Yahoo Answers

This is a cross post of a question I answered in a very long rambling discussion type way.

The question was from a user called "Gay Vegetarian Atheist" the guy clearly likes adjectives.

"If you could create your own society, what kind of society would it be?

Every time I hear this song ==> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXpulL9ZXGU&feature=related

I always think of what it would be like to live in a different society.
Would you like a more advanced or a more in-tune with nature society?
Would you like it to be open minded or open-minded to a certain extent?
How would you and whoever is in your society govern themselves?
Where would you be, in a city or on an island or jungle?
Would you wear things created from nature or no?

List goes on.....I'm curious! Don't forget to listen to the song!"

My answer:

ESSAY TIME!! :) Deep breath, &...GO>>

First of all I should establish some things about me. I disagree with Malthusian views, it has been proven that we escape the trap; I am of the opinion that morality is objective, this doesn't mean I am right but I like to think I am closer than some people; my political & social views are broadly Social Liberal but I do not think this is the absolute solution to everything; I would like my society to be Egalitarian; & I am an atheist, everyone else seems to have mentioned this too.

1) Firstly as I also have transhumanist views I do not think an advanced society & one in-tune with nature is mutually exclusive. I think it is possible to build a massive technologically advanced city without impacting very negatively on the natural environment. In my utopia presumably some cities would be natural spaces, some would be a different aesthetic & exclude nature more, without negatively effecting it. Likewise with areas within the cities, & individual buildings. (This wouldn't be regulated, it would just depend on the wishes of the occupants of the building when it was being built, as I am sure people with different aesthetic appreciations would want to build different buildings or live in what they consider to be a more aesthetically pleasing area)
Some people may well decide to return to nature & live without the benefit of any or most technology, here minimal disruption to the natural environment would be accepted (felling trees for firewood, collecting materials for building, hunting animals etc)

2) Open minded, however, this is not something anyone can force upon somebody. In my society education would be the most important thing, I am of the opinion that intelligence is affected by environmental factors almost exclusively, & minimally by genetics. Everyone would be entitled to & have access to the same education. This education would be excellent & would provide the basis for people to think rationally, sceptically & intelligently. Also the importance of un-biased arguments would be promoted & during education all the multiple viewpoints of all arguments would be presented to the child. The state, & the people would not interfere with the relationships of consenting people. As far as can be avoided the state will not interfere with people, as long as those people are not interfering with others lives or infringing others rights. So (for example, hypothetically) if a Ten year old is considered mature enough to fully understand the ramifications of their decision & to be able to consent, they can have sex with someone who is 35 if they so wish. (I doubt any ten year-olds are)

3) Through the application of direct democracy. (everyone who wants to be involved in the legislature & executive processes can be) hopefully the benefits of the education system would mean people carefully considered issues, looks at the evidence, & drew their own conclusions from them rather than being swayed by lobbying (or by bribery I suppose), as I said as I think that morality is objective & so I think that if people are educated well enough & look at the evidence & draw their own conclusions then (assuming all the sources are impartial & present the evidence without bias) the conclusions drawn about what we have to do or should do will be the same & the only disagreement may be minor issues on how we proceed to accomplish that aim. This might not work I suppose.

3.5) This also ties in with point 2, once everyone is educated enough to make their own decisions & examine the evidence then in theory risks of actions would be understood. So in my utopia no drugs would be banned, if people wish to take heroin they may as long as, once again, this doesn't cause them to infringe upon the rights of others or interfere with others lives. This may not work as some drugs are chemically addictive - so reliance begins through no fault of the user - & some neurologies are more susceptible to addiction, so we'd see how that goes. Pot & Ecstasy would certainly be legal straight away. The cost of damage to your body caused through the use of drugs would not be covered by the state. If you OD on heroin & require medical assistance, that was your error, you were fully aware of the risks & the state will deal with you in the way which allows the most benefit to the most amount of people, (so if you're a world class immunologist & it's your first time they may well save you) this would probably mostly be euthanasia. I don't know how that program would work. Also, the stronger the drug the higher the taxes would be to cover potential medical costs & dissuade use.


N.B 1 > I do NOT like the idea of a forced atheistic nation, this encourages the view of atheism as another religious choice when it isn't. I do not think better education leads to more atheistic tendencies, studies have shown both positive & negative correlations between faith & education. Also it is a theory of mine, & others, that a theistic or at least religious point of view is the norm for humans, as there are many more theists than there are atheists, many people believe in "something out there" & whether this is purely a psychological trait of humans or not atheists shouldn't try to stamp out religion to this extent, banning things is not normally good. As in my utopia people can make their own balanced decisions (any sort of forced acceptance of religion would violate your rights) I think organised religious groups would decline & people would simply practice their own belief & expand their spirituality at home.

N.B 2> Dan seems to be very intolerant of intolerance. The human condition is inevitably a spectrum to some degree & that level of "if anyone was intolerant of any kind of person why would be stoned to death. literally, with stones" means that if anyone disagrees with Dan they get killed. Also suggesting war is not wanted in this society but that people would be stoned to death for disagreeing is a slight contradiction.

4) Don't know, probably somewhere warm though.

5) People can wear what they like, as long as (again) they don't infringe on others rights. And what they are wearing is morally correct (whatever the hell that may be, I know what I consider moral in terms of clothing but once again this doesn't mean my opinion is correct with respect to objective morality) Personally I think I'd look good in leaves, as long as the weather is suitable (see 4), & I don't really like too many wearing clothes (I normally go top, bottom, & underwear 9/10 times)

N.B 3> Every citizen of my utopia would be paid a living wage (assuming money is still around, which I can almost guarantee it will be) equal to about £10,000-£15,000 today. I would also look into using technology to develop cheap, comfortable, basic accommodation for individuals & families that would be provided to them for free. Basic sustenance (consisting of an tasty nutritional gloop & carb & fibre replacements) would also be provided for free. All healthcare would be free. And all education would be free (up to & including post graduate level). The living wage would then be paid on top of this.
Taxes would be uber high to pay for all of the above. Additionally there may be problems as no one would have to work due to the supply of a living wage, hopefully people would still want more than £10k could supply & also want to do more or improve the civilisation or the race as a whole. A small number of phenomenally high-skilled workers would also mean pay would be high.
Criminals would be dealt with on an establish-why-they-are-doing-it, then correct & rehabilitate the offender basis. Certain crimes would carry a prison term. I think it is possible that if the reason someone does something can be established then a way of letting them achieve the same result in a moral manner can be found. For example if rapists get off on the control & infliction of pain aspects, send them all off to BDSM clubs. Not sure what to do about murderers though? The remaining criminals who are presumably determined to be mentally ill are sent to mental hospitals (obviously)
Enemies of the state, those who wish to destroy society for whatever reason (as if anyone would want to, haha) are free to leave at any time. If they continue to attack our society, they are treated as an aggressor & the military deal with them.
As the state is responsible for education, if any parents are seen to be providing biased, prejudicial, misinformative, or just incorrect views to their child. Or if the child is being indoctrinated into any opinion that they have not formed, considered & accepted independently (whether it be religion, lifestyle choice or whatever). Or if the actions a parent takes is not in the interests of the child. (This shouldn't happen as the parents themselves have had a un-biased, sceptical, rational, factual education & should be able to make rational decisions of the best for their child, however emotion normally wins over rationality, e.g. Bubble Boy) Then if necessary the state will remove the child from that parents care. The child can go back once the parent has shown that they will - or it is determined that they will - act in the best interest of that child.
A major focus of scientific development would be nano-manufacturing, which in theory would allow anyone to create anything as easily as someone types & prints a letter now. Clearly this would screw up traditional economic models, but I am not going to speculate on that as that would make this answer about ten times longer.
And most hard technology, engineering etc would have biological bases, so it would be more environmentally friendly & in sync with nature.

Think I got all my thoughts on my perfect society down there. So, thumbs up for the longest answer ever on yahoo answers?


I can write so much if I decide to.