Sci-Fi Possible versions of Utopia

Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Hey Guys,

As of late, I have become increasingly cynical of the world (mostly because of Trump) and have been considering what it would take for the world to become a utopia if at all.

This is how I define Utopia: A sustainable society where violent conflict is not needed and individuals have the maximum control over their well being.

I think we need to first discover a free sustainable energy source on a more individual level. This would help make every person more self sufficient and hopefully remove the need for most forms of conflict. I don't think a better form of government will necessarily bring about utopian conditions.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
The Easiest way to get a utopian world is to decrease the human population by several billion. Whether by culling or relocation it wouldn't matter. Lower population densities would free up resources and decrease energy requirements.
The world is not at dystopian levels yet but it is coming.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
mostly because of Trump
Hahaha, how shallow? Trump is merely another puppet of the ruling class. As messed up as our USA presidents have been, Trump is just more of the same. So, go ahead, blame Trump for your feelings. Blame the rich and powerful for society's problems. None of it fixes anything. The problem is, there is just too damn many people on this planet.
With less people, most every issue with any government would diminish. Some would likely dissappear entirely.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Hahaha, how shallow? Trump is merely another puppet of the ruling class. As messed up as our USA presidents have been, Trump is just more of the same. So, go ahead, blame Trump for your feelings. Blame the rich and powerful for society's problems. None of it fixes anything. The problem is, there is just too damn many people on this planet.
With less people, most every issue with any government would diminish. Some would likely dissappear entirely.
Lower population is a compelling point but people have n=been at each other necks since before this current population boom. A superior energy source will give people the freedom to break away from tribalism and allow for more freedom. more freedom leads to people living life in the way they see fit.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
but people have n=been at each other necks since before this current population boom
True. Mostly over land disputes and religion. Land because the population was growing at a pace faster than the land could support. Religion because people wanted others to conform to their beliefs resulting in mass unity. Both directly affected by population.
A superior energy source will give people the freedom to break away from tribalism and allow for more freedom. more freedom leads to people living life in the way they see fit.
That is a myth... A pretense based on utopian fiction. Science fiction describes many societies with a superior energy source that are dystopian.

The sad fact is that humans are fast becoming too numerous for the environment that contains them. I see only a few options. Culling the herd. Populate areas of the planet that have not been populated (oceans, arctic or deserts). Move off-world (in space habitats, moons, asteroids or other planets).

Of the three main fixes only one is currently in our technological ability...Culling. We are close to inhabiting deserts and possibly the arctic but the oceans are far from viable right now. Technically we have the ability to relocate to space but survivability is in question because our technology is still insufficient.

Inhabiting hostile segments of the planet is possible but there is no drive to fund the option. At present our society is fixated on instant gratification. There won't be a real effort made until our population density smacks us in the face.

The problem is not power or energy. The problem is our attitude.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
The perfect utopia is a dangerous thing. It was touched upon in the movie Serenity (based on Firefly).
In the movie it explores the idea that if people are given a true utopia, they may just lie down and die.
The movie is composed of examples of the bad effects of an induced utopia.

The utopia was not a power/energy based result. It was tampering with the human will. They used technology to change the attitudes of the population. It is implied that there was a utopian society that did occur but it stagnated. That two distinct changes occurred in the minds of those affected. One was stagnation and the other savagery. A simple plot device for an outstanding movie.

Many people want to think that Star Trek is a utopia. That is very far from the truth. Just about every movie and episode deals with some form of negative having to be dealt with. A true utopia means that all the inhabitants of that utopia experience the utopia. Its society has the illusion of utopia but its citizens often experience dystopia.

Utopia and dystopia are wonderful on the surface. But, like the 3 Laws of Robotics, they fail when examined carefully. That is because Science Fiction is fiction and reality does not conform to belief.

In Star Wars, power/energy generation is not an issue yet it is not an utopian society. If it were, there would be no story because there would be no rebels.

While there can never be a perfect utopia there can also never be a total dystopia. As long as society exists, some will agree on some things.

Civilization is classified by power/energy in the
Kardashev Scale – Type I, II, III, IV & V
Right now, we are Type Zero.


If we survive long enough to make it to Type I, chances are our attitudes will change before we actually attain the energy. The utopian mindset will occur before the advancement. Not the other way around.
If it doesn't, the increased energy will just make it easier for us to destroy ourselves.
 

StoneWolf

Father, Husband, CAD Drafter, Reader
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Location
CenCal
I'm developing a tech to help make deserts habbitable...by use of a solar powered laser & 3d sintering of sand into continuous sandstone.

Solar sills for desalinization & waste management, greenhouses for growing...self sustaining colony style city states, made out of free resources.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
I'm developing a tech to help make deserts habbitable...by use of a solar powered laser & 3d sintering of sand into continuous sandstone.

Solar sills for desalinization & waste management, greenhouses for growing...self sustaining colony style city states, made out of free resources.
I have devised a few mega-engineering projects that would enhance population solutions. I even started a forum to jot down my disorganized thoughts. You are welcome to read the few things I have posted and join in if you desire. I'm not really looking for participation but will welcome fresh views.

There are many ideas floating about on the web that deal with mega-scale efforts to adress many of societies issues. Some are quite extensive and planned. It is not the technology or energy level that prevents their fultrition. It is the attitude of the people that comprise the society. Until those attitudes change, our society remains locked in its present state.

Our society was not always like it is now. Look at other mega-projects in the past. Railroads, highways, reserviours, dams & bridges put people to work for long periods of time and allowed population dispersion.
At our current technology level there are minimal mega-scale projects in current action. We are in a state of manipulation by the power hungry elite. When will there ever be 'enough' money in a corporation to fund a mega-project to benefit all? If it isn't profitable, it won't get done. The new God is money.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
The utopian mindset comes from the individual. Its the drive that demands action. Is the drive for personal or corporate gains or is it to change society and the quality of life? Which costs more; to do nothing and stagnate or to take a chance to make a change?
 

StoneWolf

Father, Husband, CAD Drafter, Reader
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Location
CenCal
While I agree to a large degee that individuals can make changes, I disagree that that is the primary source of change...

Much akin to a giant cargo train that takes miles to stop, our society has tremendous momentum, one that an individual "on the train" really can not change the direction of the train (as it is on permanent tracks).

As our awareness grows that our (US) society is based on an economic model that is preditorty & non sustainable, more and more resources will be allocated to universal humanitarian needs.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
While I agree to a large degee that individuals can make changes, I disagree that that is the primary source of change...
Every idea ever imagined was originally imagined by a lone individual. Many might have influenced it over time but the original idea was a single thought at the beginning. A sole voice to which others agree.
 

StoneWolf

Father, Husband, CAD Drafter, Reader
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Location
CenCal
I love that ideas (and therefor words) change our world!

However, we as a society, nay, as a single race (human) have culteral momentums & changing our collective views is not easy, in fact, it often times requires the older generation to DIE...

And that's not even begining to start to talk about the unpublished class war where .05% of the population controls the majority of resources & actively subject the rest of humanity to economic hardship merely for the basest of selfish & ultimately self destructive BS.

Freight trains don't stop on a dime no matter how hard the passangers wish it would...and the ones who laid the track determine the destination.

Humanity's ability to live above the poverty line is strictly a matter of those on top holding us down.

Ideology isn't the main problem, I feel, but the misdeeds & greed of our leaders & super wealthy.
 

StoneWolf

Father, Husband, CAD Drafter, Reader
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Location
CenCal
J.K. Rowling WAS a billionaire...until she donated so much to charity that she no longer qualifies.
 
Top Bottom