View source for Utopia

{{freeessay|technology|utopia|}}{{D|Utopia|/juːˈtoʊpiə/|n|}}The [[apocalypse]], if you’re the sort of person who sees the glass half-full. The [[singularity]]. [[Nirvana]].

Personally, I’m a cynic, and I think it sounds ghastly. I rather like the sound of the [[apocalypse]], on the other hand: the grim contemplation of what’s coming to me is swamped by the happy thoughts that so many other odious people are going to get what's coming to them.

===Thomas More’s utopia===
Doesn’t actually sound like a lot of fun, .
*No private property and no locks on doors
*Houses are rotated between citizens every ten years
*Everyone must work at one of the essential trades (weaving, carpentry, smithing and masonry), and is sent out to farm for two years at a time, but the (mandatory) working day is six hours long (but feel free to work for longer).
*Educated people get to be ruling officials and priests and they get the best food.
*Every house has two slaves (captured from other countries or domestic criminals)
*Hospitals are free, euthanasia is allowed, pre-marital sex is not allowed, and the punishment for adultery is enslavement.
*Everyone must carry an internal id card at all times, on pain of enslavement.
*There are no lawyers! Law is simple and everyone is expected to be in no doubt as to right and wrong.
*Privacy is discouraged, seeing as if you can see everyone, they are obliged to behave well.
===Utopia vs Dystopia===
Note how, even ion Thomas More’s original vision, plainly utopia can resemble dystopia they tend to converge.
==Key concepts==
===Tragedy of the commons: infinite demand, limited supply ===
Demand is personal 
===Complex systems===

===Working definition===
Actual utopian visions tend to be very vague and light on specifics. We can state general principals easily enough, but if we put too much detail around them, they quickly start to self-contradict, or start to resemble ''dystopia''.

===Simplistic/simply stated===
It needs to be a simply-stated quick fix. It needs to be sellable, graspable and, in broad strokes imaginable from a a great height — if it requires detailed understanding or sophisticated/nuanced exegesis then it will evaporate. 

===Plausibly unreachable===
A large portion of “adherents” need to be able to support and believe in it without having to ''experience'' it or deal with it. So utopias that you can ''never'' get to, or that there are ''practically'' insurmountable barriers to achieving are sociologically powerful. Paradise after death, the promised land , pure free market economics, arguably even pure Communism (there is an argument that mid 20th century Communism was not ''true'' Communism, so can't be blamed on it, but it may have been an system effect — ie an inevitable consequence over time of even a pure implementation of Communism)

Singularity/Simulation hypothesis: enough processing power. (It is coming!)

Also excuses as to why it hasn't yet emerged or how it has been frustrated.

===Forbearance===
Attaining the utopian state may include an appeal to forbearance/sacrifice/restraint/counter-incentivistic behaviour now — particularly based on simplistic principles — leads to a state of bliss ''for everyone'' later.

If they have a moral angle, or there is a ticket to be earned.

These are quasi religious utopias. Actual religions, actually, effective altruism 

What does this state of bliss look like? Quickly becomes incoherent: an aspiration for equality, diversity and fair treatment for the disenfranchised runs into problems because you have to define diversity in a way which means there can be no difference of opinion, because if there is, then there can be no utopia.

It also implies all challenges have been overcome, all mysteries solved, all differences of opinion resolved. which implies also that all literature is written, all scientific discoveries complete. But a utopian state is one in which we are free to explore the cosmos and discover these things. A world in which all things are resolved is suboptimally ''dull''.

Someone will be dissatisfied with the utopian state. It therefore either leads to a uniform kind of dystopia, or an elusive state we can never quite get to.
===Narratisability===
Even non-religious ones will tend to converge on existing archetypes, mythologies, stories we already know. These help us imagine a hypothetical utopian/dystopian state.

So Skynet/The Matrix are handy archetypes for ai utopianism.
===Stable===
Utopias are, within themselves, internally stable, equilibrium states. They don't develop: they are a (local) maximum optimum so any developments is logically a retrograde step.

Partial utopia is at least vulnerable to attacks from outside, total utopia is not: it is necessarily an end state. This I think makes it a simple and not a complex system. It cannot reorganize itself to reveal a higher local maximum elsewhere. This also implies a degree of transcendental knowledge stop for estates to be stable, all participants in the state need to accept that it is optimal full stop in order to do that they must have some knowledge beyond the system itself or alternatively a means of engineering society white consensus in the absence of such knowledge comma for example faith.


A utopia must be more than simply The aspiration for better than what we have now.
===Partial utopia===
There is a strain of utopianism which provides an ideal world only for a preferred segment of society. Indeed, Thomas Moore's original utopia was like this. 

This kind of utopia at least solves the logical conundrum of being unable to appeal to everyone come up but strikes me as being a basic form of factionalism which can only really survive if the utopian group is dominant and therefore can oppress other groups. This doesn't feel particularly utopian to me, and his in any case still left with the conceptual problem that once the non-eutopian segment has been enslaved, repressed or destroyed then the section left will still have to deal with the imbalance of supply and demand and the regular differences of opinion that we can expect to rise up in any diverse community.
===Path dependency and utopia===
We tend to imagine our utopia submitted with the accoutrements and mod cons of our non utopian existence. But does importing the imperfect gadgets of our here and now somehow taint the paradise? Is this like drugs and licentiousness in a holy afterlife?  What did it say that devices forged to suit unsaintly tastes in times of imperfection have a row in heaven? Could that have evolved otherwise? Perhaps the accretive convergence on virtue answers this.
===Diversity and utopia===
Oddly, any kind of diversity which, at first impression, you might think would be a necessary condition for youtopia is in fact in the inimical to it. Utopia requires as a minimum a complete consensus as to the conditions of utopia which is anything but diverse.
==Utopia versus dystopia==
A dystopia is just a utopia for pessimists. It is a stable dark inversion of utopia 
===Solutions to these logical conundrums===
====Delayed gratification: “dangletopia” ====
Utopia ''later'' as a justification for permanent [[asceticism]] ''now'':

The utopia is to come at a point unfalsifiably distant so that our own status is a necessary transitional state of purgatorial ''subutopia'' — progressing haphazardly towards a utopia we will never personally see, but our nearest and dearest will. This is the monomyth of Moses leading the children of Israel to the promised land.

The appeal of delayed utopia is that we don’t have to think too hard about what it would be like and don’t really have to confront the conundrums: how boring it would be, and in fact how unpleasant if you have to cleave perpetually to the same moral abstentions you have manfully tolerated through your subutopian existence. Or you don’t, in which case it is all a bit hypocritical. If you can have 72 virgins later, why not now?

Dangletopian visions that use this ruse:
*Religions promising afterlife paradise for those who have behaved themselves.
*Effective altruism, which says we are preparing for a utopian for our distant descendants which we will never see ... and which when they get to it, our distant descendants will be preparing for their distant descendants and so on. 

===Nearly utopia===
Visions that almost get to utopia but don't quite, or don't manage the stable equilibrium to last (so all ''past'' utopias)
====Let’s run it and see====
Let’s try it out and see how it goes. Generally, badly, as the icy, atmospheric principles collide with the earthy urges of basic self-interest. 

'''Collapse to dystopia''': Where the community of interest is strong, the vision involves centralising,and the enemy is a well-identified unitary group — the bourgeoisie, intellectuals, certain minority interest groups — such that the power structures are strong enough to head off internecine fighting, these generally turn into totalitarian dystopias:
*Fascism
*Communism
 
'''Collapse into squabbling''': Alternatively, the community of interest is too weak, and the “enemy” is not tightly enough defined, and the whole thing breaks down into squabbling and resentment. This is where identity politics is going (the aligned groups are discovering they don’t really have much of a common interest at all, and the “enemy” is a bit too homogenous and ill-defined, and its figureheads are too well-organised and funded.
*Identity politics
*Intersectionality etc

'''Collapse into pragmatism''': The community of interest is loose, decentralised and not guided, or the principles involve decentralising, meaning there is no particular enemy, there is nothing to stop people “defecting” and forming groups with common interests. This leads to pragamatic rules to manage that, and the utopian state never arises.
*laissez-faire capitalism

Ideas of progress:
* Directed: we are going towards something, converging on a final truth, singularity, resolution. Presumes there is a “something”, and it already exists, and could have been articulated from the beginning of the universe; we just haven’t found it/don’t know it yet. Progress is a process of gradual ''revelation''. But this directedness
** implies some kind of intentionality on the part of the universe as a whole which is theistic. 
**contradicts basic known rules about entropy, in that it implies a world moving from disorder to order.
**Seems strikingly inefficient. Why isn’t the universe in a state of singularity already, and it isn’t what grounds do we have for thinking it will naturally converge on one, without a directed hand moving it along.
*Undirected: we are moving away from an imperfect history, or to adjust to unexpected changes in the environment. Progress is a process of ''adjustment''.
===Path-dependency of design space and perspective chauvisnism===
What would “undirected progress” look like? Wittgenstein’s pithy question cited by analytical philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe:
{{quote|He once greeted me with the question: “Why do people say that it was natural to think that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth turned on its axis?” I replied: “I suppose, because it looked as if the sun went round the earth.” “Well,” he asked, “what would it have looked like if it had ''looked'' as if the earth turned on its axis?”
:—G. E. M. Anscombe, ''An Introduction To Wittgenstein’s Tractatus'' (1959)}}

===Collisions with reality===
Having something to complain about is relative, not absolute: people will always find something that is unsatisfactory. This is indeed the driver for pragmatic undirected progress, but a problem for utopia, because we have to imagine a point where those with grievances concede they are settled, and no further claim is due.

*CF Graeber: the very thing that keeps a society together is that sense of mutual indebtedness. discharging all obligations gives the community less communal obligation.
*this obliges people to give up their position of influence/authority in the power structure. If you are the principal lobbyist for interest group X and you accept your cause has been resolved then you should have no option but to disband. But this isn't what people do: ''they find other things to agitate about''.

converging on a uniform state of bliss is necessarily intolerant because the interest of accelerating towards the state of utopia means suppressing “misguided” opinions that distract from that quest.
==='''Any''' convergence/directed progress theory is utopian===
If we are converging on truth then there is a point where we will get there. And our advancing computer power means it is advancing ever more quickly. This is the implications of the singularity. But once we are there then —?
===Examples of utopian visions===
*[[Religion]]s that offer a post-mortem heaven or paradise — call these “dangletopian” programmes.
*[[Communism]] and [[Fascism]]: the big ideas to replace the death of God
*[[Modernism]] and [[high-modernism]]
*[Laissez-faire capitalism]] — in the sense of pure, no rules, no government intervention whatsoever
*[[Bitcoin]] maximalism
*[[Effective altruism]] — also dangletopian
*[[Artificial intelligence]]
*[[Singularity]]
*[[The end of history]] — Fukuyama


{{sa}}
*[[Omega]]

{{draft}}
{{egg}}