Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't sound like Utopia to me. I see the pure form as communism as Utopia but that requires everyone being equal and moral and willing to work as a group. There are actually people that like to work with their hands and when people are tired from working, they cause much less havoc for everyone else.
The reason for "(as described)" is that utopia means different things to different people. For the purposes of this discussion, I am talking about the utopia where technology is utilized to automate as much as possible. It's been a sci-fi ideal for decades if not more. An ear of corn might be planted, nurtured and harvested by machines, processed and served by machines and the cob processed and recycled by machines. The only time a human might touch it would be to eat it. Buildings would be mostly constructed by machines. All public transport (and possibly all non recreational transport, period) would be driverless. Medical diagnostics and most procedures would be automated.
There are jobs for people in this kind of society, but not nearly as many and most would be in the sector of designing, building and maintaining machines. Doctors and scientists would perform research and exploration. I am ignoring AI and assuming we continue to do our own thinking for the most part.
This all sounds wonderful until you map out how we get there from where we (I am in the US and using a US perspective) are now. The money to pay for all this belongs to a small subset of the population and our current model uses profit to incent them to fund ventures. I see no way to make this profitable. We would be eliminating the vast majority of low paying jobs and with no jobs, they could not be paying customers for the automated food outlets and transport facilities. They would have no money for rent.
The simplest solution is socialism. Basic services - food, clothing, education, transportation, rent and health care - would be provided to everyone. The only way to make that work is to place a tremendous tax burden on the wealthy. Oversimplifying a bit, the government would have to buy a lot of the automated equipment from the manufacturer and then turn around and take most of the profit back from them so they could afford it. Where else could they possibly get it? Most is not all BTW; the rich still get richer in a socialist society. They just can't amass the majority of the wealth.
So, the debate...
I don't think there is a way to achieve this kind of utopian society without socialism. I would like to hear someone argue differently.
I think the Dutch, Swedes, and Finnish do a great job of forming a perfect world. They can afford to because they don't overbreed or overburden the system and they all contribute to society.
I think the Dutch, Swedes, and Finnish do a great job of forming a perfect world. They can afford to because they don't overbreed or overburden the system and they all contribute to society.
They can afford it because the U.S. provides for their defense via NATO. The American taxpayer indirectly pays for their socialism.
I think "some being more equal" is fine. Just a handful having most of the money is not fine though.
I think something akin to the Nordic model of social democracy (an actual working model, not a theory) might support this. I say "might" because you are right about human nature. Some people question whether the Nordic countries would be as successful if they were more diverse and as much as I hate the idea that they might be right, they might be. The diversity argument is that the Nordic people are pretty homogenous and the people who are working and paying high taxes to support those out of work don't mind because they identify with those in need; they very well might be distant cousins.
Wow I never thought of it like this. You are exactly right; and this is exactly why it would never work in the US...we are all too different. And the majority of those with money do not want to help those who are different from them. No, I do not know this for a fact, but I bet it's more true than not.
According to Eurostat, in 2010, there were 1.33 million foreign-born residents in Sweden, corresponding to 14.3% of the total population. Of these, 859,000 (64.3%) were born outside the EU and 477,000 (35.7%) were born in another EU Member State.
So that is almost 15% foreign born. I would guess that roughly the same number are first or second generation Swedes who are not of the homogenous culture. So probably 1 in 4 sticks out as being a member of a minority.
ok, BUT where are these people from? Are they from other Nordic countries, and thus, look a lot like the Swedes? Are they from England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland? Also don't look too different. If that statistic said that those residents were mostly African, or Latino, which of course they aren't, then I think this argument would hold water.
ok, BUT where are these people from? Are they from other Nordic countries, and thus, look a lot like the Swedes? Are they from England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland? Also don't look too different. If that statistic said that those residents were mostly African, or Latino, which of course they aren't, then I think this argument would hold water.
I think the largest group was Iraqis that year. Sweden has a history of welcoming refugees so their cultural norm is different than ours (supporting and undermining my position at the same time; there are no apples to apples comparisons between countries and cultures).
[1] There have been times when more labor is not needed. That is what I keep trying to get through to you and others; even the current level of automation and general efficiency in our processes means that
[2] we don't need everyone working full time.
[3] There isn't enough to go around. If we progress further with technology, there will be an even bigger gap.
[4] So no thank you, I don't want coupons for labor.
[1] I disagree. There may have been times that there was not enough money to DO MORE than what was absolutely needed. But there has never been a time in history when more labor could not be put to good use.
[2] There is plenty of unmet need.
There just isn't enough MONEY to pay for resolving it under current money madness.
Prosperity is built upon production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. Throttling prosperity with money madness and by its scarcity is unwise.
[3] There may be a shortage of REMUNERATED jobs, but that does not mean the same as no need for work.
As to the notion of "everyone working full time" - - - All life involves working "full time" - whether you do it yourself or someone does it for you. Not all work is remunerated with money. There is a lot being done without MONEY MADNESS (compensation in money).
Parents support and nurture their children without compensation.
Children support and nurture their aged parents without compensation.
Charity workers labor without compensation.
Groups who pool resources and have a "house raising" or a "barn raising" fulfill a need without being paid.
Time to separate the limitations imposed by money madness and embrace the future, and unfettered prosperity.
[4] In case you were not informed, a dollar bill is not a dollar.
A unit dollar is defined as a silver coin, in the Coinage Act of 1792.
A dollar bill (Federal Reserve note) is an IOU denominated in dollars, but not dollars. See : Title 12 USC Sec. 411
Fort Knox depository allegedly has 147.4 million ounces of gold, which computes to 2.9 billion dollars (in gold coin).
World gold supply is *(est) at 5.6 billion ounces, which computes to 112 billion dollars (if coined).
Q: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
A: There was approximately $1.34 trillion in circulation as of January 7, 2015, of which $1.29 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
=> DIVIDE by 320 million population (March 2015)
=> $4,031.25 (dollar bills) per capita
If you have paper wealth greater than $4k, you may have a problem "cashing out."
Another way of looking at it:
CIRCULATING : 1.3 trillion dollar bills (not dollars)
“. . . The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion and debts of $145.8 trillion to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion.”
Do you see the discrepancy and madness now?
=> Dollars owed = $18+ trillion, while there's only 2.9 billion in the vault.
=> Dollar bills (IOUs) in circulation = 1.3 trillion
=> Dollar bills OWED = 145.8 trillion
Yet economists are making calculations and evaluations as if the money token supply was UNLIMITED.
IN-SANE.
Personally, I prefer organic money and private promissory notes.
I don't see any example of a socialist country being successful. I see capitalist countries with capitalist funded socialist/ welfare programs. Socialist would be the state owning all means of and distributing the fruits of production. North Korea is a example of that. But if you look the most successful in all those listed are capitalist not dependent on wealth sharing/welfare programs but funding them. No matter the amount the bottom is always the bottom as always.
The reason for "(as described)" is that utopia means different things to different people. For the purposes of this discussion, I am talking about the utopia where technology is utilized to automate as much as possible.
So, the debate...
I don't think there is a way to achieve this kind of utopian society without socialism. I would like to hear someone argue differently.
Personally, I doubt that socialism would provide the utopia that you described, nor would I think of a technology driven world as utopian.
Basically, until people consider life -- in all its forms, more important than personal convenience and longevity, we will never rise above the mire we perpetually drag each other down to in our thoughts and deeds.
Regardless of your religious persuasion or irreligious nature (if that applies), we all have to stop putting ourselves before others, start thinking about life's quality over quantity, and the amassing of wealth or status.
When we think of all life as equal, and mutual respect as paramount over all else, we will continue the perpetuation of suffering and be free to pursue what should be important in life -- contentment and satisfaction with our creative work well done -- be that in art (in all its forms), or utility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
