similarminds.com

[ghost-logic]

Me and my friend have different outlooks on Utopia. I personaly believe that you can't have a utopia unless you have commen morals, which not everyone has. So, describe your utopia, your governmental system, political stuff, or any other specific ideas.

[Two_little_Satans]

Perosnally, I might change my mind on this, but I dont like the idea of a utopia at all.
I think it would be boring to have no chaos, no danger, etc. It would be kind of like pleasantville.
_________________
4w5 INFP

[invicta]

While arguing the reasoning against declaring one's self a member of any political party, (debate) I came to the realization that there can never be a utopia as long as there are people living in it.

This quote illustrates the concept rather well:

"It's no joke being mugged, having your place turned over or your car nicked. And if you're old, on the dole or have got sod all anyway, having what little you've got nicked from you is doubly gutting.
People who do this kind of anti-social activity are idiots and should be treated as such. We have no time for those who terrorise their own community, their own class....
Now don't misunderstand us, we are all for crime when it betters our communities, like the selling on of stolen goods that people couldn't otherwise afford, and the like.... {However} muggings, burglaries (especially against our old folk), mindless assaults - it all creates a climate of fear that undermines our communities and allows our rulers to say: "See, look what happens; what we need is a strong government and hard police."
It's clear that the cops won't do anything about stopping anti-social criminals from terrorising the rest of us.
The only way is to do it ourselves, to sort our own problems out: no, it's not easy and there are difficulties with it - but we must take the responsibility and drive anti-social criminals out, or educate them as to what's right, so they understand who the real enemies are."
Class War, No. 58, 1993. P.O.Box 772, Bristol BS99 1EG.

The anarchists themselves are showing the way in which anarchism fails; that many people are just not intelligent or independent enough to keep from making undue burdens of themselves upon other people. They are illustrating the way in which we as people ruin our own utopias with our dependence, selfishness, and desires for power. (The writer of the article is wanting to "educate" the criminals as to who the real enemies are--he is wanting to instill his beliefs on others). So even if there are those than can respect the rights of others, and do not make burdens of themselves with feelings of entitlement, power lust, or envy, those people are the minority.

This is very negative and cynical, I know. I want to respect others as individuals, I want to like them, if I cannot like other humans then I find it difficult to like myself--I'm a human too.

Right, so there's some inconclusive musings on utopia.

[seamonkey420]

Purpose and Existence...


What is our purpose? Why do we exist? The ever classic question that almost every single individual asks him/herself atleast once. But really have we ever really thought about what we do, our lives, our motivations?

I've tried to think of an answer to this question and for the longest time could not think of one. We all have our own, but there must be an underlying common demoninator for us as a whole. Finally, i came to a few conclusions.

Our purpose in life, is to find purpose.
Once we find that purpose, our actions are then influenced and driven by that goal, purpose. But what if we do not ever find our purpose, what then? But that alone, searching for one's purpose, would be fulfilling our purpose. (yea, a bit out there! )

And while I'm in a random thoughts mood...


i have a very hard time, at times, of grasping the idea of infinity. Thinking about something that is never ending is hard for me at times. But finally I realized a way to grasp the concept.

Thought is infinite.


hehe.. sorry if none of that made any sense at all..

peace
seamonkey420

"knowledge is power, spread the power"
http://seamonkey420.tech-recipes.com

[jacknife]

Utopia is a logical, linguistic and semantical impossibility - Vagabond should've told you that.

U - topia. Greek: No - place. <_<

[kesa82]

Well, I kinda feal like the dummy here, but this is one of my favorite , pet, topics , so I can't resist !
Perhaps I mispercieve, but it seems to me that almost everyone assumes that Homo Sapiens represents the final word in evolution, I don't see that that necessarily follows.
Assuming that we don't take it apon ourselves to commit suicide for the whole, granted, while I have no idea how it would come about, and assuming forward progression ( admittedly some big " ifs" there. ) we could optomistically project that we will be replaced by a superior species ( granted , " superior " is a subjective term ) in the same way that we replaced Neanderthals. Granted, that still might not mean utopia per- se, but heck, to say that an American millionaire is better off than a street urchin in Sudan is subjective too. I will go out on a limb so far as to proffer one more speculation; I think a "superior" species might be sexless or unisexual. I have oft been given to think, I might be wrong, that Communism might very well work; if there were no sexes. The Shaker's apparently seemed to think so. Hey, I enjoy sex as much as the next deviant, but you have to admit, it's caused more pain and suffering than war. Just trot down to the jail and ask a pedophile.

[the_woodman]

I'm goin to have to agree with the topic poster on this. You can't have a Utopia. People as a whole could only eliminate conflict by having identical morals and ideals. If everyone were to have identical ideals such as everyone believed that Captialism or Communism or Socialism or one of any other govermental types was the only possible one then soceity would stagnate. "Necessity is the mother of invention." If you eliminate necessity then invention cannot occur. Of course this is all extreme seeing as how you would first have to unify diverse people. I am not saying that this impossible, but you would only have to apply a slight pressure from an outside idea or moral concept to send the entire Utopia in a downward sprial. That is of course just my view. I am open to criticism.

[PiccoloNamek]

In semi-seriousness, for me, a "utopia" would be a land with no extroverts whatsoever, and everybody would have an IQ of at least 120. In such a place, there would be no war, and little crime, I believe. A safe haven for the calm, quiet people of the world, free from the inane demands of the extroverted majority. People who would rather sit quietly and think than compete for social dominance.

Here, take a look at these:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/firemelon.html
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/firejumper.html

Those are extrovert sorts of tricks. Even a less intelligent introvert wouldn't be caught dead doing things like that. People like that would rather act, and then think about it, than think about it before acting. Sometimes, they just don't think at all. And that is why society is so chaotic and hateful.

[Mother]

With regard to this topic, as a new participant in a forum of this nature, I would like to point out that Utopia is merely a state of mind, there is no actual physical place where everyone lives by their own rules etc. To enable Utopia to exist one only has to have an attitude that is completely objective and non-judgemental. If you consider the environment that you already exist in, you will probably recognise areas of Utopia. "Whatever lights your candle" or "whatever floats your boat", "one mans wine is another mans water" and a whole host of other analogies, would suffice to represent the status quo. Ultimately the word Utopia exists only as a state of mind, a level at which any enlightened person can achieve with a little horizon widening and perspective stretching.

[dagleykb]

Before giving my view on a "utopia" I would like to respond to a few of your posts.

PiccoloNamek: My response "No." I believe (keeping in mind this is just another opinion) that any land without extroverts would never be devoid of war and crimes. Introverted Idealists and other introverts would still compete for social dominance, even if it is just over ideas. The number of areas for potential disagreement between an INFJ and INTJ alone show that there would be conflicting ideologies that could eventually escalate between a series of even the briefest of contacts. Please don't say that the worlds problems stem primarily from our extrovert population, that introverts are higher on the evolutionary tree or something like that.

I have discovered that all human evil comes from this, man's being unable to sit still in a room.
-Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)

Now don't think that I am trying to bash introverts, rather I am trying to show that we are equally at fault, and that a population of either extroverts or introverts alone would not be free of humanities darker sides.

As for the "inane demands" of an extroverted majority, introverted thoughts can be just as silly and mindless at times (even if it is less frequent). Yet we make up for it by simply not being open enough, not taking action. There may be more introverts out there then you know, we just aren't vocal or expressive enough to reach out to each other, and that is by choice. Being able to react or respond without thought is a gift, just like being able to reflect on consequence before action. Both get the job done. Sure one mode of expression is better suited to different tasks. Politics, and military to me should be thought through because they change the course of lives, whereas those who rush into a burning building to rescue a child without thinking of the consequence is better then someone wasting precious time thinking of a entrance and exit strategy. It seems stupid to us since we are introverted, it seems heroic to others who are extroverted. A matter of opinion again. So what about people jumping over a roaring blaze or whacking a melon bomb with a baseball bat? Besides a bit funny, the seriousness is that this is one of their modes of relieving tension (Yes, extroverts get stressed too!), just like introverts would rather curl up and read a good book or be alone. Extroverts feel their tension bleed off when around others, while I agree even a less intelligent introvert wouldn't be caught dead doing things like that. The truth is they are trying to forget their troubles, like introverts do while reading a book per say. Yes reading a book isn't as dangerous but some extroverts don't think and just do as a means of coping with pressures. How many of you have gotten drunk (introverts and extroverts alike) to escape the mundane problems of everyday life? In essence you aren't thinking when drunk, you aren't in control, then you become more susceptible to stunts like "Mr. Jack be nimble."
These stunts are just a method of escape, like any introvert dwelling in fantasy or an isolationist lifestyle. Both methods are problematic at the best of times. Chaos is the standard in life, it is everywhere my friend, in nature, in the middle of an emergency, the chaos of people walking around a mall is the same as the chaos of galaxies colliding in the heavens. Hate isn't the result of chaos, hate comes from misunderstandings, prejudices, jealousy, etc. Those aren't only found in extroverts, we have a hell of a lot of it too!

We hate some persons because we do not know them; and we will not know them because we hate them.
Charles Caleb Colton (1780 - 1832)

If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.
Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)

[dagleykb]

seamonkey420: I agree in the long run that “Our purpose in life, is to find purpose.� On a similar note my country, Canada, has a sort of identity crisis. In a resent essay I wrote for a history exam I stated: “To outsiders, Canada is a land of snow, hockey, Mounties, wildlife, untamed spaces, maple trees, peacekeepers, Tim Horton doughnut shops, universal health care, Quebec separatism, and friendly, reserved people. Canadians themselves seem perplexed about their cultural identity. The quest for some elusive definition of Canadianness is a national pastime for many of her citizens. The question was: So what does it mean to be a Canadian or to live in Canada? One possible response is: Something essential about Canada, something that those born here and those who immigrate find equally hard to understand and deal with. Canada remains a place without final definition, a place whose inhabitants have not all made a total commitment to its existence, a country that is forever reshaping itself. Even the most passionate beliefs of its citizens change with the generations. But there is no obvious way to organize our society so that every group can feel at home. This means that devising imaginative ways that we can live together, through our constitution or otherwise, is the abiding preoccupation of Canadians involved in public policy.

“What is a Canadian? A Canadian is a fellow wearing English tweeds, a Hong Kong shirt and Spanish shoes, who sips Brazilian coffee sweetened with Philippine sugar from a Bavarian cup while nibbling Swiss cheese, sitting at a Danish desk over a Persian rug, after coming home in a German car from an Italian movie... and then writes his Member of Parliament with a Japanese ballpoint pen on French paper, demanding that he do something about foreigners taking away our Canadian jobs.�
-Anonymous

What I am trying to say is that one of the uniting forces for Canadians is the constant struggle to find a sense of identity amid such diversity. “Our identifying factor, is the search for an identity.�

Now on your second topic: Infinity. Here is one quote by a friend of mine:
x/[infinity symbol] = 0

If infinity is infinitely large then the factor of x over infinity, must also be infinitely small -- yet what is smaller than zero??

On a large enough scale the individual does cease to exist. And yet at the same time it does exist, as perfectly incomprehensibly as the idea of "infinite" itself.

And now if we are to understand that x/infinity is equal to zero, then it stands to reason that x is also equal to anything, ie, x=3=4=992317483750974258728374.

As such, the understanding of our existence is rendered.. irrelevant.

irrelevant=relevant=corndog.
-Daniel H.

[dagleykb]

Running out of time I will post more later.

[PiccoloNamek]

Sure, introverts would have conflicts too, but we'd be much less likely to actually do anything about it... we'd just go home and stew over it. As for introverts being more evolved... I have thought of that from time to time. It sure as hell seems like it, when I walk outside and look at all of the stupid Es doing stupid things. Or maybe it's not that they're Es so much as it is that they're all rednecks.

Ok then. My utopia would be a place where everybody was just like me! Then there really would be no war or crime. I'm a very quiet, gentle person by nature, perfectly content to sit at home and contemplate, never violent, loathe to cause injury (mental or physical) to another person, always rational, always think before acting.

Sure, it would be stagnant, but at least it would be tranquil. Sitting outside under the cherry blossoms, we would all be at peace... yes.

[dagleykb]

jacknife:
U-topia: An ideal place or state. Any vision of a socially and politically perfect society. From Greek roots, it derives its meaning from the words outopia, meaning "no place" and eutopia, meaning " a place where everything is right." In a sense, a utopian land in fiction becomes both a place that never quite existed as it is portrayed and a place where everything seems perfect. It is an imagined world.

kesa82:
I agree that Homo Sapiens are not the end of the Homo evolutionary chain...every species out there is constantly evolving in one way or another, whether they wish to or not! The 5 major factors of a species evolution are 1) Mutation: The ultimate source of variation. Individual mutations occur so rarely that mutation alone isn't a overly large factor. 2) Gene Flow: Different populations of the same species exchange genes. 3) Nonrandom Mating: Like when white moths prefer to breed with other white moths rather then black ones. 4) Genetic Drift: For example a large tsunami wipes out a large amount of one species, now they are reduced to what few genetic combinations survived. 5) Selection: Includes Darwin's idea of Natural Selection, and is the only agent of evolutionary change that stems from a species own adaptations to the environment.

Personally I believe we may create our races own demise within the next century, so we won't notice any change by then, and if we do, well those new individuals will be feared, probably wrongfully prosecuted, and if they aren't careful wiped out.

As for a unisexual species being "superior" that is hard to speculate on, I don't think it would make a whole lot of differences but it is an interesting ideology.

[invicta]

Oh I had a unisex-as-superior discussion on my blog the other day.

I would really miss the dual sexed aspect of life. That's the greatest part about life, it keeps us competing and improving.

Anyway, enjoyment of life aside, most single sexed species end up breeding themselves out of existence because, with a single genome reproducing itself there is no room for adaptation through random mutation.

Besides that, copies of copies have a tendency to suffer serious degradations in quality. Consider that fact along with their being no chance to breed a degradation out of a genome and you have yourself a Darwinic failure.

If anybody hasn't read The Red Queen please allow me to recommend it now.