i would ever-so-gently push back on this bit: "Saturate the books, internet, social media, and television programs everywhere with ideas of a better life and a better system." as i put forth in my original email to Elle—this might not be the unalloyed good that it appears to be at first.
i see two big downsides to this.
first, it presumes that "we" will have the means to choose, democratically or otherwise, from a menu of possible futures that we might want. as i lay out in the next installment of this series, climate change could very well put paid to all our imagining about the future we'd like to have, and soon. there is a very real chance that *nobody* gets the future they want. the future might have other plans. we should be prepared for that possibility.
second, something very dangerous happens when people's sense of destiny is betrayed. we have 1930s Germany and Cold War Russia as case studies in creating an expectation around a certain standard of living and then pulling the rug out. if the technicolor utopia is always just around the corner, and the pernicious betrayals of Those People are the only thing preventing "us" from getting there—that's a mighty big weapon to leave lying around. there is a curdled utopia at the heart of every Blood and Soil nationalist campaign.
(also—haven't we been experimenting with sharing our own utopias on social media for about a decade now? it seems to be making a lot of people statistically miserable. not everyone can afford to dream in the same way, and sometimes, having other people's best lives paraded before us isn't helpful or healthy.)
i'm all for daring to hope for the best, but caution is advised. outstanding essay overall!
Push away. Your points are all valid and I agree with them.
I intended to convey the idea of thinking about solutions and a better way of solving problems, experimenting with innovative ideas, and putting those ideas forward.
Everyone seems infatuated with a negative future and convinced it's the only possible one. A few more optimists could hardly hurt.
Bragging and showing off a materialistic or otherwise successful life may inspire some, but you're right, it has a net negative effect on our psyche. The responsibility, however, lies with the one who suffers by observing others, not in those more fortunate, forcing them into hiding.
Ideologies, when pushed to extremes, tend to have horrifying consequences, indeed. Even or especially the most benevolent sounding well-intended ones.
exactly right. the United States is in the midst of some heavy turmoil around who Those People are and what "we" need to do about it, so we can have all the wonderful things we were promised. presumably, our utopia is only a few decades away from being realized, once we sort out these malcontents. any day now.
at this point, we seem to have lost faith in the idea that the government of a country owes *any* obligation to its citizens, in terms of guaranteed benefits and protections. politics has stopped being about getting the government to ensure a high standard of living; it's now about getting the government to make sure that Those People are worse off, so at least somebody will be having a harder time than us.
Edit: i'm just remembering an old joke. guy finds a rusty old oil lamp at the junk market, and when he tries to polish it up, a djinn pops out. djinn says, "i will give you whatever your heart desires, but your neighbor will get twice as much of whatever you wish for." guy says, "i wish you'd take out one of my eyes."
i think the joke was originally popular in the Soviet Union, but it's starting to feel more universal.
I live in a post socialist-communist state and I can confirm this is still the mentality around these parts.
It's a direct remnant of the previous ideology of dragging anyone who would dare to push higher out of the norm, back down.
It's easing off now that more people have more things, and the old communists are dying off, but it was monstrous in the first few decades after our transition.
Successful and rich people were socially shunned into oblivion.
They propose a drastic change in our values, from power and possession to sharing and reputation, which I applaud wholeheartedly.
You can't buy food or housing with reputation. You can't travel on reputation. How are you going to gain this reputation? I can guarantee that it will be through something other than merit.
Those ideas or systems operate on the assumption that all your needs are taken care of, think UBI, free housing, etc.
The value transition I mentioned is their answer to the question: what will drive people and motivate them, if it's not about money and acquiring material possessions?
Reputation would then be built on your contribution to the whole of society, not to yourself in whatever form.
You would be motivated by other things, not just money.
That makes no sense. Worker 294 on the bridge expansion project will not get recognition for their work, nor will teacher 182, nor will enforcer 288. In the end, it will come to order 66.
So, the measure of any person can only be determined by how much money they have, produce, or have amassed in their possession? Is that what you’re saying?
If so, I have a problem with that definition, which is why I said I applaud the idea of supporting a different set of values.
What about artists, philosophers, scientists, community leaders, educators, inventors, healers, writers…?
Think of school. In any group of kids, there were people who ranked differently within that group. A whole system or organizational micro-society develops naturally, and it has nothing to do with money.
When money and possession are taken out of the equation, I believe a whole new system of measuring success, uniqueness, and contribution would evolve.
In these highly technologically developed utopian ideas, people aren’t stuck in factories behind conveyor belts. That’s a thing of the past. Robots and AI take care of all those jobs.
The problem most people assume would be the lack of having to work in the first place. What would that do to their psyche, what would inspire them to be active in society, what would drive them to get up in the morning and do more than just watch TV all day, and so on?
They also don’t strive to get rich or amass a fortune, as these things mean nothing to such a society. A challenging concept in today’s world, I know.
What about artists, philosophers, scientists, community leaders, educators, inventors, healers, writers…?
I believe recognition of their work and contribution is still based on Merit, not reputation. I'd rate Shakespeare higher than Marx and Tennessee Williams higher than Adolph.
It's definitely not about who has the most cash or possessions, and academic degrees aren't a basis of value either, considering the dross that comes out of academia.
Take, for instance, Tyson DeGrasse. When he speaks on Astrophysics, he's got expertise and can explain it succinctly. When he talks about things outside his wheelhouse, he sounds stupid and thus damages his reputation.
I very much agree with you that creating one world utopia, wouldn’t be utopia.
I also agree that the ideal would be to open the borders a bit more so that everyone could move to THEIR utopia!! (I explored that a bit here and am expanding it in an upcoming government series: https://www.elysian.press/p/how-could-country-capitalism-work)
I also VERY MUCH agree that the great thing about all of these countries trying to be more and more utopian is that we have more freedom to live the lives we want to live within those structures. We can create a personal utopia of our own choosing for our own lives!!
Thank you so much for such an incredible post. I’m going to share this.
Regarding the linked article. I love the theoretical idea of governments competing for their citizens. Governments are supposed to serve their citizens but often forget their purpose.
Decentralization of power and governance seems like a step in the right direction. In an ideal world, we could all pick what we like, and the systems with the best solutions would naturally attract more people, hopefully without physical relocation, thus thriving further. The practical parts are tricky, though.
EU, for example, is also a great idea in theory, with open borders, free trade, and workforce exchange. Still, bureaucracy has now become a monster forcing its ideas by demanding unnatural unity of legal and cultural aspects. When a country disagrees, they're cut from funding, for example. The more they push for ideological and practical "sameness," the more problems are coming out of the closet. It's living on borrowed time again. We must learn to coexist, respecting each other's differences and not forcing our ideas onto others.
I actually think the EU is a pretty good example. Yes, EU law trumps country law, but countries are still free to self-govern and be culturally distinct. And some countries have done so with very utopian results (the nordic countries, for example!) That people can choose to move among those countries means they are choosing their own utopias!
Bureaucracy is certainly challenging, but that's because people are challenging and it's one way we try to get people on the same page. And to manage a large group of people, you have to have some kind of "these are the rules we all agree on." There might be some ways to fine tune and make it better, but I think we'll always have some of that management struggle just because we don't agree on everything.
Agreed. I think the best way to approach this problem is by having as few rules and bureaucratic limitations as possible.
Let's agree on the important issues, and work toward a common goal, but allow for as much freedom and self-determination as possible on everything else.
EU was great until it started meddling with everything. The more it pushes and tightens its grip, the more problems it faces.
Our elected leaders are left with very limited power and it became obvious they're neutered.
Nordic countries are truly one of the better examples. They do have some things that enable their policies, such as natural wealth, etc. Still, they make a lot of great choices and when we study how to do something, we often turn to their example. They seem to be ahead of time on a lot of issues.
I love everything about them, except the weather 😂
Their overly lenient social and integration policies are becoming a problem though, with crime rampaging through society (look at stats for Sweden).
Yes, I think I agree with your theses as far as allowing as much freedom as possible. But I still have more research to do there. (For example, most rules and regulations are designed to protect us from something bad, there might be some that turned out to not meet that function, but I'd be hesitant to throw them all out assuming that they didn't solve anything unless I had the stats to prove it.) In my own life, most of the things I am not free to do, I probably should not be free to do.
As far as the EU, the US is the same way in practice. The federal government has most of the power. But I also think, for the most part, they have used that power wisely. And the states technically do have the same governing power that EU or Nordic countries do, so I actually want to explore how we can have even more autonomy, and be more like EU countries in that regard!
I see your point. Of course some rules are there for a good reason. A lawless society is a difficult concept to accept in this day and age, and while no one likes to be told what to do, the more "civilized and organized" a society, the higher the standard of living, and the safer the population tends to be.
I believe there two problems in general:
- Such unions (EU...) tend to unite countries with different histories, values, and goals. They may agree on some issues, but not on all. Forcing their compliance causes internal turmoil and resentment toward the union. What is good for the whole, is not always good for the part. We make these pacts on the common goals and ideas, but in time, the demands of the larger entity always stretch their influence and reach. Ten laws today will be 10.000 laws in 20 years.
- Who do we trust to make such determination, set rules, determine the directions of technology, society, politics,... for us? In EU that role is filled with unelected buirocrats with their own agendas (we all have agendas), who tower over elected governments of sovereign countries. It has been proven time and again, that there are elements of disturbing corruption influencing their policies and cause irreparable damage for countries involved and the people living there.
I generally like the EU and the principles it stands for. I am happy to be a part of it. I also appreciate the need for compromise when joining such a union.
The problems is, decisions are being made that are causing terrible damage (perhaps in my opinion) and threaten the existence and prosperity of European countries, by destroying the industry, culture, and the most basic elements of any society and economy - cheap reliable energy, and self sufficiency.
I'm not sure I see how to get around the "ten laws today will be 10,000 laws in the future" bit. Because we used to have laws about where you need to hitch your horse, and now we need laws about how to govern AI. We'll constantly need to be tweaking as we learn what things turn out to cause harm to a community and add a new rule to protect against it. Some will become outdated for sure, but also irelevent.
As for the EU, I thought the council was made up of the heads of state of each of the countries within the EU? So aren't they elected leaders of their countries? And don't they together vote on the president of the EU, and also on the decisions the EU makes? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something!
That being said, we're in a similar pickle in the US—the federal government makes a lot of decisions that maybe should be decided by the state governments. I'm still actively researching who I think should be responsible for what, but I mostly agree that it can be hard to manage a wide group of different people and that local governments should have more authority over local communities (even if we might need that larger entity on the global stage!)
This, the truth though it might be, has just frightened me severely. But you are right.
The last couple of years were a stark reminder of just how many people prefer the safety of an oppressive government, over taking responsibility for themselves. And how little they care about people who disagree with them.
"In your Utopia, who has to suffer in order to make it work?" is a great question to ask ourselves!
We can look at any divisive topic and find that almost any country or group of people is divided, often equally between two opposing fronts. If one wins, the other will suffer, and vice versa.
I find my utopia in similar places and for the most part, no one has to suffer for it.
excellent analysis!
i would ever-so-gently push back on this bit: "Saturate the books, internet, social media, and television programs everywhere with ideas of a better life and a better system." as i put forth in my original email to Elle—this might not be the unalloyed good that it appears to be at first.
i see two big downsides to this.
first, it presumes that "we" will have the means to choose, democratically or otherwise, from a menu of possible futures that we might want. as i lay out in the next installment of this series, climate change could very well put paid to all our imagining about the future we'd like to have, and soon. there is a very real chance that *nobody* gets the future they want. the future might have other plans. we should be prepared for that possibility.
second, something very dangerous happens when people's sense of destiny is betrayed. we have 1930s Germany and Cold War Russia as case studies in creating an expectation around a certain standard of living and then pulling the rug out. if the technicolor utopia is always just around the corner, and the pernicious betrayals of Those People are the only thing preventing "us" from getting there—that's a mighty big weapon to leave lying around. there is a curdled utopia at the heart of every Blood and Soil nationalist campaign.
(also—haven't we been experimenting with sharing our own utopias on social media for about a decade now? it seems to be making a lot of people statistically miserable. not everyone can afford to dream in the same way, and sometimes, having other people's best lives paraded before us isn't helpful or healthy.)
i'm all for daring to hope for the best, but caution is advised. outstanding essay overall!
Thank you!
Push away. Your points are all valid and I agree with them.
I intended to convey the idea of thinking about solutions and a better way of solving problems, experimenting with innovative ideas, and putting those ideas forward.
Everyone seems infatuated with a negative future and convinced it's the only possible one. A few more optimists could hardly hurt.
Bragging and showing off a materialistic or otherwise successful life may inspire some, but you're right, it has a net negative effect on our psyche. The responsibility, however, lies with the one who suffers by observing others, not in those more fortunate, forcing them into hiding.
Ideologies, when pushed to extremes, tend to have horrifying consequences, indeed. Even or especially the most benevolent sounding well-intended ones.
exactly right. the United States is in the midst of some heavy turmoil around who Those People are and what "we" need to do about it, so we can have all the wonderful things we were promised. presumably, our utopia is only a few decades away from being realized, once we sort out these malcontents. any day now.
at this point, we seem to have lost faith in the idea that the government of a country owes *any* obligation to its citizens, in terms of guaranteed benefits and protections. politics has stopped being about getting the government to ensure a high standard of living; it's now about getting the government to make sure that Those People are worse off, so at least somebody will be having a harder time than us.
Edit: i'm just remembering an old joke. guy finds a rusty old oil lamp at the junk market, and when he tries to polish it up, a djinn pops out. djinn says, "i will give you whatever your heart desires, but your neighbor will get twice as much of whatever you wish for." guy says, "i wish you'd take out one of my eyes."
i think the joke was originally popular in the Soviet Union, but it's starting to feel more universal.
I live in a post socialist-communist state and I can confirm this is still the mentality around these parts.
It's a direct remnant of the previous ideology of dragging anyone who would dare to push higher out of the norm, back down.
It's easing off now that more people have more things, and the old communists are dying off, but it was monstrous in the first few decades after our transition.
Successful and rich people were socially shunned into oblivion.
They propose a drastic change in our values, from power and possession to sharing and reputation, which I applaud wholeheartedly.
You can't buy food or housing with reputation. You can't travel on reputation. How are you going to gain this reputation? I can guarantee that it will be through something other than merit.
Those ideas or systems operate on the assumption that all your needs are taken care of, think UBI, free housing, etc.
The value transition I mentioned is their answer to the question: what will drive people and motivate them, if it's not about money and acquiring material possessions?
Reputation would then be built on your contribution to the whole of society, not to yourself in whatever form.
You would be motivated by other things, not just money.
That makes no sense. Worker 294 on the bridge expansion project will not get recognition for their work, nor will teacher 182, nor will enforcer 288. In the end, it will come to order 66.
So, the measure of any person can only be determined by how much money they have, produce, or have amassed in their possession? Is that what you’re saying?
If so, I have a problem with that definition, which is why I said I applaud the idea of supporting a different set of values.
What about artists, philosophers, scientists, community leaders, educators, inventors, healers, writers…?
Think of school. In any group of kids, there were people who ranked differently within that group. A whole system or organizational micro-society develops naturally, and it has nothing to do with money.
When money and possession are taken out of the equation, I believe a whole new system of measuring success, uniqueness, and contribution would evolve.
In these highly technologically developed utopian ideas, people aren’t stuck in factories behind conveyor belts. That’s a thing of the past. Robots and AI take care of all those jobs.
The problem most people assume would be the lack of having to work in the first place. What would that do to their psyche, what would inspire them to be active in society, what would drive them to get up in the morning and do more than just watch TV all day, and so on?
They also don’t strive to get rich or amass a fortune, as these things mean nothing to such a society. A challenging concept in today’s world, I know.
What about artists, philosophers, scientists, community leaders, educators, inventors, healers, writers…?
I believe recognition of their work and contribution is still based on Merit, not reputation. I'd rate Shakespeare higher than Marx and Tennessee Williams higher than Adolph.
It's definitely not about who has the most cash or possessions, and academic degrees aren't a basis of value either, considering the dross that comes out of academia.
Take, for instance, Tyson DeGrasse. When he speaks on Astrophysics, he's got expertise and can explain it succinctly. When he talks about things outside his wheelhouse, he sounds stupid and thus damages his reputation.
This is so good!!!!
I very much agree with you that creating one world utopia, wouldn’t be utopia.
I also agree that the ideal would be to open the borders a bit more so that everyone could move to THEIR utopia!! (I explored that a bit here and am expanding it in an upcoming government series: https://www.elysian.press/p/how-could-country-capitalism-work)
I also VERY MUCH agree that the great thing about all of these countries trying to be more and more utopian is that we have more freedom to live the lives we want to live within those structures. We can create a personal utopia of our own choosing for our own lives!!
Thank you so much for such an incredible post. I’m going to share this.
Thank you, Elle!
Regarding the linked article. I love the theoretical idea of governments competing for their citizens. Governments are supposed to serve their citizens but often forget their purpose.
Decentralization of power and governance seems like a step in the right direction. In an ideal world, we could all pick what we like, and the systems with the best solutions would naturally attract more people, hopefully without physical relocation, thus thriving further. The practical parts are tricky, though.
EU, for example, is also a great idea in theory, with open borders, free trade, and workforce exchange. Still, bureaucracy has now become a monster forcing its ideas by demanding unnatural unity of legal and cultural aspects. When a country disagrees, they're cut from funding, for example. The more they push for ideological and practical "sameness," the more problems are coming out of the closet. It's living on borrowed time again. We must learn to coexist, respecting each other's differences and not forcing our ideas onto others.
I actually think the EU is a pretty good example. Yes, EU law trumps country law, but countries are still free to self-govern and be culturally distinct. And some countries have done so with very utopian results (the nordic countries, for example!) That people can choose to move among those countries means they are choosing their own utopias!
Bureaucracy is certainly challenging, but that's because people are challenging and it's one way we try to get people on the same page. And to manage a large group of people, you have to have some kind of "these are the rules we all agree on." There might be some ways to fine tune and make it better, but I think we'll always have some of that management struggle just because we don't agree on everything.
Agreed. I think the best way to approach this problem is by having as few rules and bureaucratic limitations as possible.
Let's agree on the important issues, and work toward a common goal, but allow for as much freedom and self-determination as possible on everything else.
EU was great until it started meddling with everything. The more it pushes and tightens its grip, the more problems it faces.
Our elected leaders are left with very limited power and it became obvious they're neutered.
Nordic countries are truly one of the better examples. They do have some things that enable their policies, such as natural wealth, etc. Still, they make a lot of great choices and when we study how to do something, we often turn to their example. They seem to be ahead of time on a lot of issues.
I love everything about them, except the weather 😂
Their overly lenient social and integration policies are becoming a problem though, with crime rampaging through society (look at stats for Sweden).
Yes, I think I agree with your theses as far as allowing as much freedom as possible. But I still have more research to do there. (For example, most rules and regulations are designed to protect us from something bad, there might be some that turned out to not meet that function, but I'd be hesitant to throw them all out assuming that they didn't solve anything unless I had the stats to prove it.) In my own life, most of the things I am not free to do, I probably should not be free to do.
As far as the EU, the US is the same way in practice. The federal government has most of the power. But I also think, for the most part, they have used that power wisely. And the states technically do have the same governing power that EU or Nordic countries do, so I actually want to explore how we can have even more autonomy, and be more like EU countries in that regard!
I see your point. Of course some rules are there for a good reason. A lawless society is a difficult concept to accept in this day and age, and while no one likes to be told what to do, the more "civilized and organized" a society, the higher the standard of living, and the safer the population tends to be.
I believe there two problems in general:
- Such unions (EU...) tend to unite countries with different histories, values, and goals. They may agree on some issues, but not on all. Forcing their compliance causes internal turmoil and resentment toward the union. What is good for the whole, is not always good for the part. We make these pacts on the common goals and ideas, but in time, the demands of the larger entity always stretch their influence and reach. Ten laws today will be 10.000 laws in 20 years.
- Who do we trust to make such determination, set rules, determine the directions of technology, society, politics,... for us? In EU that role is filled with unelected buirocrats with their own agendas (we all have agendas), who tower over elected governments of sovereign countries. It has been proven time and again, that there are elements of disturbing corruption influencing their policies and cause irreparable damage for countries involved and the people living there.
I generally like the EU and the principles it stands for. I am happy to be a part of it. I also appreciate the need for compromise when joining such a union.
The problems is, decisions are being made that are causing terrible damage (perhaps in my opinion) and threaten the existence and prosperity of European countries, by destroying the industry, culture, and the most basic elements of any society and economy - cheap reliable energy, and self sufficiency.
Yes, these are all very good points.
I'm not sure I see how to get around the "ten laws today will be 10,000 laws in the future" bit. Because we used to have laws about where you need to hitch your horse, and now we need laws about how to govern AI. We'll constantly need to be tweaking as we learn what things turn out to cause harm to a community and add a new rule to protect against it. Some will become outdated for sure, but also irelevent.
As for the EU, I thought the council was made up of the heads of state of each of the countries within the EU? So aren't they elected leaders of their countries? And don't they together vote on the president of the EU, and also on the decisions the EU makes? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something!
That being said, we're in a similar pickle in the US—the federal government makes a lot of decisions that maybe should be decided by the state governments. I'm still actively researching who I think should be responsible for what, but I mostly agree that it can be hard to manage a wide group of different people and that local governments should have more authority over local communities (even if we might need that larger entity on the global stage!)
Thank you!
This, the truth though it might be, has just frightened me severely. But you are right.
The last couple of years were a stark reminder of just how many people prefer the safety of an oppressive government, over taking responsibility for themselves. And how little they care about people who disagree with them.
"In your Utopia, who has to suffer in order to make it work?" is a great question to ask ourselves!
We can look at any divisive topic and find that almost any country or group of people is divided, often equally between two opposing fronts. If one wins, the other will suffer, and vice versa.
I find my utopia in similar places and for the most part, no one has to suffer for it.