Perfect Society

So two days ago in Language Arts classed we read part of Thomas More's Utopia book thing. The rules of the society were really strict and someone brought the point that with such strict rules and every male and female has a specific role, that eventually the society would die out, because it is not growing and someone gave the examples of Native Americans and the Europeans. We started reading the book The Giver and I'm wondering, what would you consider a perfect society?

^ Her perfect society seems to involve freedom and individualism ^^

Silais said:

There is no perfect society. Humans are not static beings; we cannot be governed completely by laws and rules. We have the free ability to think and feel and thus we will always be individual and inclined to follow our own moral codes.

Click to expand...

This.
Also:
The profound drive society has to advance forward will always ruin any kind of Utopia. We always are looking forward. And our drive to go forward creates clashes between populations wanting to go in a slightly different direction. Hence why our biggest technological advances have all been the result of war.
It's also a strange dynamic to be always content, for without sadness there is no joy.
You could say the only true Utopia is forever advancing therefore war-filled. A contradiction? Or is that what is happening right now?
The present, in all it's great unpleasantries, creates the only sustainable Utopia. We just call it life.

Perfection isn't really something you can define. Or, well, it's not something you can define easily. I mean, you can say that freedom and happiness are what are needed, but if they were forced or you always felt happy that wouldn't necessarily be perfect.

This is a cop out, but I think the perfect society is the one that keeps trying to be perfect and changing and adapting as it needs to.

Plumpyfoof said:

Hence why our biggest technological advances have all been the result of war.

Click to expand...

Was the internet a result of war? I've never heard that it was.

Scarf said:

Perfection isn't really something you can define. Or, well, it's not something you can define easily. I mean, you can say that freedom and happiness are what are needed, but if they were forced or you always felt happy that wouldn't necessarily be perfect.

This is a cop out, but I think the perfect society is the one that keeps trying to be perfect and changing and adapting as it needs to.

Click to expand...

That's pretty legit. Perfection as defined not by any normative criteria, but through practice.

Scarf said:

Was the internet a result of war? I've never heard that it was.

Click to expand...

Actually, you have no idea how true that is. The internet came from DARPANET, which pioneered the TCP/IP protocols. DARPA creates toys for the US military. Back when I was thinking about engineering, I fantasized about working for an organization like them ><

Whenever I think about the perfect society, I think of the Matrix. That one scene where Morpheus gets captured and that one agent is telling him how the matrix came to be. At first, they tried a perfect society, but no one would accept it. It's like we thrived on pain and suffering.

What I'm trying to say is that there will never be a perfect society. There will always be pain and suffering because without it, how would we know what happiness was?

It seems that a lot of us define a perfect world as one free from pain and suffering.

BlahISuck said:

It seems that a lot of us define a perfect world as one free from pain and suffering.

Click to expand...

Well, I know I would certainly call a world full of pain and suffering imperfect so this sort of definition seems to be in the generally right direction for me.

I guess we could define 'perfect' by what it isn't.

BlahISuck said:

Actually, you have no idea how true that is. The internet came from DARPANET, which pioneered the TCP/IP protocols. DARPA creates toys for the US military. Back when I was thinking about engineering, I fantasized about working for an organization like them ><

Click to expand...

Thank you for saving me the trouble. :)
You can still generally relate most things to within one or two inventions of something built for or during a wartime period. Obviously exceptions are abundant but are outweighed far too much to contrast.

While I do not wish to particupate in the conversation completely, bring Hobbes' "State of Nature" up in class and sound like a smarty pants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature#Thomas_Hobbes

Plumpyfoof said:

Thank you for saving me the trouble. :)
You can still generally relate most things to within one or two inventions of something built for or during a wartime period. Obviously exceptions are abundant but are outweighed far too much to contrast.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure I'm on board with the whole "war is good for progress" (paraphrasing) idea.

I mean, if you look at the US for an example, it's been at war for more years than it hasn't in its entire history so anything that's invented is already likely to happen during wartime. Really, I would think that you could say technological advancements happen whenever there is able money/supplies/facilities/etc. like there is in wartime. We could just put a ton of money into inventing new things without being at war and we'd probably see something similar.

Scarf said:

I'm still not sure I'm on board with the whole "war is good for progress" (paraphrasing) idea.

I mean, if you look at the US for an example, it's been at war for more years than it hasn't in its entire history so anything that's invented is already likely to happen during wartime. Really, I would think that you could say technological advancements happen whenever there is able money/supplies/facilities/etc. like there is in wartime. We could just put a ton of money into inventing new things without being at war and we'd probably see something similar.

Click to expand...

That's just the thing though. There's no incentive like war.

I think escaping the state of nature is a good step towards a perfect world.

DUDE! THE BOOK IS THE GIVER RIGHT!?!?

:D i red that book before, very cool :3

also, its very possible for a perfect society to exist, by definition. though it isn't easy and may not stay forever. i just know that looking at it from the inside, nothing that will be happening will seem wrong and everyone will be happy. I don't know about the people who may come into in though. They might mess everything up depending on the society and the person.

A "perfect society" cannot exist. There will always be people who don't fit in and who are not satisfied with their situation. Even if there's a society that is pre-determined and where everything seems save, some people actually value making own decisions etc.

Read "Brave New World" written by Aldous Huxley and you will get what I mean. A very interesting story/topic that deals with a so-called "perfect" society and its rebels.

Perhaps then a perfect world will have everybody fitting in, and everybody being a valued member of the community.

If there is such a thing as a perfect society, there would be no need for any weapons, including nuclear missiles, tanks, whatever have you. Alas, it is not meant to be, & such things are a necessary evil in this damned planet...

-server glitch- -plz dlt-

Everything I wanted to say has pretty much been summed up in this thread xD

Basically, perfection is different for each individual.

Utopia = Dystopia

--

A society cannot be perfect, only its fundamentals can. We seek perfection according to a design but that design will always have errors.

Like, for example, monarchy, representative democracy, communism, and anarchy. These are the best examples.

A Monarchy works because no one - except the ruler - has to worry about making decisions. Atleast, the majority of decisions... But when the ruler fails to make the correct decisions, that's a fault in the society, not monarchy.

Rep. Dem. states that your representatives have your best interest and, when they speak on your behalf, they say what you would. When this is not the case, which shows discord in the society, it fails - but Rep. Dem. is not at fault, the society is.

Communism works in China, for example, but didn't work in other nations because those nations could not achieve communism's standard. Anarchy states that everyone will be able to rule themselves (self-rule) without going against the will of others. When this fails, survival of the fittest occurs. In both Communism and Anarchy, the society may fail but the CONCEPT is, itself, perfect.

^ So, every TYPE of society is inherently perfect on their own. Applied, however, weaknesses generate and the societies themselves, as a result, are imperfect and may fail due to that.

--

As for the idea that advancement won't occur, you should watch the anime Mawaru Pengiundrum. It's where I learned about the Frozen World concept - you'll see a great example of the halt of advancement

"Perfect" is quite a relative term. What's perfect for me, might be less than ideal for you, and what's ideal for you might be less than ideal for me.

Since we as humans are all unique as snowflakes in most important aspects, I don't think anything could ever be called perfect. There's just no sustainable way to attend to the individual needs of all.

That said, as humans, we are as adverse to stagnation as we can be to change. What might be perfect for me today may not suffice tomorrow, and what I didn't want yesterday could be what I want today. I'm not trying to say that I or anyone else is really that indecisive though, just illustrating how capable we are of changing our wants and wishes.

That being said, if it could be done, then everyone would likely all be pretty well isolated in their own perfect worlds, never really knowing others.