82,891
edits
Utopia: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
*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. | *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. | ||
====Let’s run it and see==== | ====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. Where the community of interest is strong, and | 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 | *Fascism | ||
*Communism | *Communism | ||
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. | '''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 | |||
| Line 34: | Line 41: | ||
===Examples of utopian visions=== | ===Examples of utopian visions=== | ||
*[[Religion]]s that offer a post-mortem heaven or paradise — call these “dangletopian” programmes. | *[[Religion]]s that offer a post-mortem heaven or paradise — call these “dangletopian” programmes. | ||
*[[Communism]] | *[[Communism]] and [[Fascism]]: the big ideas to replace the death of God | ||
*[[Modernism]] and [[high-modernism]] | *[[Modernism]] and [[high-modernism]] | ||
*[Laissez-faire capitalism]] | *[Laissez-faire capitalism]] — in the sense of pure, no rules, no government intervention whatsoever | ||
*[[Bitcoin]] maximalism | *[[Bitcoin]] maximalism | ||
*[[Effective altruism]] — also dangletopian | *[[Effective altruism]] — also dangletopian | ||
*[[Artificial intelligence]] | *[[Artificial intelligence]] | ||
*[[Singularity]] | *[[Singularity]] | ||
*[[The end of history]] — Fukuyama | |||