0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I've always thought that a sufficiently advanced society would operate without a government or politics and the interactions within would be governed by each members knowledge of what is required for the greater good. You could look at something like Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" for an example of such a society.Another idea was explored by Frank Herbert in "God Emperor of Dune" where an entire galaxy was kept in line by a single (man? worm?) who had altered himself to live for thousands of years in order to conduct his "enforced peace".
Background of the social class: This society is comprised of Espers, within my universe they are the most intellectual race. Having esp like abilities, (read some of my earlier posts to get a feel for them if you would like) they base most of their decisions on logic, therefore I want a unanimous symbiotic relation within their community.This society needs:A complete social equality in voting, speaking, and finance.All residents may have differing difficulty of jobs, but in essence get paid the same (depending on skill set and necessity).Biokinetic's(Espers that have the ability to manipulate cellular activity in all biological aspects) act as a hospital, which in essence causes no disease.Energy is clean and sustained.A select group of extremely intelligent espers go through mass political petitions that govern laws within a logical fair manner. (Mainly enforced by a specific individual that is completely devoted to duty).Justice is given out within a logical methodical manner where the death penalty is given to anyone who is in enforcement of destroying their specific laws.
1) True equality in my sense does not mean according to want, but need ...2) In this (my world) story, my people may have differing ideas to get to the same goal, but there is a consensus vote that is made within a mass unanimous scale...3) I completely understand where you are from with this and I also disagree that pure logic is the best solution...
Values will be what you interpret later as the reason to your reactions, and actions And if you ask your brother he might have a different opinion It's just about whom one is, one might jump down that railroad track to save someone from a train or one may not. Both will tell one something about ones values. Those are the reactions that come without conscious consideration as I see it, and they are very informative.==Or at least leave you only a short moment of consideration before all is lost, as I see it. Sometimes one have to force oneself to do it too,, I'm sure we all had those moments when we just have to act, but that doesn't make it less.
Value is not the same as morality, although the word "values," as in "family values" is sometimes used to mean that. I was referring to positive and negative qualities of things that are somewhat subjective and difficult to measure. The question of value is often ignored in a lot of scientific discussions. I have many friends who are very concerned about climate change, conservation, the environment, etc. I agree with all their views about the need for sustainable living, protecting the environment and smarter, cleaner technology. What frustrates me about the environmental issue is the unwillingness to see the elephant in the room, that many people view something as "wasteful," or "unnecessary" if it's not important to them. What is more wasteful, eating fresh produce out of season, or the number of light bulbs in the casinos in Los Vegas? Is my plastic kayak more necessary than your Iphone? Are golf courses more needed than disposable diapers? Is the Super Bowl eco-friendly? Are major league sports more wasteful than the movie Industry? If it sounds like I'm comparing apples and oranges here, that's exactly my point. And that is the problem with utopian claims that human beings can be controlled and managed with "logic" and "reason" and scientific principles. There will always be some degree of conflict because people value different things differently.
Now that I think my pointless comment's have been made... What do you (Cheryl J and Ethos_) think about my specifications and terms so far?
These espers are far from not conscious of their environment, they have clean and sustainable means of energy. They, however, do not care much about diplomacy and other races.
Perhaps the stereotypical "utopia" that we know is a sham (a dictatorship for instance) might serve your purposes better.
Quote from: bizerl on 18/03/2013 23:54:36Perhaps the stereotypical "utopia" that we know is a sham (a dictatorship for instance) might serve your purposes better.Well said my friend,........well said!
What would you call a society that has the following applications to bring this thread to an end?A society that everything is freely givenThere are no jobless positions, as the society is continually growing and needs more people (for new births and education)Ruled through majorityHas a set of highly educated people who do not control what is proposed or not, but merely posts personal comments on ratification's to the people's ideas (these people have their position because of trust and can have it taken away at any time; maybe in reference to an adviser)The society is focused on technological advancement, but not cybernetics/prosthetic (as they are a genetically evolutionist theorists), they simply use technology to aid in scientific discovery and progression.Due to the nature of this publicized information, there has to be at least a mass news network that showcases all latest discoveries.Law is decided by a mass populous, including trials (which are very rare, due to the progressive nature of the society) there will be of course deviants and their sentence will be decided by the majority.List of wondering thoughts I have at the moment:If a law was placed and a crime is committed, should the mass decide to revoke that law, does that law still apply to the criminal? If not then doesn't that completely negate the purpose of a law? My question being, "At the start of this nation, should there be a law in place that binds the people to their previous decision or (since it is a logical consensus of people) should it depend on circumstance?Should there only be one news network, or multiple networks that are fundamentally divided by ethical value of principles for diversity or divided to apply a less likelihood of biasism?