All Aboard The Utopianwagon
Paradise. Promised Land. Land Of Milk And Honey. Heaven. Wonderland.
We all talk about it. We all want it. Heck, I want it more than life itself. There are those of us who hope for and are working towards a better world. Then there are those of us who look at those who want a better world as being unrealistic and dreamers.
So when I say utopia what do I mean exactly?
Let's explore for a moment but first I want to list some things that are the complete opposite of living in a utopian world. In other words a dystopia.
- Death & Disease (Woman dies of breast cancer and leaves behind her husband and two kids)
- Poverty (Man works over 40 hours a week in a sand quarry in order to make about $3,000/year)
- Lying (The president of the U.S. looks right in the camera and blatantly lies to the people he swore to serve)
- Cheating (Using illegal substances in order to gain a competitive advantage in sports)
- Stealing (Pretending to fall on the floor in a grocery store in order to take candy from the bottom shelf) Side Note: I am guilty of this
- Wars (Governments sending it's military to unstable regions of the world in order to exploit its people and its resources)
- Manipulation (Salesmen selling you something you don't need or want in order to get a sale)
- Coercion (Governments forcing its citizens to pay taxes or else face jail time or death)
- Destruction of Nature (Millions of tons of waste are dumped into rivers and oceans in the name of profit)
- Wage Slaves/Cogs In A Machine (People are expected to be enslaved to jobs or work that they find repulsive)
- Innovation Is Limited (The weight of life stunts our growth as humans)
Now I want to focus on some things we would see in a utopian society.
- Immortality (I jumped from the top of a mountain and I didn't die!)
- Disease Free World (We have no diseases or illnesses whatsoever. We are in perfect health)
- Money Is A Non Factor (Resources are now distributed infinitely better than money ever could)
- Honesty (There is no more lying and deception here, only openness and truth)
- Giving (Hoarding things is a no go here. We give what we have without questions)
- Peace (There is no need for war because our love for one another is perfect)
- Nature Flourishes (We don't need to till the ground anymore. The ground simply brings forth all kinds of food without the backbreaking work)
- Work is enjoyed (We no longer work because we need to but rather we work because we love to. We are no longer wage slaves and cogs)
- Innovation Is Limitless (We are no longer bound by the weights of life. We are building and advancing on many different planets and other galaxies)
These lists are not exhaustive but I want to give you an idea of what we are dealing with. This is the opportunity of a lifetime. Why would you not want to live in a utopia? I have no friggin' clue but I wish that all would come aboard this God given train.
Let me be really clear here. This utopia that is coming will happen regardless of what we think. It will not happen however with any current rulers or governments we have at the moment. We've seen time and time again that none of these leaders, even the most respected and honest, have no power to give us this utopian world. Throughout history many mighty kingdoms and kings have promised a "better world" and guess what... we still are waiting for a perfect world.
There is only ONE who can bring us this perfect world. 
You are one of the finest blogger I have come across in recent time.
Your points have got deepest sense.
Thank you @humanearl and have a great day
After reading this article I could understand now what is utopia and what is dystopia.
Both have true relevance.
We can only have a perfect world when the majority speaks up and acts and does not get corrupted by greed.
But how will greed and corruption be dealt with forever?
That is the most difficult part. In today's world the problem is if anything goes wrong we blame it on others instead of owning the mistake. So the first step to it will be to start accepting the mistake.
That is a great place to start. Own up to our wrongs.
The last step has to be drastic and requires completely getting rid of all evil. I only know of One with the power and love that will completely do away with evil forever.
Yes well said.
it's been said
one man's heaven...
.........is another man's hell
It may be called heaven or another name. Do you think the principles of a perfect utopian society are worse than what we have now?
And remember perfect is not defined by man but the one who created all and dictates ultimate moral law.
I disagree.
Perfect IS defined by man.
and no...a perfect society is impossible
society is over rated...in fact it's a fictional concept.
there are only individuals.
100% agree with Mickey.
We make sense of things by using the term 'perfect'. However the state of perfection is with God.
A perfect society is indeed impossible if gullible and flawed humans are trying to usher it in.
Ok so let's say we don't have society but only individuals. How do we as individuals become perfect in our own power. How do we stop being confused, stop killing one another, stop lying, stop using one another, stop violence against one another?
The things I just listed are plagues in cultures all over the world and we see the impacts of these things.
Put it like this.
The train is on fire, about to blow, and headed for a cliff. The train is filled with honest but flawed, good in their own eyes but flawed, "I give all my money away" but flawed, corrupt and flawed, blinded and flawed, humans. They are unaware of what is about to happen to them in an instant. They do see the smoke around them, they see the fire, and in fact they are getting some burns. This is their experience.
But they all have a way off of this burning train. No one is twisting their arm to jump off of this burning train instead open hands are given so that they can reach out and be helped to safety. Love is the motivation to help these people off of this burning train. Now the people on the train are freely given the option to stay on the train. It is their choice. But the option to get off is given.
may Odin smile upon you
may the Valkarie select you
may you drink mead in Valhalla forever..
I think there is ONE principal that would allow individuals to have the best chance of living a Utopian existence.
ZAP.
the Zero Aggression Principle.
ZAP seems to assume that humans are flawlessly capable of not harming others. My friend we have tried all kinds of principles and ways of "peace". It has not and doesn't work. Once again we are flawed and we need help. The moment we admit that and get help that is offered will be the day we truly LIVE
I'm not saying that ZAP is not good in some ways however it still falls short. There is a gap in the bridge in this life that we keep trying to fill will short lived or reaching for air methods that are crafted or devised by once again fallen humans. No human being on this Earth has an answer to all the worlds problems. And yet an answer does exist.
In our pride we suppress the truth of what we see and the state of the world around us. There is help. There is hope. There is an answer. It hurts our pride and our ego that we can't do it the way we think it should be done. But guess what? We've tried doing things our way and still we are in a mess than man deludes himself into believing he can change matters of conscience in his own power.
God has given man a set amount of time on this Earth to rule himself just to show us we need him in order to put things in harmony. Love is the answer and God is love. He has swore by himself and lived among us to show us the way. And still we didn't recognize ultimate power. We didn't recognize ultimate truth. We didn't recognize love.
God loves you more than you could ever imagine.
you fail to comprehend the all embracing glorious nature of ZAP.
I understand where you are coming from, but is it all embrassing and glorious as you said.
Coming from philosophy, ZAP has its loop holes, it is impossible to apply consistently in practice; respectively, consequentialist or deontological criticisms, and inconsistency criticisms. Libertarian academic philosophers have noted the implausible results consistently applying the principle yields: for example, Professor Matt Zwolinski notes that, because pollution necessarily violates the NAP by encroaching (even if slightly) on other people's property, consistently applying the NAP would prohibit driving, starting a fire, and other activities necessary to the maintenance of industrial society. So where does it get us to.
you can't APPLY ZAP...in the sense that you can't force someone else to do it.
That would be initiation of force...
ZAP is not something you DO...it's something you Do NOT do.
so..you can either be an aggressor...or not.
up to you.
The ZAP is shown to be pretty much a shallow principle. When limited to actual physical force, it’s superseded and made obsolete by moral systems which can explain when force is justified or not. When extended to concepts which are not immediately intuitive, its subjective nature quickly devolves it to shouting matches which can only be settled by a homogeneous system of courts and enforcement agencies. A de-facto state.
To me, when someone explains that according to the NAP, this or that is wrong, they mostly sound like “This or that is wrong, because I say so.”
You have made a really reasonable argument based on your perspective, and that's fine. But I think I have an issue with the All or nothing attitude towards risk of ZAP. The ZAP clearly implies that it’s wrong for me to shoot you in the head. But, for example, what if I merely run the risk of shooting you by putting one bullet in a six-shot revolver, spinning the cylinder, aiming it at your head, and squeezing the trigger? What if it is not one bullet but five? Of course, almost everything we do imposes some risk of harm on innocent persons. We run this risk when we drive on the highway (what if we suffer a heart attack, or become distracted), or when we fly airplanes over populated areas. Most of us think that some of these risks are justifiable, while others are not, and that the difference between them has something to do with the size and likelihood of the risked harm, the importance of the risky activity, and the availability and cost of less risky activities. But considerations like this carry zero weight in the ZAP’s absolute prohibition on aggression. That principle seems compatible with only two possible rules: either all risks are permissible (because they are not really aggression until they actually result in a harm), or none are (because they are). And neither of these seems sensible.
I really hope this helps us get more understanding.
if you point a gun at me that's a credible threat.
I'm justified, in accordance with ZAP, in responding appropriately.
Please fill me in. I really want to understand what it is
really?
I would have expected that you would have looked it up if that were the case.
Let me help.
Zap
in which it says
Don’t initiate force, or ask politicians to do it for you
somewhat similar to
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
perhaps you've heard of it?
For me, ZAP has its issues as a moral guideline, but the central point generally seems to be that no human should aggress over another human. This is meant to mean the initial use of coercive force as well as the threat of such.
Now, if left to this end, this is not a half-bad principle, basically saying that people shouldn’t attack or threaten to attack others. However at this stage, it is also pretty much unnecessary to be given an explicit existence as a “principle” as the generic principle of freedom already encompasses this (i.e. attacking another person would violate their freedom). Other moral theories, particularly the utilitarian variants already encompass such rules (with stipulation) as a natural consequence of their suggestions. In the end, this basic form of non-aggression ends up sounding like a shallow “Thou shalt not kill” which, while pretty clear, when strictly adhered to can lead to worse results (such as foregoing killing in self-defence) or requires a more advanced moral framework above it which clarifies when it is, in fact, acceptable to kill.
But propertarians do not generally leave it at just that but rather try to sneakily expand it by linking it with private property rights. You see, the NAP is frequently derived directly from the Self-Ownership “axiom” and thus the wrongly derived property rights are treated as an extension of the self. Therefore one can then treat violation of private property rights as an act of “initated force”, even though no actual violence or threat of violence has been perpetuated. This is turn is used as a cause to use actual violence or threat of violence on the violator of property rights.
It thus becomes that the NAP, when combined with Self-Ownership conveniently becomes an excuse for someone to initiate real, literal violence against someone else. The right to freedom or utilitarian moral rules reserve the right for people to defend themselves against aggression, that is, to take only as much action as needed to stop the aggression against their person. This is pretty self-evident when achieved, both to the one being attacked and to any observers (i.e. it’s obvious when two people have stopped exchanging blows and threats). When extended to private property however, things get far far more complex.
While it’s easy to understand that someone “aggresses” when they steal something from another person (which is why most other moral systems do not require a NAP to label theft as wrong), things get pretty murky when one goes beyond that. Do I “initiate force” when I use a productive machine without paying rent? How about if I pay only enough rent to cover the cost of the machine? Do I “initiate force” when I toil the unused land that is owned by someone else? How about when I trespass?
I did look it up after you first mentioned it but I thought maybe you had a broader definition or something.
Yea I've heard of it for sure. I'm just still wondering how that can be consistently enforced.
It's really good to hear what you have to say about ZAP, but you have to also consider that it has a loop hole.
NAP does not allow for positive rights.
Critics argue that the non-aggression principle is not ethical because it opposes the initiation of force even when they would consider the results of such initiation to be morally superior to the alternatives that they have identified. A renoun philosopher in the person of Matt Zwolinski, has proposed the following scenario: "Suppose that by imposing a very, very small tax on billionaires, I could provide life-saving vaccination for tens of thousands of desperately poor children. Even if we grant that taxation is aggression, and that aggression is generally wrong, is it really so obvious that the relatively minor aggression involved in these examples is wrong, given the tremendous benefit it produces?
So. IMO I would go with what @humanearl has said in his post. ZAP is not as glorious as you have said, it has loop holes
define what you mean by positive rights.
I suspect that no such thing exists.
the only rights you have are what you are born with
and everyone has the same.
Oh, I meant to write property rights
With respect to property rights, ZAP is incompatible with any practice that produces any pollution, because pollution encroaches on the property rights of others. Therefore, the ZAP prohibits both driving and starting fires. ZAP is unable to place a sensible limitation on risk-creating behavior.
That's my major issue with ZAP
Earth is not designed for Utopia.
Not currently which is why a new earth will be constructed and suitable for utopia. But who has that kind of power to create a new Earth for us to live on?
I only know of One.
I would say the one who created Earth in the first place.
Earth is a huge ball of molten magma with a thin crunchy crust on the outside..
Confirms my statement, not meant to be Utopia :)
I take exception to your use of the word meant
Should I use destined? Or maybe you could suggest and alternative word?
Since I'm not a religious person YOU would probably take exception to any word I suggested.
Sometimes we use different words to describe the same thing. In this case it might be based on different world-views.
Simply put, all I am trying to say is Utopia as described in this post is not achievable under Earth conditions.
When I say designed or meant obviously I am implying creation. Maybe one could just use is or evolved or happens to be instead, but conclusion is the same. The way Earth is having disease free world is not possible.
I disagree.
Advances in medical science is making it happen as we speak.
Those who say it can't be done.
should not interfere with those who are doing it
An interesting article and a question in it is relevant! I think that the question of utopia is the question of the social norm and social values. In every society there is a majority - "normal people" - and there are different groups of people who "wanted strange", or, more roughly, marginalized people. Utopia turns some of the variants of "strange" into normal, and yesterday's "normal", on the contrary, becomes exotic. Utopias are not needed to immediately begin to implement them, destroying dissenters and spending on it all the resources of mankind. Utopias give value, meaning and direction to our world, which will never be ideal. Thanks @humanearl for the great post!
I believe we will have the most ideal society one day and it will not be able to be corrupted ever again.
You are right, our faith in this and nourishes us with you, I generally believe that we are all here are not accidental!
i appreciate you comment.In this type of post-Utopia, sometimes a mere dream idea has been adopted, sometimes the social and technological advancement in the future has drawn the outline of the passage that is realistic in the new life.
The word utopia originally refers to the imaginative ideal space. It implies that any novel or philosophical thinking is given in the description of an ideal place or imagination.
upvoted
Dreams come to life every day and even though it is imaginative at the moment, it will be here soon.
@humanearl absolutely you are right talk . i appreciate your comment.it will be soon... may god bless you.
happy merry christmas .
The name Utopia was a sort-of-a-pun. It means 'no-place' but it could be an echo of a term meaning 'happy place'.
If you're asking about my idea of a Utopia, I'm not sure I have one. The idea of perfecting society always seems to involving destroying the basis of what society we have and require destroying all of human civilisation or fleeing a long way from it to escape the corruption of the present day states.
Improving I'm all for and am full of ideas. Perfecting is a vanity that leads to extremism or inaction.
Destroying the negative or hurtful parts of society may not be a bad idea especially since most of us feel hurt in one way or another by the things that happen around us.
If mankind is left to be the ones to try to perfect things then boy are we in serious trouble. Yes of course this will lead to all forms of extremism and more problems. However this is exactly why mankind cannot be counted on to bring about a perfect world. We need help from a much powerful and perfect source. That which is perfect and all powerful has to do it because otherwise we've seen what trying to improve things has gotten us when we are left to our own ways.
Wow, wow, this post is really a wonderful way to get into the Christmas celebration. Thank you @humanearl for not only striving to make heaven, but also striving to carry others along with you. God bless you for that.
I'll really love a utopian society, I just cant wait for it. Really am so happy to know that by the sacrifice of Jesus, I will be in the ultimate utopian society which is heaven.
A characteristic of a utopian is one that is filled with Joy.
Luke 23:43 says, "And Jesus said unto Him, verily, I say unto you, Today thou shalt be with me in paradise." Paul has declared, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.''. My being present with Jesus will bring utmost joy. Heaven will be a place of Joy unlimited.
The scriptures assure me that when I see Him I shall know Him. Too, He shall know me. He knows the sheep by name. I am sure He is far more lovely than we ever fancied He would be. Yes, you and I must wait until that glad hour when we shall know the joy of His presence.
There will be no sorrow, but total Joy. Hallelujah
I think about this everyday. I look so forward to what is about to happen to the world. And more importantly I hope to inspire and help others see what is coming so they can be a part in what will happen.
Hmmm. This is the most interesting post i have seen all year. God bless you @humanearl.
You made so many points that i wikl still ponder on for sometime.
What that your pictures depict are very powerful when i saw the pics what came to my mind was
Deuteronomy 30:15
Now listen! Today I am giving you a choice between life and death, between prosperity and disaster.
This post is so important to me @gavvet. I have a little word for some that have a lot on their mind.
You’ll never walk alone – man may fail, but Jesus never fails.
Have you felt frustration, disappointment, hopelessness in man? You will feel it throughout your spiritual life, and it will be true so long as you are dealing with imperfect man. no matter it be your dearest soul mate, darling, friend or enemy. So do not feel discouraged, or give up for our relationships with man are temporary and cause distraction from our experience in Christ whom to know is life abundant.
God’s Promises for You: I Will Never Leave You nor Forsake You Hebrews 13:5.
Only Jesus never fails, the unchanging One, for He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
With change is uncertainty. Man is prone to change
– physically he is born to die from the day he is born – he ages
– socially – at every stage of his life his outlook, perspectives and knowledge gained will change and so will interactions with others
– spiritually and emotionally – depending on his life cycle and focus, and who has control of his life man’s spiritual and emotional life will be like the turmoil of the sea. There could be calm and suddenly like a storm the outlook may change and there is discord and unbelief.
Only a steady focus on the Lord Jesus Christ then will bring the peace of God which passes all understanding which shall overflow to relationships and interactions.
Thank youso much for this. I am inspired.
Lol @i am guilty of this. I had my own skeletons too. Haha. We would talk about that another day.
I'm glad you find this topic interesting to you just as it is very important to me. I want to do everything I can to let people know about this coming world and that they are invited to the greatest party the world has never seen.