But utopia, as it is understood today, will never exist. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines it as, “any visionary scheme for the perfect society.” The criteria for utopia, by definition, embodies perfection. But society is a product of people. Everyone knows people are fallible. This suggests utopia is impossible. Many idealists and creative minds have succumb to this dead alley. This rationale has destroyed much of the momentum in social design. People still talk on a small scale on how to improve this or that social cause. They contemplate health care, welfare reform, and elect new leaders but they never venture the ambition of redesigning the whole system. This should change.
Really, there are only a few things that might alter this state of affairs. First, people need to recognize that we do not live in the best possible system. Poverty and homelessness prevail upon the streets of our cities. Our infrastructure mandates an irreversible degradation of the environment as pollution spreads, climate changes, and species go extinct. The vast majority of our citizens never come close to achieving their full potential. These shortages proceed viable solutions. For example, values grounded in exclusivity can be replaced by ones inclusive. New technology formulates cleaner cities and healthier biosystems. Proactive compassion during apportionment assure more their capacity to maximize life’s opportunities. Questioning basic social assumptions lie at the heart of social change.
People should also create a way to experiment with alternative systems and life styles so that they don’t compromise any existing and accepted ones. A forum should be established to examine and compare each system. It should be a college anyone can enter, serve, and educate themselves through. It would assess the integrity of social designs. It would record successes and failures. It would also insure that each community’s population have the ability to freely decide to which experiment, if any, they would reside in. The school would, in the tradition of life’s purpose, experience, preserve, and protect diversity among viable communities.
A third thing that should be done is that the notion of what utopia is should be re-evaluated. A utopian should never assume they have the perfect social design. But they should always strive for perfection. Utopia is not a perfect society. It is a society that strives for perfection but never assumes it. Social designer’s should devise internal feedback mechanisms as a first line of defense against imperfection. This might take the form of a communal government. Here, problems would be discussed and democratically resolved. All this would be done with intent toward social viability and the quest for perfection’s revelation.
Government
The character of government made a great leap forward with the democratic revolutions of the late eighteenth century. This evolution affirmed that people should support an institutional system that insures liberty, equality, and a sense of community. A vote to master a consensus of government should be used. Three branches called congress, executive, and judiciary compose the advantages the law of three can provide. Elections determine representatives in each of these components. They write and enforce the laws of the land in accordance with a constitution. These lawmakers and interpreters must also bear in mind that they should stick to what is essential in government. Thoreau said, “The best government is the least government.” This reduces the majority rule over a suppressed minority. In this, lies a capacity for some potential unanimity in the vote. All democracies should strive to achieve unanimity but without compromising the diversity of its citizenry.
Perfection and Pragmatism
A more perfect society is one that maximizes an individual’s potential for experience and requires as little as possible in return. The less cost for the service means that much more time and resource is spent on living. The trick is deciding what people need, how to get it to them, and make it cost as little as possible.
One essential requisite for living is the acquisition of an education. These are the skills and techniques needed to effectively explore and create. Other resources needed are physical in nature. Materials and energy are needed to mold and design in the fashioning of equipage. These are used for the sake of experience. To engage life, people need food, heat, shelter, and tools as well as the skill to use them. Social infrastructure can provide all of these things.
In addition to these basic needs, there is another thing people desire from the communal. They seek the social for the sake of its experience. People like to talk together, dream together, create with one another. People don’t always interact just for the sake of some end. Sometimes the interaction is an end in itself. This is the highest motive in seeking company.
The need to interact is a living space need. The living space is the part of the community that exists outside the institution and its machine. It ought to be the primary location of interaction. Within the institution, but outside the machine, there is also intercourse. But the primary function of institutions is service and social maintenance. The interactions within them are largely functional and pragmatic. Relations are intended to serve ends. But even these pragmatic interactions can serve as ends in themselves as well as means to an end. People, who reside in the institution, may seek the utilitarian interchange by their own aesthetic. The interaction is sought for the experience itself.
A good system may be one where the human activity going on is done primarily as an end in itself rather than a means to an end alone. If an activity occurs that serves primarily as a means to an end, something could be wrong with the system. The institutional machine has failed to meet its task or individuals have misplaced their priorities.
It’s simple to rationalize and accept this notion when one considers the need for correctness in action. A few years ago, a couple of scientists proclaimed that they had discovered cold fusion. They were accepted as geniuses. Now we have a new source of energy to take us into the twenty-first century! But, after all the celebration, many scientists tried to duplicate their experiments. They found that cold fusion didn’t work. The science that claimed cold fusion was bad science. The scientists had lacked correctness in their actions. Perhaps all they saw was the end they sought and lost sight of the verifiable. A good scientist does their research for the sake of the correctness in action as well as the end. They love the method of science and know the value of the end is only as good as the integrity of their method.
Seeking to maximize human happiness, correctness suggests the value in seeking action that serves as a an end in itself as well as a means to an end. Experience suggests that humans are imperfect. Many times, their activity does not achieve the end sought. If one places all their happiness in the end, they will only be happy when the end is attained. But if they design their lives so happiness is gained through the means as well as the end , they should be happy more often. Even if they fail in achieving their end, there will still be what was gained in getting there.
Discord and the Freedom to Deny
Despite the maximal attempt to achieve happiness in life, the greatest peril to social tranquility remains as conflict. Society should be set-up so that conflict is avoided and, when unavoidable, must not persist for long. Many believe the only source for social growth and transformation is through conflict. Yet, it is possible for a society to evolve without it. In fact, a society can develop intangibly better without it. War is the single most important requisite that seems to lead to technological progress. The development of radar and rocket technology are owed to World War II. Without it, the mother of invention seems to run at a slower rate. But we must justify the mean that leads us to the quick and productive end. Do we dare take a pragmatic view and condone conflict? The integrity of the mean is best determined by the aim it ultimately serves rather than the side effects it creates.
Seattle 2002If we assume strife undesirable, how can we get rid of it? Many have sought the solution to this query. Some have attained some measure of its essence. The solution can’t be used half the time or part of the way. In taking it this way, it is ultimately corrupted. To rid humanity of conflict one must wipe the slate clean and reassess the entire manner humanity endeavors to live.
Conflict is a disagreement of interests or ideas. It usually insists an angry emotional response. It arises because one or both parties are asking what the other won’t provide. An industrialist, who decides to strip mine an open space, is asking the environmentalists something they don’t want to give up. The environmentalists, in turn, are asking the industrialist not to attempt the essential acquisition of raw materials which he can’t deny. Conflict ensues.
The trick to avoiding conflict is easy enough to assert. Simply lead a life where one’s actions don’t ask for more than what one is willing to be denied. Moreover, never ask for more than what others feel free to deny. The test of a societies goodness is revealed by how well it allows its population to approach this curative.
Obviously, there are things in this world people can not be denied. They can’t be denied the means to existence. The obtainment of food, shelter, energy, and the knowledge to use them can’t be threatened if one is to live in a world without conflict. They must be guaranteed. If a society’s institutions can secure these basic needs, there is no need for one to ask the other for the undeniable.
This wouldn’t be as hard to do as people might think. Fads, fashions, and entertainment change with the season. But basic human needs never change. They are perfect causes for humanity’s institutions. Bureaucracies are, after all, conservative by nature. They cling to the past, are slow, and don’t like to change. They would be bad at distributing the newest pop single but not basic necessities.
The “Planet Eaters”
Imagine that in the future the world is populated by only one people. This society is an agrarian forest community. Forests became the only habitat for humanity because it was a climax habitat and it was decreed that grasslands, oceans, and desserts too brittle to occupy. They were set aside as preserves that may only be temporarily occupied. Essential industrial complexes and cities are relegated to glacial Antarctica and living space is amidst the forest gardens of South America.
To build the industrial complexes of Antarctica, the entire continent had to be mined and developed. A new technical process called “strip-mining” assures any useful material is collected and processed throughout a target area. This method, while efficient, destroys most natural geologic features and macerates any biological substrate. Ecosystems never recover from it. It is Antarctica’s lack of biological inventory that made it the best place to use this technique.
This continent sees great transformation and is exhausted of its resources. By the time this happens, the inhabitants learn to recycle and do so at 100% capacity in assurance of their terrestrial way of life. Eventually, humans discover they no longer need the Antarctic industrial complex. It is abandoned for the advantages of a forest garden lifestyle. Earth has become a veritable paradise and stays this way for a hundred years.
There comes a time when an interest arises among the citizenry to attempt exploration of neighboring Mars. But no one knows how to acquire the resources to build the great spaceship that would be necessary to take those interested in going. Through the ranks, rises an industrialist who suggests the materials could be acquired by strip-mining the forests. The cause of exploration is worthy to many. Scientific exploration is always a good motive. But many of the forest dwellers want the forests preserved. Conflict immediately ensues between the environmental “conservatives” and the industrialist and his followers. There are a few things the community can do to preserve the peace. First, they could try to use innovation. They could try to come up with a new mining technique that wouldn’t destroy the forest. Second, they could try to seek a compromise. Some of the inhabited forest could be given up for the raw materials. If both these approaches do not work, the only solution that remains is a split. Since the industrialist and his followers are the agent of change, they must consider leaving the community and seek another place to find the raw materials. The system should provide them with the freedom to do this. For this to work, the good system needs to reserve the resources for other possible human lifestyles that may develop. By this reservation, freedom of thought and movement prevail. There should be a place for every group and their collective dreams.
CONTINGENCY TO HANDLE THE INDUSTRIALIST ABERRATION
1. Innovation
2. Compromise
3. Split (Departure from the norm)
Let us say, in the contingency, that a split had to be prescribed. The industrialists had to leave the forest. They choose another uninhabited forest on the other side of the planet to strip-mine. They build their spaceship and go to Mars. The trip takes a year and in that time they see many wonderful things. Then, they return to their land of the strip mined forest.
What they return to is a land incapable of supporting life. The industrial complex they built has destroyed any capacity to support them or any other form of life. Necessity dictates they leave their strip mined forest. But, where do they go? Should they be allowed to take another forest? Will they strip mine that one as well? Perhaps the environmental conservatives possess the only forest left. Are the environmentalists, who have diligently preserved their allotment, obligated to compromise part of their forest at this point?
It is in situations like these that the importance of the historian becomes apparent. History would suggest that the industrialists made their bed. Now, they’ll have to sleep in it. The only way they may return to the conservationist’s forest is by giving up their way of life. To give their cause any more resources would be inequitable toward the environmentalist’s practice and way of life. The question remains. Will the industrialists with their rocketry and high tech military agree?
Now, lets imagine the story ends differently. What if the industrialists, instead of returning to their strip mined forest, decided to stay away. The purpose of the industrialists is to explore. They decide to continue their quest instead of returning from Mars. Upon exploration of Mars, the industrialists realize they can strip mine the entire planet to make new and better space ships. They level the planet and destroy all its natural features. Why not? No one else lives on the planet. They build many ships. Expanding their range, the explorers strip planets from solar system to system. Eventually, they build machines capable of consuming entire planets. In one instant these devices convert the entire globe into materials and machines of discovery. The industrialists become Planet Eaters.
While the Planet Eaters were the first to come across these worlds, many would question their right to consume them. This is because equity should be held timeless to many. Resources should not only be distributed equally between all people for any given time. They should be distributed equally between all people of all times. Most would contest that many of the Planet Eater’s consumed worlds should be preserved for future generations. But who would be around to enforce and regulate this?
Equity and Consumption
Something is wrong In both scenarios above. In the world of the industrialists and environmentalists, all basic needs are met. No one need ask for anything they can’t be denied. Equity is maintained. Conflict is approached with attempts at innovation and compromise. Eventually freedom of movement must be resorted to in order to retain the peace. Yet, in both scenarios, the ultimate result is undesirable.
What went wrong was the way the industrialists used their resources. Resources are material, energy, and knowledge. There are essentially two types of resources. There are those resources that are renewable or recyclable. There are also those that are non-renewable. Actually, everything works in cycles so everything becomes recycled. But sometimes the cycle takes a very long time. Perhaps it’s alternation exceeds the life expectancy of the human race. In this case, it is considered non-renewable.
The trick with resources is simple. Never consume more than what can be recycled. Once this amount is determined, it is made available to everyone equally. Those things considered non-renewable are consumed over a longer period of time. A resource whose cycle is essentially infinite should be pro-rated and exhausted when the interests of humanity end. The resource should be distributed evenly among all people of all time. This requires that the population be anticipated as well as the amount of available resources projected. Hard and imperfect, this is what must be done to avoid the industrialist’s scenarios.
Contingency for Conflict
A contingency for conflict may not be needed by following this expansion on equity’s determination. It will be needed, however, in conflicts where specifics are at stake. I’m writing these words while sitting on a rock beside the Platte river. The scene and the space is quite unique. There is no other space like it for miles. What if someone else came along who also wanted to sit on this rock? Seeing that there is only enough room for one person, a contingency for conflict may need to arise. The contingency for the rock might go as follows:
First, we might seek a compromise like time share. One day, I can sit on the rock. The next day, the other person can. In this we alternate days to sit upon the rock.
If compromise is unacceptable, maybe innovation is the remedy for this conflict. Perhaps we can use sophisticated technique to dredge the river for another rock. If one is found, we could place it beside the other. Now, there are two rocks!
If this won’t work, the only thing remaining is to deny my good friend access to the rock. I was simply here first! This doesn’t always work. What if my friend is bigger than me? Some communities may decide to use another solution called Mutually Assured Denial. Because the rock is unique and one of a kind, the community may decide to deny both myself and my friend access to the rock. The best historical example of MAD being used was during the cold war. If one of the conflicting parties decided to have a nuclear war, everyone would loose. The only problem with MAD is the lose of potential to denied specific resources.
A contingency for conflict will be needed for dealing with resources of a specific nature. But, when dealing with resources in general, distributed equitably, and everyone accepts the goodness of the distribution, there is no need for a contingency.
Free Market and Tests of Character
Up to this point, we have addressed the way an ideal society should deal with basic needs, general resources, and specific resources. Many of these needs and resources and their assimilation rarely change. Institutions are best for providing them because like them, bureaucracies infrequently change. But many things that people want are not so easy to predict. Fads and fashions change. What sets the color and atmosphere one day may change the next. This is an essential part of life’s discovery. It isn’t bad. But, the resources needed to feed this dynamic side of life aren’t best provided by institutions. While governments might try to provide them, they will ultimately fail.
There are only two ways that I know of for the dynamic resources to be distributed. The first is through trade and barter. Free economy works like an invisible hand. It drives industry to provide resources and change when they become obsolete. People may someday out grow the need for an economic system. This is because the means of the economic system can’t always be appealing enough to serve as ends in themselves. People don’t like dealing with money all the time. Many don’t like their jobs. Yet, the system forces them to accept their state.
The second way to handle dynamic resources and needs also assures that the means can serve as ends. This is preferable. This aesthetic dynamic only works because virtues like love, self discipline, and work are ends in themselves.
It all starts with love. A person sees his community in need of a service. The dynamic nature of the service’s provision may require some ingenuity and creativity on the part of the altruist. The work serves as a challenge and serves as an expression of one’s integrity and character. How grand to resolve the challenge! This may not be so much for what others think of one’s self discipline as much as for one’s own self esteem. A person is not complete until they meet challenges like these and succeed. Everyone likes a good puzzle.
The question might arise, who would do all the nasty work if everyone only does work that pleases them? Who would clean the toilets? A person who would clean toilets is one that values self discipline and responsibility. An innovative person may decide the best coarse of action is to create a self-cleaning bathroom.
The Good Society
In conclusion, the good society never assumes or requires perfection. It lets the means to living serve as ends in themselves as well as serve ends. It also approaches conflict as an enemy. A good community never requires a member to ask for things they can’t be denied. It does this by insuring basic resources and equity in their distribution. Should it fail to meet this responsibility, it holds a contingency for conflict. An exemplary system also resolves need for dynamic resources and services through the creative actualization of virtue. With regard to all these matters, it defines its qualities, character, and contingencies of justice completely so that no surprises arise. In this way, the potential for conflict is reduced. If a community member doesn’t like the system, they can always peacefully challenge it or leave it before serious conflict develops.
