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.
All of the ways in which society has improved from the Dark Ages, to now, including modern medicine, stable governments, modern banking, modern technology, etc. arose as a result of people who dreamed of a better world, and then made it happen. What we have today would be beyond the wildest imagination of those living 800 years ago.
So, then, why is it that when someone proposes a change that they think will make society better, do so many people oppose it on the grounds that it is a "utopian ideal" and could never work in practice?
Are we to believe that the way things are now is the absolute pinnacle of human achievement? Or is it just that people are ruled by their fear of the unknown?
All of the ways in which society has improved from the Dark Ages, to now, including modern medicine, stable governments, modern banking, modern technology, etc. arose as a result of people who dreamed of a better world, and then made it happen. What we have today would be beyond the wildest imagination of those living 800 years ago.
So, then, why is it that when someone proposes a change that they think will make society better, do so many people oppose it on the grounds that it is a "utopian ideal" and could never work in practice?
Are we to believe that the way things are now is the absolute pinnacle of human achievement? Or is it just that people are ruled by their fear of the unknown?
Because it doesn’t suit their business or political agenda or it challenges their own ideals or comfort level.
Consider what the topic usually is when someone uses the "utopian ideal" definition. I don't recall it used when someone mentions some specific technology, whether medicine, or electricity, or even sewer systems. It's usually used when someone puts forth some social argument on why their particular social idea will solve all the problems of the world. Typically involving a "something for nothing" outcome that completely ignores the reality of human nature.
It's not a fear of the unknown that causes people to say it, but a fear of the actual, known, reality that occurs whenever some "utopian ideal" is tried.
Because it doesn’t suit their business or political agenda or it challenges their own ideals or comfort level.
Yes, this. If the changes require other people to start thinking differently, then they see that as an attempt to take away their right to draw their own conclusions.
All of the ways in which society has improved from the Dark Ages, to now, including modern medicine, stable governments, modern banking, modern technology, etc. arose as a result of people who dreamed of a better world, and then made it happen. What we have today would be beyond the wildest imagination of those living 800 years ago.
So, then, why is it that when someone proposes a change that they think will make society better, do so many people oppose it on the grounds that it is a "utopian ideal" and could never work in practice?
Are we to believe that the way things are now is the absolute pinnacle of human achievement? Or is it just that people are ruled by their fear of the unknown?
Because they feel that the nature of humans, by definition, is flawed. We are programmed to be selfish, xenophobic, and war-like. They do not see a world in which in which we are all good in all ways- which would be utopia.
Human progress is always in fits and starts, one step forward- two back. Our horrible history of wars is a perfect example.
All of the ways in which society has improved from the Dark Ages, to now, including modern medicine, stable governments, modern banking, modern technology, etc. arose as a result of people who dreamed of a better world, and then made it happen. What we have today would be beyond the wildest imagination of those living 800 years ago.
So, then, why is it that when someone proposes a change that they think will make society better, do so many people oppose it on the grounds that it is a "utopian ideal" and could never work in practice?
Are we to believe that the way things are now is the absolute pinnacle of human achievement? Or is it just that people are ruled by their fear of the unknown?
I don't understand why you're asking this. Do you think we're at the pinnacle of our achievement? Of course not. I'm sure the idea of electricity was thrown around prior to it being brought into existence. Can you be more specific? What was mentioned that was opposed?
I don't understand why you're asking this. Do you think we're at the pinnacle of our achievement? Of course not. I'm sure the idea of electricity was thrown around prior to it being brought into existence. Can you be more specific? What was mentioned that was opposed?
The poster is saying that humans are imperfect and utopian ideals are often naive and unrealistic and don't take that into account. One example is all the communes that popped up in the 60s and usually resulted in a mess. And some "utopias" are simply cults. See Jim Jones or Waco. Of course Communism is a classic. How many millions were killed by the utopian idea of Communism? Sounds good in theory. Horrific in practice.
All of the ways in which society has improved from the Dark Ages, to now, including modern medicine, stable governments, modern banking, modern technology, etc. arose as a result of people who dreamed of a better world, and then made it happen. What we have today would be beyond the wildest imagination of those living 800 years ago.
So, then, why is it that when someone proposes a change that they think will make society better, do so many people oppose it on the grounds that it is a "utopian ideal" and could never work in practice?
Are we to believe that the way things are now is the absolute pinnacle of human achievement? Or is it just that people are ruled by their fear of the unknown?
I think that when people oppose something on the grounds of a "utopian ideal" then the person putting forward the idea has often missed something else entirely.
Maybe it is just because of the simple numbers it takes to get there.
Such as, to have such a beautiful perfect city (of someplace), does it require a slave class to achieve it (and if so, then that isn't talked about).
Or, to have the utopian ideal, what is the carrying capacity of that world.....and has this world, ours and the one we live in, already far exceeded that carrying capacity so in order to achieve it, how many people must be eliminated?
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.
