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.
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.
Guaranteed income at a significant level f/e 30k per year ensures demand. Work would o/c still provide additional income.
The limitations is the tax required to sustain the model. It works in a closed system but falls down without global agreements as different regions compete for capital.
Utopia does not factor in individual human nature. Some people are the workers, some are power hungry. Though setting up a utopia or socialist type society, the power hungry will rise to the government or levels of power and once again "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".
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.
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.
That diversity is part of the problem. It can create division in which people of each culture are looking out for themselves instead of for what's best for the country/state.
There is no utopia where humans are concerned. Socialism leads to what you see in N.Korea ;former USSR; and Greece now. Humans who control the robots ,machines and computers control the society. its like saying society will not have criminals ;doesn't work that way or that those wanting more will not even want to take it from foreign aid of people near starvations as we see suggested in these forums by so called progressives. You'd have to do brain surgery to make controllable robots out of humans. the nearest is system where you produce more you get more and still some to give to others. capitalism and Greece better be grateful that Germany does it well or they would be staving as a nation which has happened in past. But of course the Greeks are humans and they just think they should be given more of what Germany produces because they can't produce enough. Capitalism is a system that produces the most for all of any system in history and China certainly have learned that the hard way. But doing nothing luckily is desired by many.
There is no utopia where humans are concerned. Socialism leads to what you see in N.Korea ;former USSR; and Greece now. Humans who control the robots ,machines and computers control the society. its like saying society will not have criminals ;doesn't work that way or that those wanting more will not even want to take it from foreign aid of people near starvations as we see suggested in these forums by so called progressives. You'd have to do brain surgery to make controllable robots out of humans. the nearest is system where you produce more you get more and still some to give to others. capitalism and Greece better be grateful that Germany does it well or they would be staving as a nation which has happened in past. But of course the Greeks are humans and they just think they should be given more of what Germany produces because they can't produce enough. Capitalism is a system that produces the most for all of any system in history and China certainly have learned that the hard way. But doing nothing luckily is desired by many.
I look to Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway as the models of the kind of socialism I am referring to. They are doing fairly well and rank among the happiest countries according to UN surveys.
OP, why do you really want socialism? A family is a socialist entity, parents produce for the good of the collective, while the children consume without producing anything. Parental love for their children, and each other, is what motivates them to produce for the family. Trying to get everyone in society to sacrifice their individual interest for the good of the everyone. Then there are some families that adult members don't want to contribute their share, example, dead beat dads. And you think it will work with a nation of people? Wake up.
Anyone who wants socialism doesn't understand human nature.
Example of people who already take but give nothing back.... Welfare and asked why they don't get a job, we know many feel that “I can’t get a job, I’ll lose my benefits”. Do you really want to work and live the same standard of living as someone who refuses to work? If you say yes, you're lying to yourself.
I have pondered such a thing as well , and have come to the conclusion that this wouldn't work at our current stage of development. Currently , humans are at the same level of toddlers in a sandbox , there are enough toys to go around , but there are the omnipresent few who want to control as many , if not all , of said toys for themselves. Given recent events , I've toyed (pardon the pun) around with curing the disease by killing the patient , however , this would be the easy way , and I am not keen on taking the path with least resistance. Maybe in a few hundred years , after generational recycling has occurred enough times for current mindsets to dissolve , will something like this occur , but not now.
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.
