218 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Let us assume that a group of humans exist that have enough resources to so that every member of the society *could* be healthy, educated, and have housing and not know hunger. Imagine whatever technology level you desire, but there is a way for those resources to be used in a sustainable manner.

Let us also assume that this group of humans is free from outside danger, and only experiences the normal amount of natural disasters.

Given these conditions, is it possible for this group to create a perfect society?

Not *likely* but possible?

If you think it’s possible, tell us what form you think this society might take.

If you think it’s impossible, tell us why.

[the_one_54321]

i think that there are still more factors involved than are listed. in particular, understanding, or lack thereof. the ability to achieve something does not directly imply the mental faculty necessary to accomplish this achievement.

[Euphrati]

They would all have to be the same background as any other would bring out the tribal nature to place one's group over another. Even then someone will find ways to place some above others.

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think that there are still more factors involved than are listed. in particular, understanding, or lack thereof. the ability to achieve something does not directly imply the mental faculty necessary to accomplish this achievement.

Can you be a bit more concrete here? I don't even known what part of my first post you're having issues with.

Euphrati wrote...

They would all have to be the same background as any other would bring out the tribal nature to place one's group over another. Even then someone will find ways to place some above others.

Does the existence of a social hierarchy make a society imperfect? Wouldn't it depend on what the hierarchy was based on and the various rights and obligations each level had?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:00 .

[Shady314]

What do you define as perfect? Conflict free? Sure that's possible with the conditions you've laid out.

Such a society free of basically all worries would probably become obsessed with the pursuit of happiness. Recreational activities of all kinds would abound and take up the majority of people's time.

Modifié par Shady314, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:03 .

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think that there are still more factors involved than are listed. in particular, understanding, or lack thereof. the ability to achieve something does not directly imply the mental faculty necessary to accomplish this achievement.

Can you be a bit more concrete here? I don't even known what part of my first post you're having issues with.

i think that the constraint of the survivability of the populace is not the only aspect of the society that dictates it's perfection.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:02 .

[Maria Caliban]

Shady314 wrote...

What do you define as perfect? Conflict free? Sure that's possible with the conditions you've laid out.

I didn't define perfect. I asked if perfection were possible.

[Snoteye]

I suppose it depends on one's definition of "perfect." I'm inclined to say no because we need a social hierarchy. Eventually, somebody will be unsatisfied with their position and seek to restructure it. Then it'll repeat itself.

[Edit]
Yeah, what ^they said.

Modifié par Snoteye, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:04 .

[the_one_54321]

in essence the society must actively choose to be perfect before it can be, even if that perfection is otherwise "possible." and to be able to make this choice, every member of that society must have the mental faculty necessary to be capable of actively making that choice.

this runs along the same line as what snoteye just posted. every member of the society needs to be capable of recognizing the end result of that line actions and then actively choose to not follow it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:05 .

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think that the constraints of the survivability of the populace is not the only aspect of the societ that dictates it's perfection.

Again, I don't understand your response. I suspect you’re making assumptions about the initial question that I’m not.

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

in essence the society must actively choose to be perfect before it can be, even if that perfection is otherwise "possible." and to be able to make this choice, every member of that society must have the mental faculty necessary to be capable of actively making that choice.

this runs along the same line as what snoteye just posted. every member of the society needs to be capable of recognizing the end result of that line actions and then actively choose to not follow it.

Is a society imperfect because not all of its members are perfect? Infants can't make choices, people will certain mental conditions can't reliably do so either. Wouldn't a perfect society be one that can handle members who are imperfect?

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think that the constraints of the survivability of the populace is not the only aspect of the societ that dictates it's perfection.

Again, I don't understand your response. I suspect you’re making assumptions about the initial question that I’m not.

your innitial post assumes, or seems to, only that the members of this society are not wanting for any necessary consumable or permanent comodity. shelter, fuel, consumables, etc. i do not think that these are the only factors that are invovled in people choosing to treat each other "perfectly" or not.

[Shady314]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

What do you define as perfect? Conflict free? Sure that's possible with the conditions you've laid out.

I didn't define perfect. I asked if perfection were possible.

I know you didn't define it that's why I asked what you meant. Perfection means nothing on it's own. What is a perfect society? One that values knowledge above everything or physical beauty? One that stresses homogeneity or heterogeneity? Etc. So in that case no it is impossible since we would all have a different definition for "perfect."

[Maufurtado]

The Man, before anything else, is an animal. A sentient one, but an animal. We have instintics that affect our choices all the time. But, we also have reason and conscience. So, we have a conflict within that stops us to achieve that perfect society.



In fact, to live in society we had to forces ourselves a group of rules of conduct, named Laws, so we could live in peace without trampling in each others rights.



To achieve that perfect society, in my humble opinion, The Human Being should supress those more harmful instintcs and change its views towards reality. (Yeah, very abstract, but that's the best I can do with my english. I apologize for any grammar mistake I might have done).

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

in essence the society must actively choose to be perfect before it can be, even if that perfection is otherwise "possible." and to be able to make this choice, every member of that society must have the mental faculty necessary to be capable of actively making that choice.

this runs along the same line as what snoteye just posted. every member of the society needs to be capable of recognizing the end result of that line actions and then actively choose to not follow it.

Is a society imperfect because not all of its members are perfect? Infants can't make choices, people will certain mental conditions can't reliably do so either. Wouldn't a perfect society be one that can handle members who are imperfect?

those members of the society who are physically or mentally incapable of ataining this level of understanding would need to made to atain this level of understanding. failing that, that is assuming they are fully incapable of it through no fault of their own, yes they would need to be restrained from making the opposing choice. much in the same way the very young are the responsibility of thier guardians in almost all of human society.

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...


your innitial post assumes, or seems to, only that the members of this society are not wanting for any necessary consumable or permanent comodity. shelter, fuel, consumables, etc. i do not think that these are the only factors that are invovled in people choosing to treat each other "perfectly" or not.

Of course they're not, but the hierarchy of needs applies. I’d consider a society that can’t meet its citizen’s basic needs – even if the structure of society itself is fine – imperfect.

[Linarc]

I think it's impossible, since you can't assume they will be happy just because they have everything they need. Millions of years ago, The cro-magnon species coexisted with our ancestors, but the cro-magnon, although smarter than us, were extinct because they weren't as violent as our ancestors. My point is, that we have instincts and characteristics that won't allow this to happen, we are always fighting to survive in a number of ways, and that is what make us evolve. There was some research years ago saying that unicelular individuals formed colonies faster if they were constantly in danger. We are animals, can't forget it, and if we don't have obstacles, we are nothing and will relegate ourselves to a meaningless existence; there won't be a challenge to be better at something, to study more, to work more, and all of that. For me, this society would deteriorate. Sorry for appealing to biology here and if I didn't make my point clear.

Modifié par Linarc, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:18 .

[Maria Caliban]

Shady314 wrote...

I know you didn't define it that's why I asked what you meant. Perfection means nothing on it's own. What is a perfect society? One that values knowledge above everything or physical beauty? One that stresses homogeneity or heterogeneity? Etc. So in that case no it is impossible since we would all have a different definition for "perfect."

Are you saying that a perfect society would require everyone have a singular definition of perfection? You seem to be arguing for moral subjectivism there.

'Society X believes that raping puppy dogs and eating children is perfect, and if everyone agrees and they achieve that, then the society is perfect?”

[SpankyV]

There would have to be a certain level of rule or law in this society.



That by definition would be imperfect.



A perfect society would have to be detached from basic human emotions such as greed, hate, lust, etc. That is the only way to keep order.



Could humans suppress these emotions for the better good? Would they rebel against said suppression?



How would you enforce the laws if they did?



I think a perfect society would be more of a constant goal. What I mean is that it would have to constantly evolve and change as people change. If a society changes with technology (which it obviously does), then the laws that govern said society must change as well.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...


your innitial post assumes, or seems to, only that the members of this society are not wanting for any necessary consumable or permanent comodity. shelter, fuel, consumables, etc. i do not think that these are the only factors that are invovled in people choosing to treat each other "perfectly" or not.

Of course they're not, but the hierarchy of needs applies. I’d consider a society that can’t meet its citizen’s basic needs – even if the structure of society itself is fine – imperfect.

i dont disagree, but i believe there is much more to it than that.

[the_one_54321]

SpankyV wrote...

There would have to be a certain level of rule or law in this society.

again, i disagree. a perfect society would be one in which such things were unnecessary because each member of that society was capable of making the choice to make their society perfect. this would imply the mental faculuty to actively choose etc etc etc read above.

[Maria Caliban]

Maufurtado wrote...

The Man, before anything else, is an animal. A sentient one, but an animal. We have instintics that affect our choices all the time. But, we also have reason and conscience. So, we have a conflict within that stops us to achieve that perfect society.

In fact, to live in society we had to forces ourselves a group of rules of conduct, named Laws, so we could live in peace without trampling in each others rights.

To achieve that perfect society, in my humble opinion, The Human Being should supress those more harmful instintcs and change its views towards reality. (Yeah, very abstract, but that's the best I can do with my english. I apologize for any grammar mistake I might have done).

No, I think it's a very good start. If nothing else, a perfect society would require that its citizens supress those baser instincts. If we're killing each other in the grocery store, it just brings everyone down.

But what force would be effective enough that people would consistantly do so?

[SpankyV]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

What do you define as perfect? Conflict free? Sure that's possible with the conditions you've laid out.

I didn't define perfect. I asked if perfection were possible.

Perfection is not possible. You have to come as close as possible.

[Urgnu the Gnu]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I asked if perfection were possible.

No, it is not. At least it wasn't achieved yet by humans, and it's probable that it isn't possible. And that's just generally speaking, not (yet) discussing the details.

[the_one_54321]

she does approach the single greatest root of the problem, however. the wars of resources. almost all great wars have been fought over resources. assuming that all needed resources are fully provided to every member of society, with no outside influences, what then prevents that society from attaining perfection? and i have gone into that in detail above.