Utopia

[EvaRia]

The subject of Utopia commands an interesting place in our culture.

The idea of the perfect world, where nobody suffers, where everything is peaceful, where everything, absolutely everything, is completely perfect.

This is Utopia.

As a quirk in human nature, we constantly strive for Utopia. We attempt to relieve as much suffering from the world as we possibly can, for the good of everything.
We can't stand the thought of something dying, of something being erased, of something gone forever.

But at the same time...

We constantly antagonize Utopia. In so many games, in so many stories, the antagonist is not simply "Evil" but is striving for the perfect world.
The "Bad Guy" is always the one who wants to remove suffering from the world. The antagonist is the one who dreams of eternal happiness.

And the protagonist's answer is always the same:

"There's no future in that kind of world."

The protagonist is the one who supports the everyday challenges in life, who believes that there is a reason to continue the struggle.

In the end, the idea of Utopia is both the ultimate Good and the ultimate Evil.

What do you believe?

Do you strive for Utopia, or do you go against it?

[ZephyrPhantom]

The 'catch' with the concept of Utopia is that most two people will not have the same interpretation of a Utopia under normal circumstances (and if the Utopia is the same, it's possible that people may view it a Utopia for different reasons). As a result, I see no reason to strive or go against Utopia - the world will determine itself from the actions we take.

[OldTrees]

"The idea of the perfect world, where nobody suffers, where everything is peaceful, where everything, absolutely everything, is completely perfect."

I prefer another concept that I find more useful and inherently possible.
(Also how do you know suffering and conflict are not parts of perfection?)

"The idea of (the possible future/one of the possible futures) that does not have the characteristic of being objectively worse than any of the other possible futures."
Note: A mathematical example would be "Number(s) in the Set (i,1,1/2) that are not lower than another number in that set." That would leave 'i' and '1' as valid choices but not 1/2 because 1/2 is lower than 1.

However identifying which (future does/futures do) not have that characteristic is an impossible task without knowing what might make a future objectively worse. This required knowledge is unknown and the very topic will always be controversial.

I personally do strive to do my part to achieve my definition of Utopia by trying to choose options that do not have the characteristic of being objectively worse than any of the other possible options. However I do not have the required knowledge to know if I choose correctly.

I seriously doubt anyone does otherwise.

[EvaRia]

"The idea of the perfect world, where nobody suffers, where everything is peaceful, where everything, absolutely everything, is completely perfect."

I prefer another concept that I find more useful and inherently possible.
(Also how do you know suffering and conflict are not parts of perfection?)

I see you trying the same contradictory thinking I always use. Utopia is just a name. I'm am putting out my "Perfect World" idea as a Utopia.
Lack of conflict and suffering are part of this idea, so if you remove that from the idea it will be different, even if you call it the same thing.
I'm not really getting my point across, maybe, but I am saying the important thing is the idea, not the name. I am not trying to define Utopia, but curious as to people's opinion on the idea of the "Perfect World" that I present.

"The idea of (the possible future/one of the possible futures) that does not have the characteristic of being objectively worse than any of the other possible futures."
Note: A mathematical example would be "Number(s) in the Set (i,1,1/2) that are not lower than another number in that set." That would leave 'i' and '1' as valid choices but not 1/2 because 1/2 is lower than 1.

This is fine, but inherently different from what I'm trying to ask. It is a perfectly acceptable opinion, but it does not answer my question but rather raises a seperate point. I understand though, your definition instead of "The best" is "Not the worst."

However identifying which (future does/futures do) not have that characteristic is an impossible task without knowing what might make a future objectively worse. This required knowledge is unknown and the very topic will always be controversial.

Indeed, it is always controversial. What is perfection? What is considered the best? What is to say it won't be worse? But this thread runs under my general assumptions of perfection, the trend that I see in every Utopia represented in our stories.

I personally do strive to do my part to achieve my definition of Utopia by trying to choose options that do not have the characteristic of being objectively worse than any of the other possible options. However I do not have the required knowledge to know if I choose correctly.

This is good to know, but I still want to ask, even if you strive for your own Utopia, do you strive for the "Perfect World"? Do you strive to end all suffering, to make every living thing happy? Rather than do you strive for Utopia, this is what I am trying to ask.

I seriously doubt anyone does otherwise.

This raises another interesting point. In general, there are around 4 things that make an antagonist an antagonist.
1. The antagonist fundamentally goes against the protagonists beliefs. Because it is impossible for them to agree, there is conflict.
2. The power of situation. Although they may have been allies in another world, their unique circumstances cause them to conflict. Often this kind of antagonist becomes friends with the protagonist in the end.
3. The antagonist is simply evil. His whole sense of purpose of existing is to make the world suffer. He is not motivated by revenge, he is not in a state of depression, he is just purely evil.
4. The antagonist is insane. He has lost his mind so much that he can't tell good from bad anymore.

So yes, points 3 and 4 mean they really DON'T try and go for the "Least Bad" outcome.

[Camoninja]

I personally don't think Utopia is possible because of the amount of variation in beliefs we have, like Zblader.

There are some people who want no challenges, while others would go insane from the boredom of lack of something to strive for. To me, Utopia is the entire universe designed to everyone's idea of perfection, which is impossible because of our variation in ideas. Another example is people who fear change, along with people who can't stand everything being the same longer than a certain period of time.

It sounds like your antagonist believes Utopia is the universe designed to his own idea of perfection only. If someone tries to make his own Utopia for everyone, he's forcing his own beliefs on everyone else, which is wrong, I would go against it. But that's not quite the same as going against Utopia, is it?

[OldTrees]

"The idea of (the possible future/one of the possible futures) that does not have the characteristic of being objectively worse than any of the other possible futures."
Note: A mathematical example would be "Number(s) in the Set (i,1,1/2) that are not lower than another number in that set." That would leave 'i' and '1' as valid choices but not 1/2 because 1/2 is lower than 1.

This is fine, but inherently different from what I'm trying to ask. It is a perfectly acceptable opinion, but it does not answer my question but rather raises a seperate point. I understand though, your definition instead of "The best" is "Not the worst."

My definition defines "The Best" as "Not worse". It is a stricter qualifier than "Not the worst".
The Set (i,0,1,1/2) has
0 is the lowest and lower than 1/2
1/2 is lower than 1
i is not lower than 0, 1/2 or 1
1 is not lower than 0, 1/2 or i
Therefore i and 1 are the only ones that are "Not lower" even though 1/2 is "Not lowest"

However identifying which (future does/futures do) not have that characteristic is an impossible task without knowing what might make a future objectively worse. This required knowledge is unknown and the very topic will always be controversial.

Indeed, it is always controversial. What is perfection? What is considered the best? What is to say it won't be worse? But this thread runs under my general assumptions of perfection, the trend that I see in every Utopia represented in our stories.

I personally do strive to do my part to achieve my definition of Utopia by trying to choose options that do not have the characteristic of being objectively worse than any of the other possible options. However I do not have the required knowledge to know if I choose correctly.

This is good to know, but I still want to ask, even if you strive for your own Utopia, do you strive for the "Perfect World"? Do you strive to end all suffering, to make every living thing happy? Rather than do you strive for Utopia, this is what I am trying to ask.

I seriously doubt anyone does otherwise.

This raises another interesting point. In general, there are around 4 things that make an antagonist an antagonist.
1. The antagonist fundamentally goes against the protagonists beliefs. Because it is impossible for them to agree, there is conflict.
2. The power of situation. Although they may have been allies in another world, their unique circumstances cause them to conflict. Often this kind of antagonist becomes friends with the protagonist in the end.
3. The antagonist is simply evil. His whole sense of purpose of existing is to make the world suffer. He is not motivated by revenge, he is not in a state of depression, he is just purely evil.
4. The antagonist is insane. He has lost his mind so much that he can't tell good from bad anymore.

So yes, points 3 and 4 mean they really DON'T try and go for the "Least Bad" outcome.

3 and 4 certainly do mean they go for options that they see not having the characteristic of being worse. Neither description describes someone trying to be evil rather it describes people who are trying to do what they do not see as evil and happening to do what you think is evil.

However to answer your question:
No, I do not strive to eliminate all suffering and ensure only happy things are alive. This is because all the possible futures I can see that meet this criteria that can be caused by my actions require details that I would assume would make those futures objectively worse than other options possible futures. All the easy answers to create such realities tend to do so by eliminating the ability to suffer or cause the unhappy to cease living. Hence that definition of Utopia is typically used to motivate villains in games.

[BluePriest]

The good guy bad guy in movies concept was interesting. I almost want to say it is flawed though. The problem is that the person in those movies is "evil" not usually because they want to erase suffering, but because of thier methods as it usually involves some type of slavery or loss of many lives. This goes into another question of if the ends justifies the means. If their means didn't effect anyones ways in a negative way, I dont think there would be a (good) movie about it.

[Thalas]

I'm all for invidual utopia (Perfect world for invidual - For me perfect world is where I'm omnipotent deity. I can create worlds from my fantasies and live as some character in them.)
However in reality invidual utopia is impossible, but with the development of computers I believe, that we could connect to some kind of server living our perfect lives forever. (If humankind doesn't destroy itself, it could be possible in 200 years, I presume)

Perfect solution

[Nepycros]

I despise the concept of utopia most people have because it's stagnant. A stagnant life isn't worth living, in my opinion. Progress is optimal, then reaching your potential.

[Pineapple]

I despise the concept of utopia most people have because it's stagnant. A stagnant life isn't worth living, in my opinion. Progress is optimal, then reaching your potential.

So you think that utopia in and of itself isn't anything good, progress is good, and anything holding back progress is bad.
How would you rate the actions of Mr. "Glass" Price in Unbreakable (2000)?

[Nepycros]

I despise the concept of utopia most people have because it's stagnant. A stagnant life isn't worth living, in my opinion. Progress is optimal, then reaching your potential.

So you think that utopia in and of itself isn't anything good, progress is good, and anything holding back progress is bad.
How would you rate the actions of Mr. "Glass" Price in Unbreakable (2000)?

No comment. Alas, I'll have to watch it first.
However, a utopia that lacks progress, and is stuck eternally in the present isn't something I want to be part of.

[Belthus]

I like this quote from Noam Chomsky in Powers and Prospects (http://www.chomsky.info/books/prospects01.htm) [emphasis mine]:

In referring to goals and visions, I have in mind a practical rather than a very principled distinction. As is usual in human affairs, it is the practical perspective that matters most. Such theoretical understanding as we have is far too thin to carry much weight.

By visions, I mean the conception of a future society that animates what we actually do, a society in which a decent human being might want to live. By goals, I mean the choices and tasks that are within reach, that we will pursue one way or another guided by a vision that may be distant and hazy.

An animating vision must rest on some conception of human nature, of what's good for people, of their needs and rights, of the aspects of their nature that should be nurtured, encouraged and permitted to flourish for their benefit and that of others. The concept of human nature that underlies our visions is usually tacit and inchoate, but it is always there, perhaps implicitly, whether one chooses to leave things as they are and cultivate one's own garden, or to work for small changes, or for revolutionary ones.

This much, at least, is true of people who regard themselves as moral agents, not monsters -- who care about the effects of what they do or fail to do.

On all such matters, our knowledge and understanding are shallow; as in virtually every area of human life, we proceed on the basis of intuition and experience, hopes and fears. Goals involve hard choices with very serious human consequences. We adopt them on the basis of imperfect evidence and limited understanding, and though our visions can and should be a guide, they are at best a very partial one. They are not clear, nor are they stable, at least for people who care about the consequences of their acts. Sensible people will look forward to a clearer articulation of their animating visions and to the critical evaluation of them in the light of reason and experience. So far, the substance is pretty meager, and there are no signs of any change in that state of affairs. Slogans are easy, but not very helpful when real choices have to be made.

What Chomsky calls visions are likely to be utopian. It's good to have ideals, but it's also good to recognize the limits of what is possible for us right now and to recognize that our current vision may be flawed.