{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/9/2020 12:33:21 AM
20
Why wouldn’t you want to live in a utopia? No matter what political ideology is behind it, the word “utopia” means it’s an objectively great place to live.
English
-
The word “utopia” was made with a highly ironic reason meaning “a place that does not exist”
-
But if it did hypothetically exist, it’d be somewhere you’d definitely want to live, because it is actually perfect.
-
A theoretical utopia would probably be a living hell because it would mean that basically nothing changes after that point, you can’t improve perfection, so the only way a utopia could have change would be if it got worse which wouldn’t be a utopia by most people’s standards. Conflict would cease to exist, which is one of the driving factors for change. This line of reasoning can also be used to explain why a utopia is impossible to achieve
-
So you’re saying heaven is hell my man jc’s a god tier troll
-
Oh, a utopia is almost definitely impossible. If we’re talking hypothetically, though, then things wouldn’t need to change; perfection has already been achieved. I can’t say I see how that would be a living hell.
-
Editado por LahDsai: 11/9/2020 1:28:12 AM[quote]One man's heaven is another man's hell.[/quote] Utopia is subjective, not objective, especially when you give it a condition as OP did (_____ utopia).
-
I think if it’s an actual utopia—which is likely impossible realistically—then it’s an objectively good place. That’s kind of the definition of a utopia, isn’t it? The hypothetical perfect society?
-
Key word being "hypothetical". The moment someone has the idea to do something differently, the world is no longer perfect. The only way to have a "true" utopia would be to have everyone share the same wants, opinions, and agree on everything so as to achieve consensus on greatness. You'd also need an agreement on what tasks each member of society would need to fulfill, and each member would need to be equally satisfied with their position. And there's the rub. Utopia is a world in which we question nothing. Is complacency perfection? Perfection means no more progress can be made, nothing can improve, and nothing will change. ... that's death. [b] [/b] A true "utopia" is a paradox.
-
Oh, for sure, a real utopia probably can’t happen. This thread is all about talking in hypotheticals, though, isn’t it?
-
Editado por LahDsai: 11/9/2020 4:30:11 AMWell, even a hypothetical utopia is [b][i]your[/i][/b] utopia, not [b][i]my[/i][/b] utopia. It's like saying you painted your room "the best" color. We can say "the best" in an abstract sense but that means nothing. The moment it becomes an actual color, it's a flawed statement.
-
I mean, true, but if it can be called a utopia in any regard, then even if it’s not absolutely perfect for every individual, it would still be considered an objectively good place to live, wouldn’t it? If it has a glaring flaw then that means it’s either a regular city at best, or a dystopia at worst, doesn’t it?
-
[quote]... if it’s not absolutely perfect for every individual, it would still be considered an objectively good place to live, wouldn’t it?[/quote]The moment it's not a universal truth it ceases to be objective and becomes subjective. "Good" is relative. We live in a time of lower conflict, longer lifespans, better health, higher living standards, and more education than any point in history. To someone living in the middle ages the current world could very well be seen as a utopia. Heck, to someone from central Africa whose entire village doesn't have decent access to water, let alone running water, the US might look like a utopia as life seems relatively "good" even if it's not perfect for everyone. But we'd never see it that way, because even though we may have it "better", we can see a "better still". The same would be true in a "utopia" where some individuals had to settle for "good enough". For them, it's not a utopia.
-
That’s what I mean, though, even if it wasn’t a utopia for every individual, if it was a utopia in a general sense, then even the people in the city that are worse off wpuld still have it really good. Meaning if there was anything even resembling a true utopia (which, remember the question isn’t whether a utopia can exist, it’s if it did why wouldn’t you want to live there), then living there would be an objectively good thing. The only situation I can think of in which it’d be a bad thing is if by saying it’s a utopia means even the lowest social rung has better living conditions than the average folk anywhere else, then if you’re at the top somewhere else it’d be a downgrade, but other than that it’d be a step up from anything you have.
-
By that criteria, the first world has already achieved Utopia status. The definition of "poverty" on a global scale is living on less than $1.90 a day. About 1/10 of the world lives below the poverty line. In most of the first world it's defined as a household income of less than 50% the median household income (for that country). The US's poverty line is set at $25,465 a year for a family of four, or roughly $17.44 a day per person. 1 out of 8 Americans live below this line. To someone living in the third world, the US could already be seen as a utopia as even the poorest among us have access to food, basic medicine, plumbing, electricity, internet, etc. and nine times as much money. 72% of US homeless have cell phones. By comparison, only 48% of everyone in Africa does.
-
In a utopia scenario, though, there wouldn’t be poverty. The lowest rung of society would be someone in a financially well off position. Which is impossible, sure, but that’s kind of why it’s a utopia. And even in the case that we do make it a realistically viable place, it is still kind of the objectively best place to live, right? If the standard of living is better in one place than the other, that’s the place you want to be, isn’t it? [spoiler]Although, having actually gotten a response as to why Man of War wouldn’t want to live there it doesn’t sound like he’s given this near as much thought as we are. >.>[/spoiler]
-
Do you want the religious or secular reason. Or both?
-
Whatever reason, I suppose.
-
Religious reason, is because it's not humans duty to bring Utopia and any tries will end in failure because of our sin nature. It's God's duty to bring the "Utopia." None religious is because for a Utopia to actually work it requires you to strip people of their rights and indoctirate them. People have a natural want to go against the grain and try their best to be different and have their own name. Something that can't happen in a Utopia, Karl Marx wrote about that.
-
[quote]Religious reason, is because it's not humans duty to bring Utopia and any tries will end in failure because of our sin nature. It's God's duty to bring the "Utopia."[/quote] Fair enough I suppose. [quote]None religious is because for a Utopia to actually work it requires you to strip people of their rights and indoctirate them. People have a natural want to go against the grain and try their best to be different and have their own name. Something that can't happen in a Utopia, Karl Marx wrote about that.[/quote] That would be a dystopia. If we’re talking a true, actual utopia—which is most likely impossible, I should mention—that wouldn’t happen. A true utopia is an absolutely perfect society.
-
I guess that is true.
