Are earth based utopia's possible?

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
83 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Writing out my beliefs to express to a member here raised a question about the rationality of a Utopian society on Earth (Atlantis included). Are these shiny models of who we hope to be, no matter what the origin or endpoint, not what amounts to unattainable goals that we strive for but cannot, for a variety of reasons, obtain?

Human nature is fixed. The Founding Fathers saw this and created an environment which catered to human nature while providing for a modest amount of structure to galvanize a society based on self reliance and supply and demand. The didn't strive for paradise and left paradise to the individual to carve out for him/herself whether on Earth or in an afterlife. The Founding Fathers, as private citizens, just wanted to be left alone todo what they wanted.

Socialist and Communist Utopia is unattainable because of human nature.
Objectivist Atlantis may well be the same. Sure 10, 20, or perhaps 50 people could get together to form their own group but the reality of human nature will cause that group to splinter, the more people in the group the faster the splintering.

At its core, is not Objectisim a lifelong effort to strive to be...just live every other belief out there? If you don't think so, how?

PS

I have to add, I'm not trying to stir things up by committing the Objectivist equivalent of blasphemy or to besmirch Rand, Galt, Objectivism or any Objectivist in any way. I do honestly wonder if human nature prevents us for reaching that high-bar that many people strive to grasp.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sigh, still what I remember, and why you are the only person I ignore on this site. In truth, I shouldn't have given to curiosity and looked at what you're writing.

    In any event, I chose "earth based" specifically to refer to what happens here on earth (pretty simple meaning) regardless of its ideology and to avoid this conversation. Afterlife utopia removes will from the picture and its something I have no taste for. For the record any utopia-concept, to me, outside of personal satisfaction, is the same as the next- throughly unrealistic for human beings.

    Don't worry ewv, as you well know, I don't hesitate to write exactly what I mean no matter what you think of me or whether you feel I should be here or not.

    Lastly, you would honestly stand on Rands hidden valley not being her version of a "utopian" society? Feasible or not, she created that example because it perfectly illustrated her ideology in a practical sense (at least for the sake of her novel). Utopia = any visionary system of political or social perfection. (http://dictionary.com)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I wish I was able to give you 10 points for that. Especially your last paragraph. At times, I feel like yelling, try to understand! Put it into context! Check your premises!

    Being human, I often fail to do the very thing I complain about. However, I usually get it right eventually.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The fixed aspect of human nature is self-interest. You do, chose to do, whats in the best interest of your own survival and happiness, this includes those you choose to care for. I contend that utopian ideologies and their objectives fail because they remove self-interest for the collective good and, inevitably end up oppressing people or killing people to lessen opposition..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 11 months ago
    As opposed to what, a society on some other planet or in a space colony or in a virtual world?

    What is fixed about human nature? We evolved to this point both through natural selection and an evolving of knowledge and its propagation across generations and other things such as cultural evolution. We are able to reason and understand much and increasingly even our own genetics. So I don't think human is static forever.

    Frankly I think we must evolve to survive and take some deeper control of our own becoming. The world and its demands is moving to fast to stand still.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 11 months ago
    Objectivism is a worthy objective; however...we have a looooooong way to go before we might eradicate the recessive perverted genes we've inherited over our some 200K years on this planet...we seem to be a mix of other species inspite of our alleged separate beginnings. There is a host of other problems that prevent us all without exception to achieve a mind and Use it!; not to mention, being able to control nature and the effects the cosmos may play in our evolution.
    Assuming we accomplish all that...then yea, we might achieve some sort of balanced society, civilization and existence. But, I would assign a very low degree of probability to our success of these goals.
    It, indeed may be fruitless but I still think we each need to stride toward that goal post.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He also equivocates on self-interest as human nature. Man as a being who must use his rational faculty to service is human nature, but what is in our self-interest, including the fundamental principle of ethics, must be discovered. It is not known innately as a part of human nature.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand did not count on people not thinking for themselves. She urged that they do, which is not automatic. Ashinoff's characterization of Ayn Rand as "group-think mindset" is a smear. She urged that thinking for oneself not be "oddball". When people practice the virtue of rationality, no "oddballs" who don't are a threat. The irrational who resort to force are dispensed with by government protecting the rights of the individual. But if people trying to be rational do not understand and hold the correct basic principles, none of it can work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And what's with his "earth based utopias possible" line? Another plea for supernatural utopia? Ayn Rand was concerned with life here on earth, not "utopias" or mysticism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's a contradiction to think that a human can change, suppress, or "rise above" "human nature". It's as simple as, humans are humans. The notion that we can act other than in a human manner makes no sense.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, it was all his brainstorm to figure a scenario where socialism would work. You can see where people like Hitler found their justification.

    I figure if any ideology, any of them, seriously sought to control the world a culling would be in consideration, its the only way to ensure you're numbers dominate the dissenters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed. I'm sure I told this story here before, but I drove to Vegas once with an employee to attend Interop. This employee was from Bulgaria and thought socialism was the best thing since slided bread. After conversing for 4 hours we settled on the reality that socialism and communism are great if human beings weren't involved. Human Nature, ultimately self-interest, is fixed and as long as people are acting in their own self-interest there will be no voluntary consensus to anything any one way that takes care of everyone. His solution, kill of all humans and find another race of beings who nature is better suited to appreciating subservience.

    True story...very interesting.

    One constant - human nature, we can strive to change it, even fool ourselves for a while, but when it comes down to it, we do whats in our own best interest 100% of the time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 8 years, 11 months ago
    nurture vs nature...age old argument...original sin..."nature" is a false assumption...we are learnable...i am optimistic...rise above...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 11 months ago
    The problem with a utopian society isn't the place, but the people.

    America succeeded at first because they were able to separate the people who aspired to freedom and personal rule from those who were content to live in slavery. Because there is no more place on this planet to start fresh, there must be some event to separate those who once again desire a return to freedom and personal rule from those which do not. Natural disasters and wars have a tendency to do this to some degree, even though they are usually quite destructive in their methods.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And how people think and act is not fixed by human nature. Ayn Rand advocated an individualist, proper morality, accepted by choice, and the integrity to follow it as the fundamental guidelines for living. Her philosophy has a content. It is not just "a lifelong effort to strive to be just live every other belief out there" and is not just a political philosophy of the nature of government. Every politics presupposes and implies an ethics.

    The Valley in Atlas Shrugged was a place to thrive for those who accepted proper moral principles, by invitation during a time of collapse of society. It was a fictional device to illustrate how the best live in accordance with proper moral principles, not advocacy of isolated, small hidden utopian enclaves of "paradise" to remain "untainted by outside influences". Ayn Rand advocated a political society based on Constitutional government with limited powers, with corrections to the original American Constitution.

    Those who do not read her philosophy and approach to life will continue to spread screwy misconceptions based on their own confusions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 11 months ago
    "I'm not trying to stir things up....."
    Oh, yes you are. But that's OK with me. Stirring things up is what makes the world of humans go 'round. At my age, I'm already in Utopia. Maybe that's what the elders thought heaven might be. The only responsibilities are those imposed on me by the PTB (Powers That Be) or myself. I do as I damn well please. But then -- Reality Check! Those damn PTB in Washington or Tallahassee (My village is pretty OK) keep intruding on my Utopia. Actually, AJ you answered your own question so well, that's there's not a heluva a lot more to be said on the subject.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 11 months ago
    Anyone who comes peddling the concept of any group-think Utopia should be considered as dangerous.
    Hitler promised a utopia for those included in a mythical Aryan race to the expense of everyone else..
    Marx dreamed of one world-wide.
    Millions have died for the socialist utopian myths and many are still group-think slaves of the one called Communism.
    The promise, never the reality, of group-think utopias come in different forms and are always initially led by some charismatic creature such as Jim Jones.
    Can you feel the b-b-b-Kool-Aid?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    AJ,
    as you know it has been tried many times and the success rate is zero, except in very primitive societies such as jungle people who have no enemy's. They exist as they have for who knows how many years in a state of unchanging existence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 11 months ago
    Atlantis was a place of refuge. It was not a state of any kind, and worked (aside from "it's fiction") for one reason only: membership in it was by invitation only. Let me reiterate and re-emphasize: by invitation only. Furthermore, you had only one generation of adults, with a few children. Once those children grew to adulthood, the de facto Committee of Safety would have had some hard decisions to make, if the collapse hadn't occurred as soon as it did. To wit: do you shun the grown-up children who won't "get with the program"? Does shunning (a punishment characteristic of Amish and perhaps other Mennonite communities, amounting to banishment) become the common punishment for any crime? I also notice that Judge Narragansett did not say one word about holding anything in the nature of "juvenile court"!

    Crime is a part of human nature. Any society needs police to deal with crime. Atlantis had a military--meaning Ragnar Danneskjöld's ship--and something like a judiciary--Judge Narragansett's law and arbitration practice. But it had no police. It did not even seem to have a security force, beyond a resident militia. That worked for only one reason: John Galt carefully invited only those who wouldn't think of committing crimes against fellow refugees.

    So what do you do when the next generation achieves majority? Indeed, Rand did not even treat the subject of "legal majority" or "emancipation." So when a member of that next generation commits crime, what do you do?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You can count on that one person to start thinking for himself and start talking to others.
    People are individuals. An oddball will always emerge. That being good or bad depends on the personality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 11 months ago
    Too many leeches in the world, many of them even think they are 'productive', and eventually they become a bloodsucker on the utopia.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As an author she did envision to write her novel, we all do. I group-think mindset may well be what would work provided the group wasn't too large and they were all generous alpha type personalities. All it take is one person to start the domino's falling.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo