Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 153 of 153
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Would you want to live in a Utopian society?

  1. #101  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    India hopes to see its nuclear power system running completely on Thorium by 2030
    In such cases it is too earlier to take it for granted.Some countries already expected to have fusion power
    plants operational ``in 20 years``...
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    India hopes to see its nuclear power system running completely on Thorium by 2030
    In such cases it is too early to take it for granted.Some countries already expected to have fusion power
    plants operational ``in 20 years``...
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Thorium reactors are not that new. They have been built way back, but rejected since they did not lead to nuclear weapons material. They have been operating in the past, and are operating now, if on small scale, and will be operating in the future. We know we can build them, because we have built them. The new ones will be better than the old ones, because the technology has advanced greatly in the interim period.

    Nuclear fusion is still at the "maybe some day we might be able to make one" stage. There has never been a practical fusion reactor, and there is none now. They are still theoretical.

    For some of the reactors of the past, look at :
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

    I quote :

    "There have been several significant demonstrations of the use of thorium-based fuels to generate electricity in several reactor types. Many of these early trials were able to use high-enriched uranium (HEU) as the fissile ‘driver’ component, and this would not be considered today.
    • The 300 MWe Thorium High Temperature Reactor (THTR) in Germany, a HTR, operated with thorium-HEU fuel between 1983 and 1989. Over half of its 674,000 pebbles contained Th-HEU fuel particles (the rest graphite moderator and some neutron absorbers). These were continuously moved through the reactor as it operated, and on average each fuel pebble passed six times through the core.
    • The 40 MWe Peach Bottom HTR in the USA was a demonstration thorium-fuelled reactor that ran from 1967-74 [2]. It used a thorium-HEU fuel in the form of microspheres of mixed thorium-uranium carbide coated with pyrolytic carbon. These were embedded in annular graphite segments (not pebbles). This reactor produced 33 billion kWh over 1349 equivalent full-power days with a capacity factor of 74%.
    • The 330 MWe Fort St Vrain HTR in Colorado, USA, was a larger-scale commercial successor to the Peach Bottom reactor and ran from 1976-89. It also used thorium-HEU fuel in the form of microspheres of mixed thorium-uranium carbide coated with silicon oxide and pyrolytic carbon to retain fission products. These were embedded in graphite ‘compacts’ that were arranged in hexagonal columns ('prisms'). Almost 25 tonnes of thorium was used in fuel for the reactor, much of which attained a burn-up of about 170 GWd/t.
    • A unique thorium-fuelled Light Water Breeder Reactor operated from 1977 to 1982 at Shippingport in the USA [3] – it used uranium-233 as the fissile driver in special fuel assemblies having independently movable ‘seed’ regions. The reactor core was housed in a reconfigured early PWR. It operated at 60 MWe (236 MWt) with an availability factor of 86% producing over 2.1 billion kWh. Post-operation inspections revealed that 1.39% more fissile fuel was present at the end of core life, proving that breeding had occurred.
      * The core of the Shippingport demonstration LWBR consisted of an array of seed and blanket modules surrounded by an outer reflector region. In the seed and blanket regions, the fuel pellets contained a mixture of thorium-232 oxide (ThO2) and uranium oxide (UO2) that was over 98% enriched in U-233. The proportion by weight of UO2 was around 5-6% in the seed region, and about 1.5-3% in the blanket region. The reflector region contained only thorium oxide at the beginning of the core life. U-233 was used because at the time it was believed that U-235 would not release enough neutrons per fission and Pu-239 would parasitically capture too many neutrons to allow breeding in a PWR.
    • Indian heavy water reactors (PHWRs) have for a long time used thorium-bearing fuel bundles for power flattening in some fuel channels – especially in initial cores when special reactivity control measures are needed. "
    Last edited by skeptic; May 20th, 2012 at 11:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    One also have to take in account economics and expenses.
    I do not think that Germany discontinued to use Thorium fuel
    in one of the reactors only because it doesnt produce as much
    Plutonium.Also Thorium power in its modern designes depends
    on Uranium 235 which works as as a chain reaction starter and
    thus limited to reserves of U235 too.Thorium reserves are also
    not that huge.If all world power will be produced on Thorium
    power plants then currently known proved reserves will be depleted in
    one or two generations.
    Last edited by Stanley514; May 21st, 2012 at 09:20 AM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Sorry Stanley. Wrong.

    Thorium is far more abundant than uranium. Even if the demand for nuclear powered electricity increased ten fold, there would be enough thorium to keep us all going for the next four thousand years. The thing is that less than 1% of any uranium ore is U235. (The majority U238 is not fissionable). Whereas almost all the thorium is fissionable.

    There is about 4 times as much thorium as uranium known. This means 400 times as much fissionable material. Since there is about 100 years uranium available at current use rate, you can easily calculate how long the thorium would last.

    I suspect that nuclear fusion, using deuterium as the fuel, will be available within 100 years. The amount of deuterium in the oceans is sufficient to keep humanity going for literally millions of years, even at a massively increased electricity demand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    There is about 4 times as much thorium as uranium known. This means 400 times as much fissionable material. Since there is about 100 years uranium available at current use rate, you can easily calculate how long the thorium would last.
    Currently only few percent of all total energy is produced with help of Uranium.If you are going to replace all fossil fuels with
    nuclear power then you need to reduce those numbers many times.Take also in account unavoidable increase in energy consumption accross the World.Especially in China and India.Wikipedia states proved reserves of Thorium as 1.600.000 tonns.If we divide this number per 7 billions of Earth inhabitants we get 200 grams per person.Not very impressive amount in any case.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Globally, nuclear power was 13.5% of all electricity generated in 2010. Over 77% of all electricity in France.
    Nuclear Energy Institute - World Statistics
    Is that what you call "only a few percent?"

    By comparison, wind power, which seems to be so highly regarded by the green movement, produces less than 2%.

    Grams of thorium per human is a very lousy measure. Try expressing it as kilowatt hours of electricity produced per person. I have already pointed out that, at ten times the rate of nuclear generated electricity, it would last 4,000 years.

    What's with you anyway Stanley?
    To me, the potential of thorium as a much safer, more abundant way of generating electricity, this is very good news indeed. Why the negativity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    I do not have something largely agains of Thorium power, I just warn you that this
    lunch is not going last for a too long.
    Last edited by Stanley514; May 23rd, 2012 at 03:55 AM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Stanley

    i do not know where you get your numbers from. Possibly you are referring to relatively pure monazite mineral? Overall, there is a very substantial amount of thorium potentially available. A lot more than 1,600,000 tonnes.
    Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I quote :

    "Thorium is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils; it is three times more abundant than tin in the Earth's crust and is about as common as lead.[61] Soil commonly contains an average of around 6 parts per million (ppm) of thorium.[62] Thorium occurs in several minerals including thorite (ThSiO4), thorianite (ThO2 + UO2) and monazite. Thorianite is a rare mineral and may contain up to about 12% thorium oxide. Monazite contains 2.5% thorium, allanite has 0.1 to 2% thorium and zircon can have up to 0.4% thorium.[63] Thorium-containing minerals occur on all continents.[6][64][65] Thorium is several times more abundant in Earth's crust than all isotopes of uranium combined and thorium-232 is several hundred times more abundant than uranium-235."

    The Earth's crust weighs about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. That means there is about 60,000,000,000,000 tonnes of thorium in the crust of the Earth. Obviously, we are not going to be able to obtain more than a small part of that, but it will be much, much more than 1,600,000 tonnes.

    The quote above says there is as much thorium as lead. About 3 million tonnes of lead are mined annually. So this also suggests your 1,600,000 tonne estimate is ridiculously conservative.
    shlunka likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Thorium is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils; it is three times more abundant than tin in the Earth's crust and is about as common as lead
    You also have to take in account how disperse some mineral in Earth crust is.For example Copper is quite common (100 PPM) but it is disperse and soon mines will be depleted.Are you seriously going to turn 1 tonn of granite into molecular dust to retreive 2-4 grams of Thorium from it?And could you provide some calculations of energy loss and gain?
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Stanley

    In a recent New Scientist article on resource depletion, the author took the view that we are far, far from such depletion. He pointed out that we have not fully mined the rich ores that lie within one kilometre of the surface, and that the crust of the Earth over continental masses, averages 40 km thick. There is plenty more to mine, even just by making deeper mines. And that is not even looking at more sophisticated techniques including micro-mining-robots, or tapping into deep hydro-thermal waters.

    Thorium is much more abundant still, since we have not even got properly started mining it. In fact, there are very large stockpiles of thorium ore just stacked up waiting to be used. Thorium ore is a by-product or rare earth mining.

    On materials like copper, we do not know how long the resource will last. The biggest unknown is future extraction technologies. There is ample copper available if we can obtain it. I am sure that new technologies will come, and make the resource last longer than current predictions. Pretty much the same thing applies to all scarce minerals.

    There is even a new company being set up to mine near Earth asteroids.
    Planetary Resources has a plan to mine asteroids - The Washington Post
    This sounds like science fiction, but the people behind the plan are not idiots. The recent successful launch of SpaceX's cargo carrying ship gives this plan more credence. We can imagine a cargo of automatic mining equipment delivered to an asteroid whose orbit takes it close to Earth (many such asteroids exist), and this goes to work. When the asteroid, some years later, again approaches the Earth, the mined and highly valuable metals are launched towards Earth and recovered.

    New Scientist calculated at a 20 km diameter asteroid could have $US 80 trillion worth of minerals. This makes the whole endeavour attractive.

    Not that I am suggested we become dependent on asteroid mining. It is just one more incredibly interesting development that might, or might not pan out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Mostly I'd recommend not selecting on the basis of IQ, but behavior. If a person commits a violent criminal act, they could be sterilized. The instinct to act out in that manner would gradually breed out of the species over time.
    I have following suggestions/objections regarding this proposition:
    1) If under ``sterilization`` you mean outright castration it is too barbarian to be discussed in civilized society.Though in some countries such as Russia they seriously propose chemical castration for certain categories of criminals such as pedophiles.
    2) How seriuos should be violent crime?Should it be murder or any, including common hooliganism?
    3) Many people already have children when they commit their first serious violent crime.I do not know how many such criminals are young people.
    4) If you mean purely genetical rather than punitive aims there might be less severe methods under current technologies.For example if there would be discovered genes which are proved to be linked to criminal behaivour then embrion selection could be used.
    5) People with agressive genes could still possess some interest for a certain government positions.For example soldiers or commandos.
    6) Bad genes could co-exist with some valuable genes.
    7) There could be different mothives to comit a violent crime.For example vengeance or state of affect.
    8) Probably the largest cont-argument. An inocent prisoners.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Stanley

    On restricting the breeding of violent offenders.

    There is an obvious way that does not use any form of castration, and which protects society.
    Simple : keep violent offenders in prison till they are past normal breeding age.

    Most violent offenders are male and young. Men over 40 are rarely violent offenders, even if released from prison. It seems to be something people mature out of. If a male young violent offender is not released from prison till he is, say, 45 years old, he is unlikely to carry out much, if any, further violence, and he is also unlikely to do much breeding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    To Skeptic:
    There is not too many prison setences which allow to keep them in prison for so long.
    For example usual rape will take no more then 5-7 years.If criminal did it at age of 18
    he will be released at age of 23-25.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Stanley

    I am painfully aware of that.
    It is common knowledge by criminologists that prison sentences are pretty much useless. People leave prison worse than when they entered, and are prone to re-offending big time.

    I also know that a bit of common sense is totally unlikely to ever enter the political equation, and this stupidity is not likely to change. I suggested something sensible. Prison sentences that keep young violent offenders out of society till they are old enough to be unlikely to re-offend is just too damn smart. No politician will support it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116 Utopia - working towards a single goal as a collective 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1
    Utopia = working towards a single goal as a collective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    I guess if I had to describe my idea of utopia in a single line I would say, "Utopia is a place where everybody is happy and does not want or need for anything else."
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is no utopia. If nothing else, we would be thwarted by human individuality. What is utopia for one person may be hell for someone else.

    However, we can work towards a better society. Better nutrition, medical care, education etc for everyone. Utopia is a work in progress - a development rather than an end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    There is no utopia.
    But isn't Utopia supposed to be an idea? an ideal, something to aspire to. Seems to me to say "There is no utopia." kind of defeats the spirit of the idea and why would you want to kill a dream or ideal? Utopia will always exist in the minds of those who want to believe in it, that perhaps one day it might truely be an idea that could be made manifest on some level and such dreams and visions help to shape the future.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Seems to me to say "There is no utopia." kind of defeats the spirit of the idea and why would you want to kill a dream or ideal?
    Why would I do anything to "shape the future" when, if it is a utopian dream, it is absolutely, gold-plate guaranteed to be oppressive to a significant portion of the population? Show me any example of 'utopia' that wouldn't regiment people into certain mindsets. Any arrangement - regardless of whether it begins with the best of intentions - inevitably succumbs. Communists of various forms are the outstanding examples.

    Firstly to the failings of the society it "replaced" - just look at Russia, they started out hating and wanting to get rid of the secret police, the injustices to peasants, the unequal status of women, the overweening empire-building of the csarists. Where did they go with their brand-new, nothing like those horrible folks, wonderful society? Straight back to oppressing the peasants, secret police here, there and everywhere, reinstating the medals for 'heroic' mothers of dozens of children and trying to make their country bigger and better by taking over more and more countries. Fail.

    Secondly, to natural human desires and impulses. Look at the kibbutzim and the 'hippie' communes. Kibbutzim parents tried valiantly not to prefer and protect their own children before others, but failed. The whole system of all children in one group supported by all adults in another, sometimes not even telling children who their parents were, was doomed. The emotional "freedom" offered by all of us will love everybody equally in any commune we happen to live in (mainly in the USA) finished up with empty, isolated emotional lives, shallow sexual liaisons and meaningless transient, soon-forgotten, friendships replacing the long-term supportive relationships that people usually establish in their twenties. Another couple of failures.

    Thirdly, one size fits all does not work. The idea of architects that they would create better people in a better society by applying their concepts across commercial, industrial and domestic buildings was not just ill-conceived, it was unbelievably arrogant. Just because they don't like houses filled with books and family pictures and kids' inept artwork and comfortable seats with handy tables to put down your drink or your crossword puzzle or your knitting doesn't mean that the rest of us can't decide for ourselves how we like to live. Fail. Not even wrong.

    Show me any utopia that would allow me and my various relatives and friends the freedom to live worthwhile, satisfying lives without having to go to meetings or give up our children or give up having half done jigsaws cluttering our dining tables or be told what to study and where to work/live, to have gardens or to abandon them, to grow our own food or to live without access to seeds and cuttings ---- and I might consider it. I've never yet heard of any utopian scheme that didn't require a population to conform to some stated desirable beliefs or behaviours that we know, right now, would be uncomfortable or downright oppressive to many people we know.
    Lynx_Fox and skeptic like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Utopia being a work in progress, I have to also add that humans need the chance to work at making things better. Without the satisfaction of knowing we have done something to improve what people have, it is not utopia.

    At the present moment, there is plenty to work on improving.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Just because we haven't succeeded yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea, isn't it the point to learn from our mistakes so that we do something better the next time and ok we might fail a million times but isn't it still worth if at the end we might actually succeed? I think past failures doesn't always mean that the entire future is doomed to failure it just means we still have much to learn along the way before we get there.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    No one talked of failure or giving up. Humanity works towards improving the human condition, and will continue. In another 100 years, life should be better than today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    No one talked of failure or giving up. Humanity works towards improving the human condition, and will continue. In another 100 years, life should be better than today.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    WoW, another Utopia debate :-)

    Eventually someone care to define the notion at post #116, while the main obstacle was stated on post #11. There are many utopia on this planet at many scale. Some sports team, some small enterprise, some family, some small communities (there are quite a lot of real democracy in southern america).
    They may be many, while counted individually, but very few when measured as a ratio.

    I have found memories of some team were we were all seeking the same goal (that mean also mine, having fun). Utopia is a quantity that can be measure much like temperature. You just average the difference of individual approach to the shared goal.

    First thing you noticed is the the goal should be the same, and well defined. That's why small communities speaking with the same language/culture will more easily define one. Then there is the quality of the goal.
    "having less violence" is not a goal, it is self-contradictory, it introduce it own coercive (violent) mean (execution or drugs, or police)
    "freedom" is in the same category, because it is the definition of not having any common goal. The more you have, the less others have.

    The current Utopia is to believe we could all be winner(or rich) by working hard, and that we have an infinite playground to mess with.
    That Utopia has failed big time while achieve through organized despotism (like Stalinism) or chaotic nepotism (our current neo-aristocracy).

    The next one will have to make do with our genetic pre-selection and do not involved more than 30 individuals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The next one will have to make do with our genetic pre-selection and do not involved more than 30 individuals.
    So you think it's going to come full circle....since genetic pre-selection, that of being the right race and family, is probably the most common form of past societies.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The next one will have to make do with our genetic pre-selection and do not involved more than 30 individuals.
    So you think it's going to come full circle....since genetic pre-selection, that of being the right race and family, is probably the most common form of past societies.
    Yes, something like a tribe. Right in the sense of utopic, with few tension, and high long term equilibrium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Mostly I'd recommend not selecting on the basis of IQ, but behavior. If a person commits a violent criminal act, they could be sterilized. The instinct to act out in that manner would gradually breed out of the species over time.
    I have following suggestions/objections regarding this proposition:1) If under ``sterilization`` you mean outright castration it is too barbarian to be discussed in civilized society.Though in some countries such as Russia they seriously propose chemical castration for certain categories of criminals such as pedophiles.
    If they are given a vasectomy they can still have sex. It just won't result in any offspring. It's also a reversible procedure should the offender later be proven innocent.
    ) How seriuos should be violent crime?Should it be murder or any, including common hooliganism?3) Many people already have children when they commit their first serious violent crime.I do not know how many such criminals are young people.4) If you mean purely genetical rather than punitive aims there might be less severe methods under current technologies.For example if there would be discovered genes which are proved to be linked to criminal behaivour then embrion selection could be used.5) People with agressive genes could still possess some interest for a certain government positions.For example soldiers or commandos.6) Bad genes could co-exist with some valuable genes
    Even an imperfect selection process would still yield results over time.
    7) There could be different mothives to comit a violent crime.For example vengeance or state of affect.
    Some people are capable of self control under those circumstances. It can't be society's job to prevent individuals from feeling provoked. That's an unrealistic expectation.Expecting people to conduct themselves with self control is more realistic.
    8) Probably the largest cont-argument. An inocent prisoners.
    [/quote]So we should be sure and use a reversible proceedure, as best as possible.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    As I said before, the best reversible procedure is incarceration. If someone turns out to be innocent, he is released and compensated. If he is not innocent, the incarceration not only prevents reproduction, but protects society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Just curious, but how does one really compensate a person for wrongful incarceration?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Just curious, but how does one really compensate a person for wrongful incarceration?
    The same way you compensate people for any other wrong done to them. With money.

    If you are going to argue that this is not enough, then fine. But it is the best we can do, and at least shows we are doing our best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Just curious, but how does one really compensate a person for wrongful incarceration?
    The same way you compensate people for any other wrong done to them. With money.

    If you are going to argue that this is not enough, then fine. But it is the best we can do, and at least shows we are doing our best.
    I think it demonstrates the basic flaw of Utopia entirely, actually. For some, it may be enough. But for some that lost their wife, kids, families, jobs and homes, it won't be. Some things cannot be replaced.

    It's this reality that we actually live in, today. At any moment, our lives can take a turn for the worst- life is simply not fair. Utopia implies that life is fair. That people can go about their business happy and worry-free. That everything is 'right.'

    I believe that the more we strive for a Utopia, the more we must face that life just ain't fair. That we cannot achieve Utopia because it's not our nature to have one. Not even slightly. It's not remote. It utterly contradicts our nature.
    The more we strive for it, the more damage we will cause.

    Ok, so we cannot replace a mans entire life. We can buy him a new house, a new car... But after a few years incarceration, we cannot replace his wife and kids- they are too unique and too dear to him. Your point when asked about it? "We must just accept the way it is."

    Why wait until we screw things up even worse? I say, we accept that life just is, now, and save the drama, heartache and trouble being added onto an already rough existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Neverfly

    My argument is that there is no such thing as Utopia. If we achieve an ideal society, it will still have flaws, even if just for some people. However, that is not a current problem, since society is so deeply flawed in so many ways that there is great room for improvement. The goal need not be Utopia, but a society less like a dystopia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I'm all for Anarchy, myself...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post

    I believe that the more we strive for a Utopia, the more we must face that life just ain't fair. That we cannot achieve Utopia because it's not our nature to have one. Not even slightly. It's not remote. It utterly contradicts our nature.
    The more we strive for it, the more damage we will cause.
    I think of it like trying to design a perfectly efficient automobile engine. Of course 100% efficiency is not truly obtainable, but every 1% you move closer to it still yields results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I'm all for Anarchy, myself...
    That's another impossible dream. In order to have a true state of anarchy every person would have to refrain from attempting to impose their will on each other. Some people would naturally desire to impose their will.

    Who would stop them?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think of it like trying to design a perfectly efficient automobile engine. Of course 100% efficiency is not truly obtainable, but every 1% you move closer to it still yields results.
    In a world of 1%, I'd probably say, "Screw it." I mean, really.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    That's another impossible dream. In order to have a true state of anarchy every person would have to refrain from attempting to impose their will on each other. Some people would naturally desire to impose their will.

    Who would stop them?
    That isn't what Anarchy is. Anarchy is not a rule of ordered disorder. It's anything goes. It doesn't disallow anyone from imposing their will on others if they have the means to back it up.
    A lack of central governorship does not mean a lack of imposing of wills. Nature is anarchy. But there is a lot of will imposed on others. There is no governor that arrests the lion on the gazelle's behalf.
    But the lion and the gazelle will each impose their own wants on the other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    That's another impossible dream. In order to have a true state of anarchy every person would have to refrain from attempting to impose their will on each other. Some people would naturally desire to impose their will.

    Who would stop them?
    That isn't what Anarchy is. Anarchy is not a rule of ordered disorder. It's anything goes. It doesn't disallow anyone from imposing their will on others if they have the means to back it up.
    A lack of central governorship does not mean a lack of imposing of wills. Nature is anarchy. But there is a lot of will imposed on others. There is no governor that arrests the lion on the gazelle's behalf.
    But the lion and the gazelle will each impose their own wants on the other.
    I don't get what you think is special about "governments" then?

    In an anarchy, the local gang leader would set up a government of his own, where everyone not a member of his gang had to serve his gang. It just wouldn't be as fair of a governmental system as what we have now.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Nothing is special about them. It only would increase my own chances of being top dog.


    I really don't like being told what to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Freshman Shamandrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    28
    I sometimes think it would be better for us, and especially animals to go back to a hunter gatherer life. But I know:

    -first of all it is impossible to go back to that
    -the majority of people prefer this life anyway
    -if you compare now and than you would probably come to as much benefits and costs (I don't want to start the discussion which is better, both have their costs and benefits, one maybe more than the other)
    -even if we did go back there would be someone who would "cheat" this system and would become dominant and we would go back to this society; anarchy has the same problem

    However now comes a point I want to make:

    We can learn a lot from our past and how hunter gathers life:

    -Darwinian medicine
    -nutrition
    -evolutionary psychology
    if not more

    Just because I think the hunter gatherer way may be better for us, but mostly our enviroment, does not mean I do not appreciate our modern way of life, and I know it has it's benefits. If it wasn't for the modern world their would be no science for example. Science can help us achieve a better world, in my opinion.

    So, my utopia is not a hunter gatherer one (it is in the sense it is impossible). My utopia would have the following trait:

    -diversity of human culture, human genetics and the enviroment we live in

    I was going to say more but I think this is al we need: need as in to survive if something bad happens. And I got a question:

    -Are we even psychological capable of producing an utopia?

    As for the question if I wanted to life in a utopia: I don't want to die but I'm not keen on living either, that applies to every society I might life in. The better feeling I got that I have control over my life, the beter I would feel I think.

    I hope I wasn't too controversial, I'm not even completely sure about my utopia.
    Last edited by Shamandrill; January 21st, 2013 at 08:15 AM. Reason: Forgot to answer the question
    Neverfly likes this.
    I have a hunger, a hunger for information, a sick obsession with science, I want to know, want to how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    How would one know if they were born into a utopian society if they never knew any other type of society? Wouldn't they rebel against all the things that the utopian society stood for saying it was to good for them all and needs to have problems to make it humanized more?
    Neverfly likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Freshman Shamandrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    How would one know if they were born into a utopian society if they never knew any other type of society? Wouldn't they rebel against all the things that the utopian society stood for saying it was to good for them all and needs to have problems to make it humanized more?
    Rebeling is interesting. Is rebeling part of our nature? I do remember something about my schooling, about it, I studied a education that had criminology in it. Parent culture comes to mind, and college boys, corner boys, ... (?) boys and rebels, if I remember correctly (if you want to know, I had quit this schooling).

    I don't think it's unlikely that I for example would find some way to rebel in some sort of way in this society, as I'm a bit of a pessimist (is pessimist or positivist also part of someones nature?). I also had the theory (maybe I also learned this at college) that I rejected my parent culture because of my not so good relationship with my dad (which also died). That may be utter nonsense, but I do have a somewhat unusual "own" culture. When I was younger I was somewhat extremist left, a rebel so to speak. However I was not really part of a "outgroup culture" (rebel culture, subculture) of some sort, but that may also be because of my introverted character. I did wear shirts with revolution on it, and some of my clothes even today are mostly taken from outgroup cultures. Ain't I something!

    (With outgroup cultures I mean the ingroup is the dominant culture)
    Last edited by Shamandrill; January 21st, 2013 at 01:14 PM.
    I have a hunger, a hunger for information, a sick obsession with science, I want to know, want to how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is no utopia, for the simple reason that no two people could ever agree on what makes utopia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Freshman Shamandrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    There is no utopia, for the simple reason that no two people could ever agree on what makes utopia.
    I agree with that, and while I'm a bit skeptical, I do believe we are improving.
    I have a hunger, a hunger for information, a sick obsession with science, I want to know, want to how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Here is the utopia I thought of when I was around 15 years old...

    Abolish money and thus abolish greed.

    Automate all jobs that do not require creative input.

    Give everyone a home, food, a car, a TV, a PC or whatever the latest techology fad is. Let people have whatever they want.

    Set up a world wide computer network that everyone has free access to.
    __________________________________________________ ________

    Government by consensus. Everyone gets a vote on any topic that comes up. Anyone who wants to vote does so via the network.

    Nobody has to work for a living if they don't want to. You can get whatever you like, for free. Just order it via the network and it is delivered automatically to your free home.

    Automate all agriculture and mass production. All food and consumer goods are produced automatically.
    __________________________________________________ ________________________________

    There is no need to steal material goods, as you can just ask for it and you'll get it. There is no more hunger or poverty.

    People have all the free time they want. They can find what they are really good at. Anyone who wants to can, for instance, record their own music and distribute it via the network. Or they can write a novel, or and article, or paint a picture, or invent some new technology. Fame comes in the form of positive feedback from others across the network. People can find ways to feel good about themselves.

    There will always be people who want to do something useful with their lives, like helping maintain the infrastructure for instance.

    See where this is going... ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    See where this is going... ?
    yes

    Check this space in 50 years, and we might be there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Shamandrill View Post
    I hope I wasn't too controversial
    You haven't read my posts, have you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Freshman Shamandrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shamandrill View Post
    I hope I wasn't too controversial
    You haven't read my posts, have you?
    Not everything no. I'm probably not that controversial as I think, I'm just a bit worried about my credibility and status on this forum.
    I have a hunger, a hunger for information, a sick obsession with science, I want to know, want to how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Shamandrill View Post
    I'm just a bit worried about my credibility and status on this forum.
    Build it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Shamandrill View Post
    I'm just a bit worried about my credibility and status on this forum.
    Um, new poster.

    Credibility: 50/50. (You get read and "judged" - could go either way)
    Status: zero.

    You earn both kiddo.

    You do make interesting posts and that counts for me. (Then again, WTF do I know, I've been here 9 days...)
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Imagine a perfect world. There's no such thing as poverty in this world, but if you want to work extra hard you can be rich. No serious crimes are committed because the authorities are able to perfectly detect and prevent every attempt - all without invading anyone's privacy (somehow).

    Would that world be interesting enough to live in? Do you think people would get bored out of their minds and start committing suicide?
    I could tolerate it for a day or two at the most, then I'd have to blow something up. There is a reason human beings watch dramas, action, horror and stuff like that. Our brains crave to solve problems. We NEED excitement, whether physical, psychological, or purely imaginary.

    Challenges make our brains smarter. Finding ways to avoid danger or pain are great ways to exercise our brains.

    Pain or fear of pain is what motivates us most effectively. Why would you need to work extra hard to be rich if there was no risk of suffering poverty. You can only play with so many toys at a time. So just average existence in that utopia you mention would be fine for most. For the most part personal possessions that are not essential to living are simply items that assure us that we are not poor. The more we have, the less poor we are. And no one wants to be poor because poor can lead to homeless and homeless leads to hungry, hungry leads to starvation (ie death).

    IMO, if there was a hell, hell would be utopia. it would drive one insane. They would want to die but not be able to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster." - Agent Smith.
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Imagine a perfect world. There's no such thing as poverty in this world, but if you want to work extra hard you can be rich. No serious crimes are committed because the authorities are able to perfectly detect and prevent every attempt - all without invading anyone's privacy (somehow).

    Would that world be interesting enough to live in? Do you think people would get bored out of their minds and start committing suicide?
    I could tolerate it for a day or two at the most, then I'd have to blow something up. There is a reason human beings watch dramas, action, horror and stuff like that. Our brains crave to solve problems. We NEED excitement, whether physical, psychological, or purely imaginary.

    Challenges make our brains smarter. Finding ways to avoid danger or pain are great ways to exercise our brains.

    Pain or fear of pain is what motivates us most effectively. Why would you need to work extra hard to be rich if there was no risk of suffering poverty. You can only play with so many toys at a time. So just average existence in that utopia you mention would be fine for most. For the most part personal possessions that are not essential to living are simply items that assure us that we are not poor. The more we have, the less poor we are. And no one wants to be poor because poor can lead to homeless and homeless leads to hungry, hungry leads to starvation (ie death).

    IMO, if there was a hell, hell would be utopia. it would drive one insane. They would want to die but not be able to.
    The Viking Valhalla/heaven is supposed to be a place where the warriors kill each other on the battle field every day, then their wounds are healed and any dead are raised, and they have another battle the next day. I guess that tells us something about that culture's view of utopia.

    I see the main problem with our world as being cumulative victory. Where the winner of today's battle gains advantages that virtually guarantee they will also win tomorrow's battle. After a while the winning and losing becomes so polarized that it basically isn't a fight anymore. It's just one side pounding on the other.

    That's not an entertaining or enjoyable existence for either party. The winners must be bored never having to struggle for their next victory. The losers must be tired of the futility.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Nothing is special about them. It only would increase my own chances of being top dog.


    I really don't like being told what to do.
    I don't think anyone can be top dog in a utopia. Someone else would have to be on the bottom for anyone to be on the top.

    At best people's places in society could be constantly shuffling around, so everyone eventually gets to be king for a day, and everyone takes their turn as a peasant also?

    I'd be happier with true egalitarianism myself. Then I neither have to be told what to do, nor be responsible to tell anyone else what to do. Or well... I guess the democratic will of the community would still have to be obeyed.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1
    A Utopian society is simply implausible, Human nature would never allow it to prevail
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Utopian Life or Technology
    By TPhaoimnaes in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 1st, 2010, 10:03 AM
  2. Morality and Society
    By Red in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 31st, 2007, 05:51 AM
  3. society
    By parag in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 1st, 2007, 07:45 PM
  4. Society vs Health
    By Closet Philosopher in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2006, 06:02 AM
  5. Is our society FAILING US?
    By charles brough in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 18th, 2006, 09:08 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •