Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_zpscvb in philosophy
Saadiqfhs t1_j0v0o4u wrote
Hi so I like to write a lot doing a lot writing on philosophical thoughts I have wanted a opinion on one: can humanity survive utopia? As we inch closer to harmless endless energy we get closer to a world without struggle, and can we survive that? Is it possible for the human mind to deal with paradise on earth? I think not honestly but willing hear counter arguments
pgslaflame t1_j0vegb8 wrote
Depends on how you define utopia. Utopia is a ideal, something perfect. Something that can’t be reached because humans aren’t perfect.
So I’d say no. Humanity and perfection are contradictory. There’ll be always some kind of struggle.
Saadiqfhs t1_j0veu43 wrote
We can reach it but we will rebel against it I think. As the only way to enjoy paradise is with out thought, the thing that makes us human
pgslaflame t1_j0vgp54 wrote
But humanity without thought isn’t able to survive, is it?
How do you define a utopia though.
Saadiqfhs t1_j0vgukm wrote
A world where all our needs are met
pgslaflame t1_j0vhpc0 wrote
What kind of needs?
Like everyone has food, water, a roof above one’s head and receives the needed love?
Saadiqfhs t1_j0vis3u wrote
All really, to point where even the need the walk will be inferior way of life
pgslaflame t1_j0vkrpv wrote
I don’t think that’ll be possible while having organic bodies. Also a future in which my way of life is viewed as inferior, just bc I like walking and use my body doesn’t sound too utopian 😅.
Do you maybe mean a “every wish is granted” type of future?
Saadiqfhs t1_j0wdeul wrote
I think that what I see as the closes thing we will be in Utopia
pgslaflame t1_j0wnldu wrote
So maybe just like in matrix, only less misanthropic, with a simulation that does whatever one of the player wishes, wo each of those being able to harm each other? Or does it need to be “real”?
[deleted] t1_j0viuqb wrote
[deleted]
Oh-hey21 t1_j1ekxuu wrote
I'm not sure where to interject, picking here..
I think it's impossible to have a universally agreed set of standards and needs. We're already proving that individual communities struggle to establish guidelines that are not questioned.
In order to achieve a utopia I believe we'd need to become far too similar, more than anyone else would like.
No matter what, a baseline needs to be established. Everything would have to be agreed on, and that would require an entire planet's worth of agreement. Utopia is easier to exist in a small group, and even then, you're going to have far too many differing opinions.
Is a utopia even desirable?
bumharmony t1_j0w8rvl wrote
So you are saying people cannot follow any set of rules ever because ”human nature”? But that is what makes humanity: the ability to think.
What if we make a system that is maximally rational (because another thing about human nature, ”shelfishness”) that any departure from its rules is actually altruistic (anything short of violence against bodies) or self-harm?
In trivial terms: for example a scenario where you cannot steal other people’s parcels that are equally distributed and one can only depart from its rules by a) not taking own share and causing self-harm or b) gifting it to others making it an altruistic deed. They are actually the same thing: altruism does not exist among sane people.
pgslaflame t1_j0wgg85 wrote
Humans aren’t purely rational unfortunately. Thats why rational rules and the punishment for breaking them often do not work. Selfishness can take up self destructive dimensions. If people would be rationally selfish, for the most part selfish altruism would be the logical answer.
How is your scenario different from laws we have rn? (Except the punishment)
bumharmony t1_j0yapzl wrote
We don’t have a system that is maximally rational (maximum efficiency and justice) so that departure from it could be evidenced as pareto suboptimal. Obviously breaking the rules of the status quo further increases your position in so many cases. It is just an arbitrary way of living at best,
pgslaflame t1_j0yiznw wrote
Yea that sounds a bit hedonistic and not very utopian to me idk. I think the right approach would be to “create” people that don’t want to act unethically in the first place. Rules wouldn’t even be necessary then.
bumharmony t1_j0yppkw wrote
Just trying to tinker with the argument from the incoherence/shelfishness of human nature. Not guaranteeing it will fit a whole. Sadly.
And of course it is hedonistic, well, atleast materialistic because that is the question about. After the system is maximally rational, so that no one's position can be improved you can do b) give away your share if your religion tells you to. It does interfere with what is rational for the individual in particular.
Marcell_Hise t1_j0vdzdl wrote
Can you describe how or why you think that utopia-in-praxis would destroy us as a species?
Saadiqfhs t1_j0venzx wrote
Because I don’t think our intelligence can expect a end of history reality. To sit in pleasure chair and nom our brains. We would become slugs, dogs as we broke them from wolves. And in the process decay human intelligence to a point we may lose sentience
Marcell_Hise t1_j0vg5et wrote
Sure, but I think that you’re discounting the probability of cybernetic augmentation allowing for the advent of a new human race capable of merging with AI. Of course some will die and fall to decadence and decay—but, still some will rise from those ashes towwrd even greater heights.
Saadiqfhs t1_j0vhsjw wrote
I think you touch on a thought tho that I think will happen, the new species of Homo sapiens, the slug people, homo inferiors and new gods, homo superiors. I think tho this where humanity stops being human, and what remains of Homo sapiens will be the adventurers who dare to leave Utopia for adventure onward in the dark, either on Earth or beyond
Marcell_Hise t1_j0wt98x wrote
Sure, I think I’d agree with the sentiment of that idea
[deleted] t1_j1ep316 wrote
[deleted]
jank_ram t1_j0z2ru0 wrote
If it's a true utopia we, by definition, will survive it won't we?
[deleted] t1_j1kvnnc wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments