218 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

do you believe it is practical to assume a society in todays world can fully supply all the necesary comidities to every member of society?

Yes. Everyone in America could have food, housing, an education, and basic medical care. The resources are there.

the infrastructure is not. nor is the willingness of the members of that society. something i touched on a little earlier.

[Shady314]

the_one_54321 wrote...
the point is that every member of the society must actively choose to not render any deliberate harm onto any other member of society.

All right then by that definition I'd say it is possible.

[Urgnu the Gnu]

the_one_54321 wrote...

well no. that's why i've been talking about the need for each member of the society to have the mental faculty to actively choose to make the society perfect.

But if you (practically) say it's not possible with humans (as we know them), aren't you changing the parameters?

[SpankyV]

hence the necessity of the mental faculty to actively choose to not behave in this manner.

I think the freedom of choice is what would make a society imperfect.

If  you have to make a choice then it's far from perfect.

A society that is as close to perfect as possible would automaticly act in a the proper manner.

[BluesMan1956]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

It is impossible because man is selfish and evil by nature.  This is the problem with all such utopian ideas - they all require that man be inherently good.   From a theological perspective, I tend to be calvinist who believes the opposite is true.   In this country 50% of marriages end in divorce.  This is first and foremost because of selfishness.  We are only concerned about ourselves.  We are incapable of the amount of personal sacrifice necessary to create a utopia.  To believe it is possible is to be naiive of human nature.

This is my big problem with socialism.  Socialists are exremely generous with other people's money.

This country is one of the most generous in the world, but those in power in washington want to take away incentive for being benevolent and hire non feeling beureacrats to use our money and be benevolent for us as they see fit.

It's not about benevolence when the governement gets involved - it is about POWER.

I will get down off my soapbox now

Modifié par BluesMan1956, 20 octobre 2009 - 08:53 .

[the_one_54321]

SpankyV wrote...

hence the necessity of the mental faculty to actively choose to not behave in this manner.

I think the freedom of choice is what would make a society imperfect.

If  you have to make a choice then it's far from perfect.

A society that is as close to perfect as possible would automaticly act in a the proper manner.

you are actually in complete agreement with me and simply do not realize it.

"would automatically act in the proper manner" is precisely what i am saying. but i require that the people choose to act this way. if they are not allowed to make this choice, they are restrained, and thus lacking in freedom their life is imperfect.

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

the infrastructure is not. nor is the willingness of the members of that society. something i touched on a little earlier.

Right, but I don't think anyone has called America a perfect society.

You said it was impractical to imagine a society with those resources. You and I are living in one. As such, it's quite a practical assumption.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

the infrastructure is not. nor is the willingness of the members of that society. something i touched on a little earlier.

Right, but I don't think anyone has called America a perfect society.

You said it was impractical to imagine a society with those resources. You and I are living in one. As such, it's quite a practical assumption.

alright, let's just say we go with your interpretation. what about the exclusion of outside influences? 

[Maria Caliban]

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...



Just wanted to add this:



As for the creation of a "perfect society" as mentioned; has anyone thought yet about communes, and their complicated histories which have also included some rather terrible episodes and endings? One necessity, perhaps even flaw that ensures the community's constant survival is perpetuation of the norm by making sure of all-round consensus or indoctrination of the dominant ideals to a certain degree, but which - fortunately or unfortunately for them - some inevitably rebel against. Also it beggars the question of whether you can have a society that provides for all in terms of material comforts (and emotional, social comforts according to its own standards), but one that rests upon 'flawed' ideals - can it still be considered perfect through and through by all, not just by its own adherents which consider it as paradisal? Or does only the opinion of its members who *believe* that it is perfect count? Hope that isn't too convoluted.



Or do communes not count (even the ones which in the past have cut off all contact from the outside world), and why?

Why wouldn’t communes count? They’re a group of people. Admittedly, they’re small when compared to modern societies. I think you’d have trouble getting everyone in Denmark to drink poisoned Kool-Aid.



It’s harder to study communes many of them have imploded, but what about the Pennsylvania Dutch? Their cultural traditions date back to the 17th and 18th centuries, and I’d consider an Amish community a form of commune.

[Snoteye]

Does a perfect society preclude the possibility of war?

Maria Caliban wrote...

I think you’d have trouble getting everyone in Denmark to drink poisoned Kool-Aid.

It's all in the marketing.

[Malanek]

I think that such a society is a long way off and will require extremely advanced technology tocover not just the basic requirements of life as Maria outlined (food, housing, education, and basic medical care) but also provide plentiful luxuries so people no longer desire wealth. At that stage humanity should become more philosophical and into new experiences that are unlimited.

Although there are resources and means to provide basic needs now for all, I don't think such a society would be perfect. At the moment we require the desire to get ahead and experiment to advance as a species. I think society should gradually get better, but it is a long time before it will become "perfect".

[Linarc]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Linarc wrote...

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.

1. Would a perfect society necessarily have all of its members be happy all the time? Happiness is not a base state, it's a triggered one and as far as we know, the brain can't constantly manufacture the chemicals to keep us in that emotional state.
Moreover, not all unhappiness reflects poorly on society. If I see a sad movie and cry, does that mean society is imperfect? If I break up with someone and feel glum, does that mean society is imperfect? If my mother or my friend dies, and I morn, does that mean society is imperfect?
Happiness is important to me, but I don’t know if I’d desire a life where I was *never* sad, angry, or even bored.


2. The idea that because you have food and shelter, you no longer have obstacles in your life is a strange one. It doesn’t fit with what I know of the world. Conflict happens naturally and can be healthy, so I don’t agree that a perfect society would have absolutely no conflict. I image there would still be sports, people would still play games, people would compete over lovers and friends, and try to out geek one another with Monty Python jokes.

well, I think you didn't tell us your perfect society view Maria, I'd like to know it

1. A perfect society shouldn't have conflicts, everyone would have what they needed, for me it's like an utopic communism, everybody wins the same amount of money, have the same education and treatment (that's why I made a point about not having a reason to progress). A perfect society should be equal to all the individuals living there, otherwise it isn't fair, therefore, isn't perfect. But people can have feelings even if they are in a perfect society, so it wasn't what I was trying to say here, actually I meant people could be unhappy living in a perfect society, because, in my view of it, at least, no one would be better, but equal; and there would some individuals who wouldn't be satisfied with it and would want more power and be better than everyone, leading the society to its imperfect version again. Actually, I think humanity needs to be "born again" for the perfect society be possible.

2. You have a point here, probably it's just my view or obstacles to be surpassed, because I don't think they are as challenging as some we have in our imperfect society, and they don't make feel like competing over them for all my life, but that's just me or I haven't figured out a good conflict in a perfect society 

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

alright, let's just say we go with your interpretation. what about the exclusion of outside influences? 

I don't recall saying anything about the exclusion of outside influences. You mean the lack of outside danger? A society under threat of attack will likely allocate it resources differently, and massive deaths or the razing of cities will have a negative impact on the populous.

That's not to say that a perfect society couldn't be involved in a war. I just didn't want to fixate on that as it tends to dominate the discussion once it's brought up.

How would a perfect society treat warfare? Would people be drafted if nessary? Would there be weapons they wouldn't use? etc?

[Malanek]

SpankyV wrote...

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.

Whats wrong with lust?

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

alright, let's just say we go with your interpretation. what about the exclusion of outside influences? 

I don't recall saying anything about the exclusion of outside influences. You mean the lack of outside danger? A society under threat of attack will likely allocate it resources differently, and massive deaths or the razing of cities will have a negative impact on the populous.

That's not to say that a perfect society couldn't be involved in a war. I just didn't want to fixate on that as it tends to dominate the discussion once it's brought up.

How would a perfect society treat warfare? Would people be drafted if nessary? Would there be weapons they wouldn't use? etc?

fair enough.

strictly speaking, the perfect society would approach warfare as a matter purely of self defense. and the approach to this self defense would be purely and wholely objective. no one is exempt who is also physically capable. if they go to war, every able citizen goes to war. at once. this is the most strategically sound, and fairest way to go about it.

and since every member of this society would actively choose to cause no deliberate harm to any other member of the society, war would never be declared without due cause, and no member of the society would reject or avoid the call to go to arms.

also, the perfect society would exist purely under a perfect implimentation of socialism. and it wouldnt fail, since every member of the society, including all the citizens and all the leaders, would never actively choose to do anything that was deliberately harmfull to any other member of the society.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 20 octobre 2009 - 09:12 .

[Linarc]

Well, what a discussion we have here, no? Already at its fourth page...

I gave my opinion, but forgot to praise you for the idea, great topic for a polemic discussion!

[Maria Caliban]

[quote]Linarc wrote...


well, I think you didn't tell us your perfect society view Maria, I'd like to know it [/quote]

Eudaimonia: Doing and living well. A society where people are encouraged to strive for their hopes and dreams while valuing life and liberty.

[quote]
1. A perfect society shouldn't have conflicts, everyone would have what they needed, for me it's like an utopic communism, everybody wins the same amount of money, have the same education and treatment (that's why I made a point about not having a reason to progress). A perfect society should be equal to all the individuals living there, otherwise it isn't fair, therefore, isn't perfect. But people can have feelings even if they are in a perfect society, so it wasn't what I was trying to say here, actually I meant people could be unhappy living in a perfect society, because, in my view of it, at least, no one would be better, but equal; and there would some individuals who wouldn't be satisfied with it and would want more power and be better than everyone, leading the society to its imperfect version again. Actually, I think humanity needs to be "born again" for the perfect society be possible.[/quote]

Oh, yeah, your version of perfection sounds kind of boring. My perfect society would have conflict, agony and ecstasy, and some people would still have more than others would.


2. You have a point here, probably it's just my view or obstacles to be surpassed, because I don't think they are as challenging as some we have in our imperfect society, and they don't make feel like competing over them for all my life, but that's just me or I haven't figured out a good conflict in a perfect society [/quote]

Arguing on the interwebs. It’s the perfect conflict.

[the_one_54321]

[quote]Maria Caliban wrote...Oh, yeah, your version of perfection sounds kind of boring. My perfect society would have conflict, agony and ecstasy, and some people would still have more than others would.
[/quote][/quote]

sounds like you're a fan of the utopia that was in an old short story i read back in my freshman year of college. drugs, free sex, exctasies, pains, all without any actual consequences to any individual. it was all very abstract, actually.

[Maria Caliban]

I do think sex should be free, but mostly because I could easily see myself accruing massive debt if I had to pay for it every time.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I do think sex should be free, but mostly because I could easily see myself accruing massive debt if I had to pay for it every time.

showoff.

[Euphrati]

Perfection is boring.

[the_one_54321]

Euphrati wrote...

Perfection is boring.

my right to swing my fist ends where your face starts.

[Duvall el Lobo]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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?

Without any social hierarchy you would have total anarchy, which would make a society imperfect.

[the_one_54321]

SPW0229 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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?

Without any social hierarchy you would have total anarchy, which would make a society imperfect.

this again goes back to the ability of each member of the society to choose to make the society perfect.