, you don't need to wear pants, there is ample love/support/thorough support in a community), so on and so forth. I mean, it's a cult, sure, but I did try to approach this from a rational outsider's viewpoint, and was infinitely curious.

I asked a lot of people a lot of questions.

The more I asked, the more the concept of this idyllic (if not totally cult and weird as fuck) concept collapsed, and I found it interesting. At least it collapsed to me.

My questions started off with "soooo... what's the risk of rape like?" I'm more or less serious. Answers varied, but in summation:

Sex isn't really "allowed." Saltpeter is put into their food, and procreation, much less fucking other people in your group is forbidden. This brings us both to the issue of longevity as a societal group, without reproduction beyond recruitment, and the issue that isn't readily dealt with of celibacy in one of the three animals on the planet known to have sex for fun.

Beyond that, a slight uncomfortable admission that, liberal and free and peace loving as they are, there is a mild carry over of a caste system. Women are below men. At least in some ways. Necessary for order? This is all conjecture. But, it exists.

It reminded me of reading one of my most favourite books of recent, "God is Dead" by Ron Currie Jr. It provides an interesting hypothetical to mull over, one of many scenarios, if god was proven to exist, and died, and what would happen to our society, across the boards. If interested in positing on such things as how people function in modern day to deal with each other, I found it a really interesting study. It's fiction, but well researched and informed.

In short, I greatly love mulling the concept of 'utopia/anarchy/limited government' over, but no concept I can ever come up with ends well. At least not long term.

Always interested to hear new insights, especially with backing information. It's all mutable and ever changing.

Posted by hydrotherapy Saltpeter is put into their food, and procreation, much less fucking other people in your group is forbidden. This brings us both to the issue of longevity as a societal group, without reproduction beyond recruitment, and the issue that isn't readily dealt with of celibacy in one of the three animals on the planet known to have sex for fun.

Wow, that's literally the opposite of Brave New World. And a good way of ensuring that, without outsiders, that utopia won't be able to survive for more than a few decades. I know some cults had the leader producing children with however many concubines he needed, but evidently that isn't the case.


It's a double-edged sword: if your citizens/followers/slaves/whatevers are allowed to freely reproduce, chances are that your society will eventually die out from diseases and things of that nature. But if you don't allow people to reproduce at all, then you're screwing your collective selves over.