218 réponses à ce sujet

[soteria]

Interesting topic.

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?

Maria already brought it up, but it bears repeating--some people have been saying such a society would have to be somewhere in the future when we have the technology for this to be possible. It's *possible* today. The US and probably every Western European nation has sufficient resources, and some of them even have the infrastructure to ensure it happens (ie, they are welfare states). Neither the US nor Europe faces any significant exterior military threat.



If you don't accept that, let me use the US Army as an example. Everyone is guaranteed a minimum of two meals a day and a place to sleep. Everyone has full health coverage. Everyone has ample opportunity for education. In short, no one in the US Army has any lack in terms of basic needs. That's 100% coverage, unless you go AWOL. Is the US Army a perfect society? Well... guess what folks, most people get out after their first enlistment. I'll add that has nothing to do with the danger involved--last I checked, more servicemembers die every year back home from car accidents and the like than die in Iraq and Afghanistan.



If your view is that a perfect society is one in which no one does another person intentional harm, I'd say it's impossible. At least, it would be impossible if *I* lived in it--I'm pretty sure I'd cause someone some sort of harm either maliciously or through inattention in just the first few days. In short, if you have people in your society they're going to be harming each other, and I don't think that will ever change. It has nothing to do with "society these days."



And Maria, with as vague as your definition is, one might argue that some countries in the world today are "perfect."

[Maria Caliban]

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.

There is the ideal of utter equality.

I do find it interesting that Star Trek, a show known for certain utopian ideals, was set on a star ship. A place with a rigidly enforced hierarchy.

[Euphrati]

A perfect society would not require any law or leadership. You do understand what perfect means right?

Modifié par Euphrati, 20 octobre 2009 - 09:42 .

[the_one_54321]

soteria wrote...

Interesting topic.

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?

Maria already brought it up, but it bears repeating--some people have been saying such a society would have to be somewhere in the future when we have the technology for this to be possible. It's *possible* today. The US and probably every Western European nation has sufficient resources, and some of them even have the infrastructure to ensure it happens (ie, they are welfare states). Neither the US nor Europe faces any significant exterior military threat.

If you don't accept that, let me use the US Army as an example. Everyone is guaranteed a minimum of two meals a day and a place to sleep. Everyone has full health coverage. Everyone has ample opportunity for education. In short, no one in the US Army has any lack in terms of basic needs. That's 100% coverage, unless you go AWOL. Is the US Army a perfect society? Well... guess what folks, most people get out after their first enlistment. I'll add that has nothing to do with the danger involved--last I checked, more servicemembers die every year back home from car accidents and the like than die in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If your view is that a perfect society is one in which no one does another person intentional harm, I'd say it's impossible. At least, it would be impossible if *I* lived in it--I'm pretty sure I'd cause someone some sort of harm either maliciously or through inattention in just the first few days. In short, if you have people in your society they're going to be harming each other, and I don't think that will ever change. It has nothing to do with "society these days."

And Maria, with as vague as your definition is, one might argue that some countries in the world today are "perfect."

you neglect to mention, in all of that, that in order for this perfect distribution to take place, a large precentage of those populations would have to be coerced into accepting that redistribution of wealth. many many of them would never agree to it willingly.

[the_one_54321]

Euphrati wrote...

A perfect society would not require any law or leadership. You do understand what perfect means right?

was this aimed at me?

[Euphrati]

The person you quoted.

[Snoteye]

SPW0229 wrote...

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

On the other hand, total anarchy might be the closest we can realistically come to any one definition of perfect.

[Maria Caliban]

soteria wrote...

And Maria, with as vague as your definition is, one might argue that some countries in the world today are "perfect."

If you’ve read my posts, you’ll notice that I’ve already said a society that does not meet all its citizen’s basic needs would be imperfect. Are there nations without homelessness or poverty?

[the_one_54321]

Snoteye wrote...

SPW0229 wrote...

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

On the other hand, total anarchy might be the closest we can realistically come to any one definition of perfect.

not even a little bit close. at least not to mine.

[Duvall el Lobo]

Euphrati wrote...

A perfect society would not require any law or leadership. You do understand what perfect means right?

Being perfect can mean different things to different people.  To you perfection would be a life without laws or leadership, but to me its the complete opposite. I believe there HAS to be laws and leadership for a society to survive.

Now the hard part is to get these laws and leadership to be perfect.

[Maria Caliban]

Euphrati wrote...

A perfect society would not require any law or leadership. You do understand what perfect means right?

Yes, but I don't believe that every person in a society would have to be perfect for that society to be perfect. Rather, a perfect society would be built with the knowledge that people are not perfect, and that not everyone is a responsible adult.

[the_one_54321]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

a perfect society is one were no member of the society ever does any harm or wrong to another member of the society, with no consequences in place to prevent them from doing so.

Physical or emotional as well?

no consequences whatsoever. again, hence the necessity to have the mental faculty to actively choose to not do these things.

it's something that plagues most of society these days. most folks do not have the mental faculty to simply choose to not do harm to others.

So emotional "harm" must be prevented in a "perfect" society? Even unintentional harm? That makes it nearly impossible to achieve then. Feelings are irrational and as such cannot be reliably guarded against. A "perfect" society would have to at the very least reduce the intensity of any "negative" emotion if not outright remove them through drugs/brainwashing/etc. Of course then there are those people that would say such methods are "imperfect."

Removing accidental harm requires no one ever make a mistake....
Not sure how that could be done with humans. Perhaps if we had the technology to rewind time or something.

By your definition I'd have to say then that it is impossible.

no, only intentional. accidental, or unintended harm, is impossible to avoid on the scale of a society, and so excluding that would make the whole discusion pointless by default.

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

bold added for emphasis.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 20 octobre 2009 - 09:57 .

[Malanek]

soteria wrote...

If you don't accept that, let me use the US Army as an example. Everyone is guaranteed a minimum of two meals a day and a place to sleep. Everyone has full health coverage. Everyone has ample opportunity for education. In short, no one in the US Army has any lack in terms of basic needs. That's 100% coverage, unless you go AWOL.

Leaving aside the rest of your post, I feel compelled to point out that the US army doesn't actually produce anything. Those meals and shelter (and pay!!!) are provided through taxation, take that away and the US army would cease to exist. A society is far from perfect if it cannot exist on it's own.

[Linarc]

Maria Caliban wrote...


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

And you find it possible? If everyone went after their hopes and dreams, I think it would be a chaos, since there isn’t enough space for everyone to get what their want, leading to frustrated people. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like everyone to pursue what they want, I will encourage it as much as I can, seeing that I’m a dreamer too, but how could a society afford anyone going after their dreams? It’s more curiosity than criticism, actually.

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.

Oh, why didn't you say before that your perfect society was an improved human one?
That’s a realistic view, but I like my boring one better, even if it’s impossible.

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

Well, maybe it isn't the perfect, but is a good one, I really enjoy discussing my points of view.

[EADanke]

Snoteye wrote...

SPW0229 wrote...

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

On the other hand, total anarchy might be the closest we can realistically come to any one definition of perfect.

And when all the would be despots look upon anarchy, they see how good it is and... leave it alone, right? 

When a would be fascist walks out on his balcony and sees chaos in the streets, drinking, carousing beligerant mayhem and he whispers to himself "Do as the Romans do"  He doesn't mean to go down there and join in.

On the upside, he'll probably keep everyone fed, build acqueducts and roads.

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

And when all the would be despots look upon anarchy, they see how good it is and... leave it alone, right? 

When a would be fascist walks out on his balcony and sees chaos in the streets, drinking, carousing beligerant mayhem and he whispers to himself "Do as the Romans do"  He doesn't mean to go down there and join in.

On the upside, he'll probably keep everyone fed, build acqueducts and roads.

Everyone who agrees with him, that is. Can't imagine the same generosity for dissidents.

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 20 octobre 2009 - 10:04 .

[Snoteye]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Snoteye wrote...

On the other hand, total anarchy might be the closest we can realistically come to any one definition of perfect.

not even a little bit close. at least not to mine.

Not according to mine, either, but some consider perfection to be (unlimited) freedom and/or social equality, and total anarchy is the only way everyone can be socially equal. I think we need laws to function but must also acknowledge that the pecking order is efficiently preventing our society from being anything close to what I might consider perfect.

EADanke wrote...

And when all the would be despots look upon anarchy, they see how good it is and... leave it alone, right? 

When a would be fascist walks out on his balcony and sees chaos in the streets, drinking, carousing beligerant mayhem and he whispers to himself "Do as the Romans do"  He doesn't mean to go down there and join in.

Well, the idea is that everyone is free to do exactly what they want. I mean completely free. But, see above.

[EADanke]

The greater good will be served, and the lesser good knows how to keep their head down. As much as I'd rather have the greater good served to a higher good, there is no practical nor objective way to determine what that means and all previous attempts have simply added a second balcony with a second fascists whispering the same thing.

[Punahedan]

In the current phase of human evolution? No.



Even if we had all the necessary technology, resources, a stable environment, etc., the human body suffers from irregularities, oddities, and requirements that cannot be provided purely by the society, and many vary from person to person. These irregularities can lead to conflict between people - he's good-looking, all the fertile women will go to him and not me. There are also mental fluctuations that make a mean person mean and a nice person nice - they don't necessarily do anything against the law or anything, but their disposition can cause conflict, apathy, and so forth.



Enough resources and technology does not provide answers to moral questions, nor religious ones, nor questions of power (if you define perfection as just the ability to provide enough for the comfortable living of all people). All of these cause problems in the world. Certainly, a lot of problems can be resolved by having enough resources, but...



It is also likely that a society where we are all provided for is impractical for the evolution and development of a person, and a society. A place that stays at the same level - in whatever you select...economic, social, moral, military, anything - begins to grow stale and monotonous. The human not only needs to survive, but there needs to be a constant use of the mind and abilities, or else genetics decide it's no longer useful and get rid of it.



Assuming there is no conflict and barely any human error (define as you will) would be even worse. That just turns us into talking, breathing, moving vegetables. Art comes from the desire to know more about human nature and regular nature and to explore conflict as well as beauty. Science and math comes from the desire to give regulation to the surroundings and to know more about what, where, why, and how. Human curiosity cannot be satisfied, and a static society - one with enough resources and technology and thus no inherent need to develop further - cannot survive because any attempts to make art or do science would result in an imbalance.



If we were to evolve further...who knows?

[soteria]

you neglect to mention, in all of that, that in order for this perfect distribution to take place, a large precentage of those populations would have to be coerced into accepting that redistribution of wealth. many many of them would never agree to it willingly.

Who said anything about a perfect distribution of wealth?  I was talking about basic needs.  Your last point, though, highlights the impossibility of having a perfect society by these standards--not everyone produces equally, meaning the more productive members of society will have to provide for the less productive.

If you’ve read my posts, you’ll notice that I’ve already said a society that does not meet all its citizen’s basic needs would be imperfect. Are there nations without homelessness or poverty?

Define poverty.  By US standards, most of the world lives in poverty--but many of them still have homes, food, and basic medical care.  By US standards, "basic medical care" probably includes things like MRIs and any number of advanced tests.  In other places, "basic medical care" means vaccinations, antibiotics, and maybe some painkillers.  I think your rhetorical question supports my point, as well.  Nations exist with the means and the infrastructure to provide basic needs for everyone, but somehow, it breaks down.

Someone else took issue with my Army example because they don't produce anything--that's irrelevant to my point.  My point is we have a society that has all basic needs provided for and people still don't want to live in it.

Finally, after thinking about this some more, I'll be more emphatic about my response to the OP:  No, such a society is not possible.  Why?  Maria was intentionally vague about defining "perfect,"  and in a few pages three of four different ideas of a perfect society popped up.  People can't agree on what would be an ideal society, therefore it cannot exist.  If a society can't agree on the way society *should* work, how will they ever get anywhere?  Right from the beginning, however we decide to run things, we'll have dissatisfaction and dischord. 

I'm no philosophy student, so I have a hard time stating this right.  Argh.  Let me try again.  Who defines what perfect society is?  Society, right?  If society can't collectively agree on what "perfect" society is, then it will never exist.

There, that's my logical answer.  My moral answer is that people are imperfect and are going to mess up your perfect society as soon as you introduce them to it.

[Maria Caliban]

Linarc wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...


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

And you find it possible?

I didn’t say that.

If everyone went after their hopes and dreams, I think it would be a chaos, since there isn’t enough space for everyone to get what their want, leading to frustrated people. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like everyone to pursue what they want, I will encourage it as much as I can, seeing that I’m a dreamer too, but how could a society afford anyone going after their dreams? It’s more curiosity than criticism, actually.

If this were a situation where everyone in society were 15-years-old and society fired a gun and they all scrambled after their dreams, I could understand your worry. Not everyone will reach their hopes and dream, some people will modify them along the way. What makes the society perfect isn’t that everyone achieves, but that people has the chance and the support. Their excellence is encouraged, and hopes are not trampled on.

Oh, why didn't you say before that your perfect society was an improved human one?

If something is perfect, it is complete and without defect. A society only a mechanism for those within it. As long as it fulfills the obligations of society completely and without defect, then it’s a perfect society. I think some people are confusing ‘perfect society’ for ‘world where everything is perfect.’

A perfect society would still have mental illness. People’s dogs would still get loose, a car might hit them, and it would be sad. People would still argue and compare what they have to what their neighbor has. These things are defects, but not with society.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 20 octobre 2009 - 10:40 .

[the_one_54321]

Hawkeyed Cai Li wrote...

Human curiosity cannot be satisfied,

a static society - one with enough resources and technology and thus no inherent need to develop further - cannot survive because any attempts to make art or do science would result in an imbalance. 

those two statement are actually contradictory.

either it cannot be satisfied, OR all art and science will be repressed in favor of balance.

personally, i think that there is no such thing as a static society. i think that were there a perfect society, it would remain dynamic in terms of art and science, but would still lack major conflict. the two are not mutually exclusive, which seems to be what you are claiming.

and even if they were mutually exclusive, i think the lack of politically and socially fueled art would be small price to pay in exchange for all of this oppression, starvation, destitution, corruption, and needless death.

[Nighteye2]

Sure, it's possible. But would it be enjoyable? I imagine it'd be a very dull place, that perfect society...



It reminds me very much of Nietzsche's Last Man



I do not want to live in a perfect society - I find the path towards perfection much more interesting, detours included.

[the_one_54321]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Sure, it's possible. But would it be enjoyable? I imagine it'd be a very dull place, that perfect society...

It reminds me very much of Nietzsche's Last Man

I do not want to live in a perfect society - I find the path towards perfection much more interesting, detours included.

i am sure that the multitude of people who have to endure the suffering as a result of that path would disagree with you.

[SpankyV]

Euphrati wrote...

A perfect society would not require any law or leadership. You do understand what perfect means right?

A perfect society would not. However, a perfect society would would allow freedom of choice. With that come the choice to do the wrong thing. If everyone chooses to do the right thing that's fine...

but the fact that the choice is there means that there must be law and leadership.


Malanek999 wrote...

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?

Personaly I find nothing wrong with lust. I just don't think there is room for it in a perfect society. Lust would indicate an obessive want for someone. If a society was perfect then there would be no need for want...

you would already have it.