Social Question

Hobbes's avatar

What do you think of this Utopian dream?

Asked by Hobbes (7371points) July 25th, 2011

I imagine a world where every single person has clean air to breathe and fresh water to drink. I imagine a world where everyone has plentiful, healthy, tasty food. I imagine a world where everyone has a warm and comfortable place to sleep. I imagine a world where anyone will receive medicine and care whenever they are sick or injured. It’s sad that this is a dream, because this is all human beings need, besides one another.

Right now the world economy is focused on giving a few what they want instead of giving everyone what they need, at the cost of violence to humans and to the rest of life on this planet. We are literally poisoning our air and our water, and undermining our ability to produce food and provide medicine. We must find a way to create things that does not rely on violence to humans and to the planetary ecosystem of which we are a part and on which we depend.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

54 Answers

marinelife's avatar

I think it is a lovely dream, but tat it is contrary to human nature.

Human need something to strive for and to struggle against.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@marinelife Human nature has never involved depriving others to get ours. That’s civilized bullshit. For most of our history nobody acted this way.

@Hobbes I continually love your posts. Just wish I coulda called “In before ignorant civilized bullshit”.

Zaku's avatar

Sounds good, especially if we include all the non-human species. Sign me up!

@incendiary_dan Agreed!

incendiary_dan's avatar

Best line from Derrick Jensen disproving the popular interpretation of “Survival of the Fittest”:

“Those creatures who have survived in the long run have survived in the long run; you don’t survive in the long run by destroying the place you live; you survive in the long run by making that place better.”

(Apologies if I got the wording wrong)

That’s how humans have lived for most of our history, and that’s why it’s perfectly possible for us to live a high standard of living without depriving and killing others, or destroying our landbases. We have numerous tried and true methods for sustainable and plentiful subsistence.

josie's avatar

Human beings are reasoning creatures. They are also curious and industrious. They are also engaged in their personal self interest. You can not change these things. Human beings also have proved that they go through stages of development. You happen to not like the current state of development. And you probably will not live to see the next evolution. But so what? You are part of the process. You can’t force it. Every attempt to force it gives the opportunity to a psychotic tyrant to imagine that he can rule the world. Which sets everything back a few centuries. Keep talking, keep participating. It will eventually come around. Why is everybody so negative, so pissy?
“No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should” (Max Ehrman)

incendiary_dan's avatar

The fallacy of progressivism (that humans “evolve” on an prescribed upward course) is one of the most dangerous in the world, and has led to just as much suffering, genocide, and tyranny as religious fanaticism. It’s ideological myth and dangerous in terms of how we decide to relate to the world (i.e. environmentalism).

We either take part in ways of life that sustain both ourselves and our environments (insomuch as we’re separate), or we die horribly and doom generations to suffering.

Hobbes's avatar

@josie

I think that all human beings have the capacity to act both in self interest, and in the interest of others. I think some see how the two are not, in fact separate, because all human beings are connected with one another, with all life, and with the rest of the Universe.

I agree you can’t “force it” in the sense of trying to force everyone to obey a certain ideology, but the way culture changes is through people having ideas and talking about them, which is what I’m doing, and then acting upon them, which is what I’m trying to figure out how to do.

I agree that too much power centralized anywhere is a bad thing, and at the moment the world economy is funneling more and more wealth and power upwards, to a smaller and smaller minority.

Jeruba's avatar

This is the life of the Eloi as imagined by Jules Verne in The Time Machine.

To support it required the life of the Morlocks and their underground machines. And their feeding habits.

everephebe's avatar

What do I think of this Utopian dream? Damn time we implement it.
Legal tender is not tender.

everephebe's avatar

What we do with the world’s resources is incredibly asinine.

Hobbes's avatar

@Jeruba – What I’m saying is that Morlocks aren’t actually necessary.

Hobbes's avatar

And also, the existence I’m describing wouldn’t be bland like the Eloi’s. We can gain endless stimulation from one another’s company, and the things we learn and create together.

Jeruba's avatar

And I guess what I’m saying is that there’s bound to be a price to pay.

For instance, if everyone does not live close to a source of food and water, there has to be a means of transport and delivery. That will involve some kind of infrastructure, whether it’s aqueducts or horse-drawn carts requiring carters and draught horses, cartmakers, roads, and the systems that support them, or modern-day water systems; and farmers, land ownership, irrigation, marketplaces, commerce to facilitate the exchanges, etc. All this leads to people wanting to make rules, some wanting things that others don’t want (hence conflict and politics), a need for governance, arbitration, enforcement, etc., not to mention the greedy ones who want to control the resources, and the systems that others want to put in place to curb such abuses.

And someone has to haul the garbage away and clean the latrines. Not all necessary work is meaningful; some of it is menial.

So it’s Morlocks, even if not amoral troglodytes who literally eat your flesh by night.

Schroedes13's avatar

I have a very dark view of human nature. As we’ve seen through countless historical events, humans are generally selfish. They will Do everything in their power to make sure they are satisfied, even if that is to the detriment of others. That is the reason pure Marxism could never work!

Hobbes's avatar

@Jeruba

Well, the creation of these things, like anything, takes work and energy. But compared to the work and energy output of the planet at the moment, what is required to feed, shelter, and provide medicine to everyone is tiny. I think it is possible to create infrastructure that is proportional to need and which doesn’t destabilize the planetary ecosystem.

All this does need to be organized, and I think some form of direct democracy might actually be feasible if it was focused just on providing people with the necessities of life.

But I think that if we can figure out a way to give everyone all these things, we won’t need Morlocks to run anything else. If people don’t have to worry about putting food on the table or paying medical bills, they are free to do anything they want, so long as they don’t harm people or destabilize the ecosystem.

Of course, some people will cause harm, and there has to be some organization to deal with this. But its focus must be on determining who or what has been harmed and how the damage can be best repaired, rather than on punishment. I do not think punishment and retribution have ever improved a single person’s life.

Hobbes's avatar

@Schroedes13

There has been an unimaginable amount of suffering since life began. Most of the suffering humans experience is directly or indirectly caused by other humans. However, humans also show and experience compassion, community, and love all the time. It tends to not get on the news as much, though.

Schroedes13's avatar

@Hobbes I believe that negative/selfish actions of humans far outweigh the positive/altruistic ones! I’m a history major and I know that, even though the “decent” events are not always shown, man seems to only look out for himself, family, or tribe/clan.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@Schroedes13 That’s the problem with history: we’ve only been recording it for a few thousand years. Even then, though, the amount of historical evidence showing cultures like @Hobbes describes far outweighs the empires.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@Jeruba Some people just shouldn’t live in some areas. It’s stupid to have so many people in Las Vegas, for instance. But even so, permaculture experts like Geoff Lawton have shown that highly productive food forests can be grown even in deserts. Many deserts we have no are the result of monocrop agriculture in the past; Iraq used to be covered in cedar forests so thick light never touched the ground, until farmers came and brought their way in by force. We don’t need infrastructure, we need localized food movements.

Schroedes13's avatar

@incendiary_dan What kind of historical evidence are you suggesting?

Hobbes's avatar

@Schroedes13 – I think how and to what degree each tendency manifests is different for different people, but all people contain the capacity for both.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@Schroedes13 I mean mostly ethnographic accounts and oral histories from egalitarian hunting-gathering-gardening peoples. We see almost without exception that these cultures operate on direct democracy, gift economies, and do not require the exploitation of their neighbors.

Schroedes13's avatar

@Hobbes, I agree that people are given both traits, but that human nature causes them to lean more towards whatever will benefit them the most. It’s the concept that one of the main reasons that humans don’t do commit more illegal/selfish acts is because of the consequences. If a human were given the opportunity to act with no consequence, it is only a matter of time before they would act for their own good. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

incendiary_dan's avatar

@Schroedes13 Healthy societies like the ones I mention maintain relative stability and peace primarily by recognizing that humans are both self-interested and altruistic, and by making those two the same. This is done in large part through the gift economies I mentioned, as well as close-knit groups and traditions reinforcing group benefit. In many cases, this is extend outwards to the non-human neighbors.

Schroedes13's avatar

@incendiary_dan Any concrete examples? There are many hunter/gatherer/pastoral/agricultural societies that still would build settlements with walls and would still use their farming tools as weapons because of outside attack. Or they would often raid other settlements for provisions they themselves could not produce, such as wives! Even though there are case studies societies like this, doesn’t mean that it is a common human trait.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@Schroedes13 You’ve right off the bat started talking about something else. I refer to hunting-gathering-gardening peoples specifically as separate from agriculturalists, because these traits I discuss of mutual aid and direct democracy are specific to them and nearly universal. Agriculturalism is the root of empire. The Mbuti and San are great present day examples, and even the Haudenosaunee maintain their confederacy despite Western intrusion. The Yanomamo likewise offer a classic example. The examples are numerous and support what I’ve said above: the normative behavior for humanity is not exploitation and systemic violence. Before 10,000 years ago or so, humans by-and-large maintained high standards of living without exploiting others or the land they lived on. If we were instinctively violent, rather than conditioned to do so, our species would not last. It’s impossible for a species with long reproductive lag and which almost always produces only one offspring to be instinctively violent towards one another.

Hobbes's avatar

@Schroedes – I wouldn’t be so quick to say what “human nature” does or does not do. Humans are extraordinarily complex beings, and even the most horrendous of people had positive qualities.

ninjacolin's avatar

I think that utopia is being built. It just takes time.
There’s overwhelming evidence that the world is actually a more “humane” place to live for humans and animals alike than ever in history. It seems clear that we will continue to add to that level of goodness. It just sucks that getting to where we are now has cost us so much and the earth and the environment are in peril just as we’re starting to pick up moral speed in the way we all behave.

Poverty, famine, environmental collapse.. these are the problems we’ve inherited from our less moral past. Our future moral selves must resolve these issues because there isn’t really anything else to do.

Schroedes13's avatar

@incendiary_dan Sorry for the assumption! My bad. After reading this article, I have noticed that the author does leave out some pretty key points/situations. Like what would have happened if man had continued in small groups of hunter/gatherer/gardener societies and the population began to reach a critical mass for the area?

Also, I wish there were some references for this article,especially when it gets into the anatomical/scientific results of experiments and studies.

The only point you make, Dan, is that human’s usually produce one offspring? That is most clearly false.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@ninjacolin Can you direct me to some of that “overwhelming evidence”? Because I’m continually bombarded with techno-utopianist “evidence” that routinely overlooks massive environmental and human costs. Jevons Paradox in particular is often overlooked.

@Schroedes13 You’re right, the author did leave that out. I forget that you’re relatively new here, and therefore haven’t received my lectures posts about indigneous family planning; every hunting-gather-gardening culture that has existed has engaged in birth control and family planning to keep their populations steady. It’s an essential social and medical technology for humans. In North America alone, over 250 plants have been used traditionally (often in combinations) to plan pregnancies. This goes hand in hand with sexual egalitarianism, in that hunting-gathering-gardening women make their own decisions, whereas in agricultural societies women almost always lose a significant amount of self-determination.

But you’re right, I mistyped. I meant one offspring per pregnancy. The point stands, though, in terms of survivability of a species.

Further important reading on the subject, when you have a week to spare. :P

Schroedes13's avatar

@incediary_dan Ya, I am fairly new. I have yet to figure out the regulars likes/dislikes/fields of study!

I would like to read that, but I can’t open it on my work computer. I’ll start reading it when I get some time after work.

I would go so far as to state that the pastoralist/agriculturalist social ideal of a big family=more workers=more produce has been one of the most destructive concepts to affect humanity in a long time!

incendiary_dan's avatar

“Hi, my name is Dan. I’m a recovering anthropologist.” :P

Schroedes13's avatar

LOL @ recovering anthopologist! I’m Kyle and I am fascinated by anything relating to military history! That may be why my view of human nature is skewed!

YARNLADY's avatar

I am totally in favor of that society. To provide that goal, the entire society needs to be of one mind. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” would be a perfect slogan. It has been besmirched because it was widely publicized by Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program The writings of Morelly describe a mechanism to accomplish this.

I know of a modern society that is currently living this life style, but they are very few in number.

atlantis's avatar

It’s a decade into the millennium and the world has crossed over to 7 billion inhabitants. Over 1 billion are starving, hundreds of millions die from it each year. Women do two-thirds of the world’s work but are only paid one-third of it’s value. If you can fluther, you belong to the top ten percent of the world in terms of “wealth”.

Fact to ponder; seven billion is not that big a number. The entire population of the world can stand shoulder to shoulder and only fill up the city of Los Angeles.

The key is equitable distribution of wealth across the human race. We’re not under threat of extinction by either global warming or nuclear war due to mere prevalence. We are under threat due to our very human imperfections. Whatever civilisation or societal structure we evolve for ourselves, it will fail and falter by our very hands. As a favourite author puts it, ”... human intelligence, undone by human nature…”

Up until the time when the human skin has evened out to a medium tan regardless of the region of habitation, I don’t see any silver lining indicating a balanced, just, utopia is over the horizon.

LostInParadise's avatar

Our current lifestyle is unsustainable, but few are willing to give it up. What would you be willing to sacrifice to attain your dream? Would you be willing to give up air conditioning and live in a smaller home? How far would you be willing to lower the thermostat in winter? Would you be willing to part with your car? What home appliances would you be willing to forsake? Going native sounds romantic until you realize how much would have to be sacrificed.

Schroedes13's avatar

I personally think 7 billion is a big number!

atlantis's avatar

@Schroedes13 I stand corrected. Large number but not a large number of humans by far.

Schroedes13's avatar

@atlantis Sorry, wasn’t trying to correct you! I just think it’s a big number. I also think it’s a large number of humans when one looks at the material/produce we use on a daily/weekly/yearly basis!

woodcutter's avatar

Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.
We have to start from nothing again for this utopia to be practical which means we need to do something very bad to ourselves and everything around us first. This puts everyone on the same level, a reboot.
But out of the ashes leaders rise up.
And here we go again.

atlantis's avatar

@Schroedes13 More critically, the rigorously hidden fact that a small minority is reaping unaccounted resources and producing waste or wasting, all the while a majority is left to suffer at the mercy of circumstances.

Schroedes13's avatar

@atlantis Oh it’s true. But even when you take that wealth away from them and distribute it, there is still going to be some sacrifices from the middle class such as myself. And, in all seriousness, I don’t know how much I’d be willing to sacrifice!

Hobbes's avatar

@woodcutter – I think it’s still possible for us to gently transition, but it seems more likely that the whole system will crash first.

atlantis's avatar

@Schroedes13 The current situation does not require “sacrifices” from anyone. It needs to be re-calibrated so that there is greater transparency about the system itself. Over 70% of the students enrolled in elite ivy league schools are there because of their family background and bank balance.

The system is very heavily entrenched even down to academia so that they “educate” with their own objectives in mind.

The problems of the world are not hard to solve. By far. Most of the time they just lack political will to resolve them. And political will is exercised by the individuals who elect their leadership. These individuals are given a false sense of diversity in opinion all the while being manipulated by Orwellian designs and scripts ingrained in them by “education”.

Yes the system will crash but it won’t be with abrupt violence or coercion of any sort.

Jeruba's avatar

@Hobbes,
> If people don’t have to worry about putting food on the table or paying medical bills, they are free to do anything they want

I still wonder how you think these things would be delivered. A “world where anyone will receive medicine and care” implies a world where we still have people practicing medicine and manufacturing pharmaceuticals, medical equipment and supplies, etc., administering ancillary care, maintaining records, etc. Those are all jobs. People who are doing them are going to work and fulfilling responsibilities on a schedule and according to some standard of quality. They are not “free to do anything they want.” They are part of an infrastructure: an infrastructure that also requires raw materials, transport, storage, etc., etc. And menial labor.

Shall the people with those jobs go to work every day while I loll about doing as I please? What if they want to loll about? And should they receive a bigger share of communal amenities than I get, in return for their services, or what’s their motivation? Don’t tell me they’re working under duress while everyone else is free to do anything they want.

How will these people receive their training? And how will the trainers be compensated? What if they want to loll about doing as they please instead of providing education? And will someone assess the outcome of the education and certify that the graduates are qualified to provide the medicine and care to which all are entitled?

Unless we go back to a village structure (and even then there are chieftains, politics, competition for resources, etc.) and a subsistence standard of communal survival, we still end up with Morlocks and Eloi. That’s unless everybody puts in a share of the labor, in which case there are only Morlocks, no Eloi: pretty much the workforce we have now. Only the children, the retired, and (if the society is a humane one) the unable are free to do anything they want, as long as it’s within their means.

And, of course, those who have gained enough control of enough resources through the inevitable built-in inequities to enjoy Eloi privileges at the expense of others’ labor.

Even if we did a complete reset, how could we make it turn out differently next time?

I think your dream is lovely but does not take ordinary realities into account.

ninjacolin's avatar

@incendiary_dan asked: Can you direct me to some of that “overwhelming evidence”?

the rise of democracy, the abolishment of slavery in the west, the growing demand for and (finally) the production of electric automobiles, the vindication of wikileaks, the abolishment of small pox, to name just a few.. There’s a system in place, dan, and while simplified it is no less true that: First we get a challenge, we think about it, then we face and defeat those challenges. That’s just how the world works. See history for more examples. :)

Hell, the invention of TED is one of the world’s greatest accomplishments. I’m sure you’re aware of some of these absolutely amazing and hugely relevant videos, right?

The Myth of Violence – Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species’ existence.

Hans Rosling’s new insights on poverty – Researcher Hans Rosling uses his cool data tools to show how countries are pulling themselves out of poverty. He demos Dollar Street, comparing households of varying income levels worldwide. Then he does something really amazing.

Hans Rosling’s Series of Statistical Videos – You absolutely MUST watch all of these. Clear as day documentation of how the world is improving over time becoming more humane, more fair..

The human track record has so much good to it. Ignoring the good doesn’t do anyone any favors. The spread of pessimism has to stop.

ninjacolin's avatar

“Jevons Paradox in particular is often overlooked” – First time I’ve heard this paradox expressed so clearly. The fact that we have that documented shows that we humans are aware of it. It takes awareness for us to begin to deal with a problem. Based on the way everything else in the world tends to get fixed, I’m confident that with continued awareness of this issue technological developers will seek and find ways to deal with it head on.

As I suggested above, humans HAVE TO fix the problems they believe exist especially the ones that seem imminently destructive. All it takes is awareness.

Here’s another relevant gooder from ted:
The danger of science denial – Vaccine-autism claims, “Frankenfood” bans, the herbal cure craze: All point to the public’s growing fear (and, often, outright denial) of science and reason, says Michael Specter. He warns the trend spells disaster for human progress.

rooeytoo's avatar

I always get a kick out of the fact that conversations of this sort are being held on the internet. Which requires computers, made out of lots of pieces the manufacture of which pollutes the atmosphere and needs petroleum to make the plastic parts. They need electricity to run, unless you have a solar powered one and live in a sunny place.

I don’t want to give up my electricity, my computer, my car, my scooter, my house made out of cut down trees, my television. I like eating food from the supermarket. I have a little garden but it needs to be watered a lot in the dry and I wouldn’t have time to go to work if I had to grow all of my food.

And someone has to work to pay the taxes that are going to fund this utopia.

mattbrowne's avatar

Yes, right now the world economy is focused on giving a few what they want instead of giving everyone what they need. Therefore we need to change the way the world economy operates.

Here’s a utopian speech Barack Obama could deliver in February 2013 after his reelection. Can you guess who wrote his speech without using Google? I think it’s a great speech.

Fellow Citizens: My administration came to office with a mandate for bold action at a time when our most powerful economic institutions had clearly failed us. They crippled our economy; burdened governments with debilitating debts; corrupted our political institutions; and threatened the destruction of the natural environment on which our very lives depend. The failure can be traced directly to an elitist economic ideology that says if government favors the financial interests of the rich to the disregard of all else, everyone will benefit and the nation will prosper. A thirty-year experiment with trickle-down economics that favored the interests of Wall Street speculators over the hardworking people and businesses of Main Street has proved it doesn’t work. We have no more time or resources to devote to fixing a system based on false values and a discredited ideology. We must now come together to create the institutions of a new economy based on a values-based pragmatism that recognizes a simple truth: If the world is to work for any of us, it must work for all of us. Corrective action begins with recognition that our economic crisis is, at its core, a moral crisis. Our economic institutions and rules, even the indicators by which we measure economic performance, consistently place financial values ahead of life values.

We have been measuring economic performance against GDP, or gross domestic product, which essentially measures the rate at which money and resources are flowing through the economy. Let us henceforth measure economic performance by the indicators of what we really want: the health and well-being of our children, families, communities, and the natural environment. Like a healthy ecosystem, a healthy twenty-first-century economy must have strong local roots and maximize the beneficial capture, storage, sharing, and use of local energy, water, and mineral resources. That is what we must seek to achieve, community by community, all across this nation, by unleashing the creative energies of our people and our local governments, businesses, and civic organizations. We will strive for local and national food independence by rebuilding our local food systems based on family farms and environmentally friendly farming methods that rebuild the soil, maximize yields per acre, minimize the use of toxic chemicals, and create opportunities for the many young people who are returning to the land.

We will strive for energy independence by supporting local entrepreneurs who are creating local businesses to retrofit our buildings and develop and apply renewable-energy technologies. It is a basic principle of market theory that trade relations between nations should be balanced. So-called free trade agreements have hollowed out our national industrial capacity, mortgaged our future to foreign creditors, and created global financial instability. We will take steps to assure that our future trade relations are balanced and fair as we engage in the difficult but essential work of learning to live within our own means. We will rebuild our national infrastructure around a model of walkable, bicycle-friendly communities with efficient public transportation to conserve energy, nurture the relationships of community, and recover our farm and forest lands. A strong middle-class society is an American ideal. Our past embodiment of that ideal made us the envy of the world. We will act to restore that ideal by rebalancing the distribution of wealth. Necessary and appropriate steps will be taken to assure access by every person to quality health care, education, and other essential services, and to restore progressive taxation, as well as progressive wage and benefit rules, to protect working people.

We will seek to create a true ownership society in which all people have the opportunity to own their homes and to have an ownership stake in the enterprise on which their livelihood depends. Our economic policies will favor responsible local ownership of local enterprises by people who have a stake in the health of their local communities and economies. The possibilities include locally owned family businesses, cooperatives, and the many other forms of community- or worker-owned enterprises. We will act to render Wall Street’s casino-like operations unprofitable. We will impose a transactions tax, require responsible capital ratios, and impose a surcharge on short-term capital gains. We will make it illegal for people and corporations to sell or insure assets that they do not own or in which they do not have a direct material interest.

To meet the financial needs of the new twenty-first-century Main Street economy, we will reverse the process of mergers and acquisitions that created the current concentration of banking power. We will restore the previous system of federally regulated community banks that are locally owned and managed and that fulfill the classic textbook banking function of serving as financial intermediaries between local people looking to secure a modest interest return on their savings and local people who need a loan to buy a home or finance a business. And last, but not least, we will implement an orderly process of monetary reform. Most people believe that our government creates money. That is a fiction. Private banks create virtually all the money in circulation when they issue a loan at interest. The money is created by making a simple accounting entry with a few computer keystrokes. That is all money really is, an accounting entry. My administration will act immediately to begin an orderly transition from our present system of bank-issued debt money to a system by which money is issued by the federal government. We will use the government-issued money to fund economic-stimulus projects that build the physical and social infrastructure of a twenty-first-century economy, being careful to remain consistent with our commitment to contain inflation.

To this end I have instructed the treasury secretary to take immediate action to assume control of the Federal Reserve and begin a process of monetizing the federal debt. He will have a mandate to stabilize the money supply, contain housing and stock market bubbles, discourage speculation, and assure the availability of credit on fair and affordable terms to eligible Main Street borrowers. By recommitting ourselves to the founding ideals of this great nation, focusing on our possibilities, and liberating ourselves from failed ideas and institutions, together we can create a stronger, better nation. We can secure a fulfilling life for every person and honor the premise of the Declaration of Independence that every individual is endowed with an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No government on its own can resolve the problems facing our nation, but together we can and will resolve them. I call on every American to join with me in rebuilding our nation by acting to strengthen our families, our communities, and our natural environment; to secure the future of our children; and to restore our leadership position and reputation in the community of nations. Previous administrations favored Wall Street, but the policies of this administration henceforth will favor the people and businesses of Main Street—people who are working to rebuild our local communities, restore the middle class, and bring our natural environment back to health.

I love this speech. It could make your utopian dream come true, @Hobbes.

incendiary_dan's avatar

Haven’t had time to catch up, but I was thinking everyone might be interested in this speech by Toby Hemenway about why permaculture can save the Earth and humanity, but not civilization.

Hobbes's avatar

@Jeruba

I realize now that I left out a crucial word. I should have said “people would be free to do whatever else they wanted”. Work would have to be done, energy expended, things would have to be organized for everyone to get all those things I mentioned. What I meant was that if we could come up with a system for providing these things to everyone which doesn’t destabilize the planet and doesn’t exploit people, everyone who took part in that system could spend the rest of their time doing whatever they wanted, because they wouldn’t need to worry about going hungry or having a roof over their heads.

@rooeytoo

I appreciate the irony. It’s been pointed out to me before whenever I espouse these views over the internet. I have said before (in this thread I believe) that I love the internet in many ways and want to see it stay. However we must find a way to sustain it, and create the other things we love so much that doesn’t rely on the model of infinite growth through continually increasing exploitation of resources, because that model is destroying everything.

Jeruba's avatar

That is a huge difference, @Hobbes. But more than a one-word change is needed:

… some form of direct democracy might actually be feasible if it was focused just on providing people with the necessities of life

… if we can figure out a way to give everyone all these things…

It sure sounds as if your model involved free handouts. It suggests nothing about making sure people who work for these things can obtain them at a reasonable rate of return (or what happens when they don’t work, or what happens when A and B both work but B appears to enjoy better rewards, and so on). Your language throughout your description of your dream appears to describe a free-ride Eden.

Aren’t those of us who enjoy first-world conditions now free to “spend the rest of their time [after work] doing whatever they wanted, because they [don’t] need to worry about going hungry or having a roof over their heads”—at least until we get laid off and our investments tank? I’m not sure I see how unburdened leisure is the key to planetary relief.

Jeruba's avatar

I’ll wait for the link, @mattbrowne. Can’t read wall-to-wall fine print.

Hobbes's avatar

@Jeruba

Work has to be done in order to produce these things, I recognize that. They don’t appear magically from nowhere. But what I’m saying is that compared to the total of work done on the planet today, the amount needed to feed everyone, to produce shelter and medicine is actually very small. I believe that people are willing to work if they see a need and a reason, and I think the reason would be that everyone would benefit from guaranteed food, shelter, and medicine.

This needs to be organized, to deal with problems that will inevitably crop up, such as the one you mentioned. But I believe that something similar to direct democracy could actually work in this case if its purpose was focused on food, shelter, and medicine production. I believe this because these things directly affect local communities, so those communities would be able to make informed decisions about how best to organize.

“those of us who enjoy first-world condition”

Part of my argument is that these conditions cannot last, because they are built on an unsustainable system. I’m saying that we have to figure out a way to provide such stability to everyone and in a way that doesn’t undermine our future ability to provide it.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther