218 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

grreg wrote...
Umm... sorry but I do not understand. What does it mean "recognition of every human to live a comfortable happy life"?

sorry, i worded that improperly.

the gradual spread of the recognition of every human's right to live a comfortable and happy life. in many places of the world people still do not feel all humans have this right, but the acceptance of this notion has been spreading with the passage of time. this is indisputable evidence of progress.

soteria wrote...
You keep on saying "we're improving." I'm saying "I see no evidence of it," and provided an example of a way humanity has not improved. If your best response is, "well, you're just wrong," then I guess we're done here.

it's not my fault if you refuse to see something that is right in front of you. i'm not the only one posting about progress. take the time to read what people are saying.

Christoph Gasser wrote...

I guess the question is what you regard as improvement. This is rather subjective. Societies have certainly constantly changed over the course of history. In my opinion some have improved by e.g. adopting human rights, get rid of slavery, improving women’s rights...

i think i objectified it pretty well, though my initial wording was poorly chosen. at the top of this post i have put it in better terms.

Hawkeyed Cai Li wrote...

That was my point. And innovation brings conflict because not everyone will agree on one way to approach something.

why is it strictly necessary that a disagreement leads to conflict?

this is why, in the very first page of this discussion, i pointed out that a perfect society could not exist unless each member of that society was capable and intent on actively choosing to make that society perfect. if every member of the society actively chooses to not approach diversity with conflict then there is no conflict.

people cant do that now. this is true.

that does not imply that people will never be able to do this.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 21 octobre 2009 - 07:16 .

[Mistress9Nine]

I think it's possible to create a perfect society in almost all cases. People just need to be told whatt to do, there needs to be strict regulation and little freedom. Would this be ideal? Of course not. Perfect? I would say, in with some interpretation of the word, yes.

[Red Viking]

the_one_54321 wrote...

why is it strictly necessary that a disagreement leads to conflict?

this is why, in the very first page of this discussion, i pointed out that a perfect society could not exist unless each member of that society was capable and intent on actively choosing to make that society perfect. if every member of the society actively chooses to not approach diversity with conflict then there is no conflict.

people cant do that now. this is true.

that does not imply that people will never be able to do this.

It's not that disagreement absolutely, positively will lead to conflict, it's just that, by definition, there is no perfection when there is disagreement because it wouldn't be the optimum situation for everyone involved.  The problem with the term "perfect" is that it is incredibly subjective. 

Everyone can and would want to make a perfect society because that's what everyone wants, but everyone has a different idea of what a perfect society should be.

[soteria]

the gradual spread of the recognition of every human's right to live a comfortable and happy life. in many places of the world people still do not feel all humans have this right, but the acceptance of this notion has been spreading with the passage of time. this is indisputable evidence of progress.

I call this intellectual hand-waving. Can you get any more vague? This is the sort of statement that is nigh-impossible to prove or disprove. If one lives in a stratified society, they might very well agree with that statement in principle, all the while upholding a strict stratification of social hierarchy. After all, everyone can live a comfortable and happy life, as long as they stay within established class boundaries. Your statement doesn't mean anything, objectively speaking. I would completely agree that everyone has the right to live a comfortable and happy life, on the condition that they are law-abiding and are a productive member of society. Unfortunately, I also just excluded some humans from that basic human right. Oops?



Additionally, the general attitude of the world's population on human rights is kinda hard to quantify, especially if you consider that we can't even agree on what a "comfortable and happy life" constitutes. We have some people in this thread that would have society be run in one way to establish a "comfortable and happy life," while others maintain that they could neither be happy nor comfortable in such a society--even assuming they agree on your nebulous "recognition of every human's right..."

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think i objectified it pretty well, though my initial wording was poorly chosen. at the top of this post i have put it in better terms.

Ok, I read all your posts now and was unable to find were you made this point (Sorry ). What objective reason can you give me to say that (as example) a society which gives equal rights to women and men is better than a society that does not?

soteria wrote...

That's a really good point. I'm not editing my post, but I'd like to correct myself, or perhaps clarify: Some modern societal institutions are an improvement over what has gone in the past. Human nature has not changed. This is perhaps a topic for a different discussion, but I'd argue that a lot of what people view as improvements to society are really just improvements to the technology that supports society--the people haven't really changed.

I agree human nature has not changed notably (evolution takes its time I guess). However, this is not the question at hand, as you point out yourself. I would argue that it is unnecessary for human nature to change in order to achieve a change in society that could be regarded as improvment ( I gave the examples above).

Tyrax Lightning wrote...

No chance of a perfect society for the simple reason that NOONE will ever be able to agree on what a perfect society should look like. Easy as that.

Agreed, I wanted to make this point but didn't find the right words and therefore didn't post it.

[levi.porphyrogenitus]

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.

Responding solely to the OP, without having read any of the 8+ pages of replies:

No.  The problem is that humans are humans and not angels.  There will always be somebody who wants to get more for less, or who thinks that his own personal power is sufficient to elevate him over others against their will.  It only takes one to make a society less than perfect, even if it has a perfect way to deal with him.  After all, perfect is an absolute, and any deviation from that renders something imperfect.  Also, as the population increases (unless part of perfection is perfect stability in population size) more people in the absolute will mean more people who are likely to fail at perfection, thereby increasing the chance that the society will not achieve (or if it has temporarily achieved it, will not maintain) perfection.

I'd actually say that perfect society is most closely possible with a population of 1, since then true harmony is at least possible (even if still not guaranteed), and since there will be no power plays, discrepancies of ability, or other such factors that would tend to undermine a society.  However, in such a situation it would rely entirely on the ability of that one person to be perfect himself, which I would tend to doubt except under certain very extreme circumstances (being the incarnation of God Himself being the one that comes to mind).

If you had an arbitrarily large population, on the other hand, you would probably be able to absorb the imperfections of large numbers of people without making much apparent deviation from perfection (mind you, that is apparent deviation; real deviation must occur if there is even a single instance of imperfection among the populace, no matter how well controlled).  Thus you could have a society that seems perfect, or that is indeed near perfect, but it would be essentially impossible to achieve true perfection, especially in any kind of sustainable, permanent way (even expedients like developing an immortality serum and then sterilizing the entire population would not guarantee perfection over the long term, as even if the starting population is entirely perfect the likelihood that over an arbitrarily long period of time some circumstance would arise that would tempt one or more of the people into deviating from perfection for whatever reason seems to be rather high).

TLDR: No.

[the_one_54321]

Christoph Gasser wrote...
Ok, I read all your posts now and was unable to find were you made this point (Sorry ). What objective reason can you give me to say that (as example) a society which gives equal rights to women and men is better than a society that does not?

Ok, wel l here it is broken down in the pure abstract.

In a perfect existence, no person would ever experience any suffering or discomfort, ever.

Now, we know this to be impossible, barring some miraculous technological breakthrough in the distant future. So there is really no point in discussing how such a world would come around to be.

Instead we take the next logical step backwards. The perfect world is one in where no human deliberately causes any harm or discomfort to any other human. You can apply this to human rights. You can apply it to justice. You can apply it to the structure of the legal system. You can apply it to the political system. You can apply it to anything. The concept is universal.

In a perfect society, no member of that society would consciously choose to deliberately harm or discomfort any other member of that society.

This does not take anyone’s opinion into consideration. It has no view point. It is not interpretable. It has no direction or purpose except to be simply what it is. It defines itself, rather than being defined by the viewer. It is self sustaining, because in its own premise it prevents the potential for contradictory situations.

Now, from here is where things got all convoluted with the “it’s human nature to resort to conflict” and so on and so forth. And, while I do not strictly disagree that this is human nature, I do not think anyone can provide a valid argument that this will always be human nature. The simple fact that societies are, however gradually, beginning to accept this notion a universal right to a comfortable existence, means that the human society is experiencing progress in this direction. This implies that such a future, however implausible in light of today’s human behavior, is still possible, however distant that future may be.

[oMonarca]

No. Society will be as perfect as the worst of it's members.

[Mordaedil]

And what part of killing them wouldn't solve that?

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ok, wel l here it is broken down in the pure abstract.

In a perfect existence, no person would ever experience any suffering or discomfort, ever.

Now, we know this to be impossible, barring some miraculous technological breakthrough in the distant future. So there is really no point in discussing how such a world would come around to be.

Instead we take the next logical step backwards. The perfect world is one in where no human deliberately causes any harm or discomfort to any other human. You can apply this to human rights. You can apply it to justice. You can apply it to the structure of the legal system. You can apply it to the political system. You can apply it to anything. The concept is universal.

In a perfect society, no member of that society would consciously choose to deliberately harm or discomfort any other member of that society.

This does not take anyone’s opinion into consideration. It has no view point. It is not interpretable. It has no direction or purpose except to be simply what it is. It defines itself, rather than being defined by the viewer. It is self sustaining, because in its own premise it prevents the potential for contradictory situations.

Now, from here is where things got all convoluted with the “it’s human nature to resort to conflict” and so on and so forth. And, while I do not strictly disagree that this is human nature, I do not think anyone can provide a valid argument that this will always be human nature. The simple fact that societies are, however gradually, beginning to accept this notion a universal right to a comfortable existence, means that the human society is experiencing progress in this direction. This implies that such a future, however implausible in light of today’s human behavior, is still possible, however distant that future may be.

I agree with you on nearly everything:

"In a perfect existence, no person would ever experience any suffering or discomfort, ever."

This is an incomplete definition of perfect existence. Another point would be that:

In a perfect existence, everybody has reached his fullest potential.

and so on. To reach ones fullest potential it might very well be necessary to experience discomfort or suffering. So by only choosing one aspect of a perfect existence as your starting point for the whole argument that follows you make a subjective choice. There is no objective reason why you would only pick this one aspect of a perfect existence.

I'm not sure if the statement:

"The simple fact that societies are, however gradually, beginning to accept this notion a universal right to a comfortable existence, means that the human society is experiencing progress in this direction."

is true. There are societies that change and have changed in this direction others that have gone in the other direction. However, I agree with your conclusion that such a society is implausible but possible.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 22 octobre 2009 - 01:58 .

[Dahn-Var Starcloak]

[quote]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. [/quote]

Not sure about 'perfect' but it does seem a lot fairer.

[quote]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.[/quote]

True. Elitism has always been present, under any form of government.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

But why must it be *every* single member? We're not ants.
We can never hope to agree on every single issue. That's why we've got voting system. Majority wins, minority rebels.

[quote]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. [/quote]

For some reason, Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life' comes to mind here. It basically translates to 'live and let live'.

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

also involved is societies inability, or unwillingness to provide all necessities to every member of society.
[/quote]

One thing I can't decide is whether exploitation of cheap labour is the reason or merely a symptom of the problem.

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

"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.
[/quote]

Why, the_one - when did you become such a philosopher? *tongue in cheek*

[quote]Maria Caliban wrote...

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

No weapons. Just the shielding and cloaking technology. Let them waste their ammo if they want.

[quote]SPW0229 wrote...

Now the hard part is to get these laws and leadership to be perfect.
[/quote]

Which can never happen as long as we ourselves are imperfect. But if we were perfect we wouldn't require laws and leadership. Oh, the headache...

[quote]Malanek999 wrote...
A society is far from perfect if it cannot exist on it's own.[/quote]

Agreed, self-sufficiency is one of the prerequisites.

[quote]Christoph Gasser wrote...

I think a "perfect" society is impossible to build by humans. Perfection can be aspiered but it is very hard (if not impossible) to reach. Humans, i.e. the "building blocks" of society, are imperfect. They tend to make mistakes. Therefore, the institutions of society and the decisions that people in power make are prone to error.
[/quote]

That's exactly why people in governments should be replaced with computers.
Or at least with people who are trained to find solutions, not create more problems.

[quote]DigitalOrigami wrote...
As long as the game is still "Whoever dies with the most toys, wins." it'll never change. The people making the profit won't let it.
[/quote]

I hear ya.

[quote]Nighteye2 wrote...

But poverty doesn't need to result in suffering. There are many people who are very happy living a very simple life, for example as a farmer. They can even be happier than a bored millionaire who doesn't know what to do with all his money, who is always dissatisfied wanting to have more.
[/quote]

Farmer's life is not really a life of poverty. Unless the crops are failing...

[quote]soteria wrote...

Human nature has not changed.
[/quote]

What can change the nature of a man? :innocent:

[quote]
  This is perhaps a topic for a different discussion, but I'd argue that a lot of what people view as improvements to society are really just improvements to the technology that supports society--the people haven't really changed.[/quote]

Unless I'm missing something, women didn't get voting rights due to improved technology.

[quote]
Feraele wrote...

What you cite..is Utopia..if it were possible at any time on Earth, we would have evolved to it ..don't you think?

There is no existing Utopia, just wishes, dreams, conceptualizing. What you need to advance this..is willing participants. Humans..in all their imperfection.
[/quote]

Actually, the only thing required to accomplish this is spoon feeding these values to youngsters in educational facilities a.k.a. brainwashing.

[Sword For Hire]

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.

i can see only one way a perfect society would be possible
if everyone got a copy of dragon age origins

[the_one_54321]

Dahn-Var Starcloak wrote...
....

there was a whole lot of pointless philosophizing that you left out.

anyway, there is nothing that says we have to be ants, so long as every member of the society is consciously making the choice to behave in a certain manner. it is just a huge stepping stone towards allowing this kind of decision, by assuming that all material needs and desires can be provided for.

[HeathenKing]

A perfect society is an entirely subjective concept. For some, a perfect society is one in which all are of a certain religion and political position. For others, the complete opposite. The only way a 'perfect society' could exist is if all within were brainwashed into thinking it was perfect while completely oblivious to the invisible shackles around their ankles and minds. Which is why man invented god.

Modifié par HeathenKing, 22 octobre 2009 - 02:38 .

[the_one_54321]

the amount of cynicism around here is simultaneously expected and astounding.

[Fodder007]

A perfect society is only possible if you remove the human desire to better one's self. In a world where every person is satisfied with what they already have and are happy with their role in society, there would be no need for conflict or competition. Each person in their designated role would be happy to provide for others and have their own needs provided for. For this situation to exist the economy in which the society exists must be sustainable and self supporting, neither taking nor creating more than is needed to survive. The desire to push the boundaries of knowledge and to improve the society for all members must be a common goal with each persons safe in the knowledge that the change will benefit each and every one of them equally. In such a society there will be no crime, no annimosity, no dissatisfaction with life. Each and every person will feel safe and content and the future of the society will never be in doubt.

In answer to the question is such a society possible, quite simply the answer is no.

Modifié par Fodder007, 22 octobre 2009 - 03:26 .

[Christoph Gasser]

Dahn-Var Starcloak wrote...

That's exactly why people in governments should be replaced with computers.
Or at least with people who are trained to find solutions, not create more problems.

I don't agree. Computers lack something very important that humans have: creativity.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 22 octobre 2009 - 03:17 .

[clipped_wolf]

Why do you want to make society perfect? To end human suffering? If you never suffered you would have no reference for not suffering. If you were 'happy' all the time happiness would have no meaning.

I think it would be possible to have a society where everyone was fed, housed, and educated. Read "The Giver", there is an example of that society. To many within that society it was perfect.

Can't we all just get along? No.

Can we get along without violence? Possibly.

[dragoager]

What things are necessary for the betterment of society?



Free, almost limitless energy

Enough food to go around for everyone

Health and wellness being addressed for every person

Shelter and privacy for each individual

Ample activities (leisure and work) to keep everybody occupied

Enough resources to utilize the energy to power said activities.

Everyone maintaining their own personal initiative to contribute in some way to the advancement

of the human race or at least justify the resources they and their family consume



Once we see the basics of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs being met for every individual, then I think we will be on our way to a more perfect society.



You will always have parasitic factors, however, ranging from drugs and other addictions to over paid white collar sycophants who have to cook up illicit trades and numbers to maintain their status quo.

[Dahn-Var Starcloak]

the_one_54321 wrote...

the amount of cynicism around here is simultaneously expected and astounding.

Yeah, it's gonna take some time to get used to it.

Christoph Gasser wrote...

I don't agree. Computers lack something very important that humans have: creativity.

Well, I have no idea how creative your politicians are, but ours...
Most of the 'useful' stuff governments do are just management anyway.

Funny, I thought the first complaint would be about who would take care of such a system.

dragoager wrote...

What things are necessary for the betterment of society?

Free, almost limitless energy
Enough food to go around for everyone
Health and wellness being addressed for every person
Shelter and privacy for each individual
Ample activities (leisure and work) to keep everybody occupied
Enough resources to utilize the energy to power said activities.
Everyone maintaining their own personal initiative to contribute in some way to the advancement of the human race or at least justify the resources they and their family consume

I like to think we've come a long way accomplishing those points... since middle ages. The last point seems trickiest to me, though.

[HeathenKing]

There will never be one standard of living that pleases everyone. Everyone has their beliefs and opinions, and there's no possible way for a society to exist in which every single person is completely happy with how it's run. For example, no utopian society could exist in which both Sarah Palin and Richard Dawkins could both live peacefully.

[Christoph Gasser]

Dahn-Var Starcloak wrote...

Well, I have no idea how creative your politicians are, but ours...
Most of the 'useful' stuff governments do are just management anyway.

Funny, I thought the first complaint would be about who would take care of such a system.

The problem is that computers are unable to find new solutions and to address new problems. They are just able to do what they were programmed to do. Therefore, humans are superior to computers in the area of problem solving if a new problem arises or new knowledge is available.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 22 octobre 2009 - 11:04 .