Utopia Blues

In the future, humanity finally achieves the ages-old dream of heaven on Earth. There is no disease, as medical technology has finally advanced enough to conquer it. There is no poverty,given that fab labs and advanced automation can produce most physical goods one might desire with minimal human labor making making them ensuring the cost is low enough for anyone to afford. There is no more war, as there are no more nations to wage it. There is only one world order. As a result, the world is a calmer, more peaceful place. To the protagonists (for whom I have yet to come up with names), this makes it completely and utterly boring.

Over the course of the series, they wander throughout the neighborhood trying to find some means of alleviating boredom, which in some case means avoiding punishment by the authorities. What are some things they might try?

edited 4th Feb '12 1:41:56 PM by goldenerasuburb

Assuming this would happen (Which we all know is unrealistic), humans would adapt. Chances are, they would have far more focus, on, say, celebrities and what not.

Which part seems unlikely to you? That global commerce and communication could blend the cultures of the world to the point where they are all one, or that the technologies I mentioned could have the effect of eliminating poverty, or that disease could be fully eliminated? Just curious.

All of them.

Can you describe what might prevent those factors from having the specified effect?

Utopia is impossible. It's a well discovered idea. If everything is eliminated, there still need to be jobs. If you eliminate the need for jobs, people will be in poverty. If you want to give everyone a house and what, then you're going to eventually get corrupt because someone is going to want more.

It's implausible, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with an implausible idea. People write implausible ideas all the time.

edited 4th Feb '12 3:58:08 PM by MrAHR

Addressing what people would do to alleviate boredom: Well, for the purposes of telling an interesting story, I would imagine they'd probably flaunt the rules. Small rules, at first, but they'd likely get worse over time. They might start with graffiti, then move on to petty shoplifting, then larger theft, and eventually, perhaps, move on to assault and ultimately murder.

If it's a somewhat lighter story, though, it would mean more general mischief. Hijinks, even. Small, largely harmless pranks.

If the characters are heroes rebelling against an oppressive regime, then, again, it would start small - graffiti and the like - and move on to greater and greater outbursts against the regime. Perhaps gathering a cult hero status in the process.

So, it depends on what kind of story you want to tell.

This is the problem I always have with utopian concepts: they're boring.

~shrug~

I don't have an answer for you, though.

Well....if they are bored, the might make something like TVtropes.

After pouring considerable thought into this, something has dawned on me. Humans may have an aggressive and restless side to them which often leads to war and violent crime, but that does not mean utopia is impossible. Once the problems of disease and poverty are solved, what is needed is to find a constructive outlet for that aggressive and restless nature of ours. Without such an outlet, boredom would ensue amongst a sizable portion of the populace driving them to seek the alleviation of their boredom even if it means tearing society apart. I figure a blood sport like Rollerball would suffice. Something sufficiently violent to satisfy the savage natures of both players and spectators so they can enjoy an earthly paradise while not tearing it apart.

As for Mr. AHR, I can say this: They won't be getting a house, they'll be getting a citizen's dividend, with which they'll be able to afford basic living expenses. This money is raised by the state when it sells/leases natural resources. Yes, this won't be applicable in places where there aren't enough natural resources to be sold/leased and that will probably lead to some complications. But as for disease being eliminated, how has that been ruled out? On a similar note, as America declines, there are a number of different ways the world could re-organise itself. If global commerce continues, then cultures will mix. It seems likely that under the right circumstances they'll mix to the point of being one global culture. Once it reaches that point a world government looks a LOT more plausible.

The balls in you court, where am I wrong?

Consumer culture. People will want things. The rich will get it. There will be class divide. If there is no rich, there will be people who will find under the counter ways to get things they want that can't be afforded to them due to the alotted money. Also, see: Brave New World, and Soviet Russa

Like I said, don't worry about if it's possible or not. Just claim suspension of disbelief, it's easier to justify your premise that way.

edited 6th Feb '12 12:27:37 PM by MrAHR

Bickering, escalating levels of bizarreness in entertainment, psychopathic or insane individuals mucking things up...

I disagree. You only need a medium of exchange (such as money) to manage scarce resources. In a society with sufficently advanced manufacturing and shipping allows goods to be built and shipped cheap enough to be free there won't be much need for a medium of exchange. This will leave a lot of people out of work, which will be a problem at first. But after a certain point, it won't matter. One works to get money in order to buy the essentials of survival, which in this scenario won't require much if any money. The example of Soviet Russia doesn't apply, as that was also based on the management of scarce resources. As for Brave New World... I'll need some time to remember more about that one so as to say for sure whether it applies to this discussion.

But bickering would definitely be present, as prosperity by no means changes how petty people can be. Escalating bizarreness in entertainment also fits as people with everything (materially) they could want and too much time on their hands are particularly likely to engage in just that. Plus there's the issue that insane individuals where [I]anything[I] can be manufactured very cheaply could easily use that to gain access to weapons with which they could kill large numbers of people. So before any claims of utopia can be made, there has to be a means of dealing with those people before they do their damage. Privacy in that situation becomes something abominable. No - everyone must watch everyone because one slip up could mean disaster.

edited 6th Feb '12 5:50:53 PM by goldenerasuburb

This needn't be as bad as it sounds. In fact, it might look something like this story I read a while ago:

http://daybreakmagazine.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/daybreak-fiction-the-rules-of-utopia/

Goldenera, have you by any chance read William James' The Moral Equivalent of War?

No. What's it about?

It deals with something you mentioned- that great cause to motivate Humans that would supposedly be missing in a Utopia. If there are no problems, there is no impetus to solve them, that sort of stuff. In this case, it pertains to war as that great cause. I think you'd get a lot out of it.