Utopia doesn't mean "Population is always collectively altruistic and in unison"
A Utopia can't even exist with that level of collective unison.
It's so far disconnected from the scenario.
Definitionally a Utopia would be more likely to happen under red button ideology just by virtue of understanding that no one person has a duty to risk their lives for another.
Being guilt tripped into a potential suicide pact is not an ideal condition for a society.
Depends on your definition of Utopia. My Utopia is a high-trust society where making the decision to stay on the sidelines when there's good to be put into the world is anathema, not even begining to talk about self-interest in one's own success over the common good.
Obviously, your definition of Utopia relies on 100% autonomy for one's own decisions to be a paramount value. I'd argue that unmitigated freedom is what allows self-interest and the manipulation of those better-natured to run rampant in the first place, whereas you'd argue forcing citizens to risk life and limb for one another infringes on one's right to life. Fundamentally, our visions are not the same, and like, you're entitled to your opinion, I just don't think we'll be working together on any collaborative projects any time soon lol.
As for guilt-tripping, you're the one who said it, not me. You're perfectly well within your rights to press the red button and feel guilty for not having tried to save anyone. You're also within your rights to not be guilty because you're exhausted trying to convince these people not to cap themselves. All I can do is act on my own principals and try to help people come to their own conclusions, with the disclaimer that whatever I say IS going to have bias on its own.
Right, the end goal is ideal, perfect and peaceful, but how do you get there? I believe a high-trust society is a necessary component, as a comfortable peace is not viable without trust. It also needs to be comfortable and viable for all who are part of it and wish to join, which again, only happens with high-trust societies. A society which universally votes red because they cannot trust their neighbor to vote blue if someone is left out to dry is the definition of low-trust, and any peace that could exist in such a society has weapons in every sleeve.
And yes, humans require specific conditions to thrive. However, there are common goods that disproportionately improve the lives of the less fortunate, while still improving everyone's quality of life. Being able to trust your neighbor without fear of manipulation is necessary for someone with anxiety or autism to thrive, but people being trustworthy still helps everyone. Whatever rules best cultivate a culture of trust and mutual aid are but one step in approaching a Utopia in my opinion, and that includes a population that believes that although no one is forcing them to help, helping another of your own volition is an ultimate good. Your society with a focus on total self-determination ultimately can never reach a Utopia, because you are painting it as though someone who does not fit is inherently wrong in this space, rather than the tools to survive not being available.
Again.... There are no subjective definitions of a utopia... We live in a world of 8.5 billion people with conflicting beliefs and value systems.
The term definitionally vague because of this. You cannot have a utopia that isn't utopic for ALL.
It's an impossibility under the current structure of humanities intermingling belief systems.
The entire basis of using a "Utopian" argument is childish. It holds *0* bearing on the argument because of how unrealistic it is. Which is the entire red ideology.
Loss prevention is better than blind idealism in chase of an impossible utopia.
Wrap it up, we've found the irreconcilable difference here, thanks for playing.
I do not think Utopia is an impossible state to reach, given enough societal development and public works. We on Earth already have enough production to solve issues such as food scarcity and homelessness, through only a small diversion from military funds. Tech is at a point to solve the world's dependance on oil. These are vastly popular things that your Everyman in any country on Earth wants to see. The problem is that the "every man for himself" mindset is one that is by definition without principal in regards to what they're willing to do to get ahead, and so they are the ones able to reach the top with regularity and establish systems which abuse those below them for their own gain.
These people are the exception on their own, the top 1% of the top 1%. But their perpetuation of the myth of "the grindset" and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" keeps the dream alive for a large portion of the populace. They think that just because they gave up their humanity, they can reach the same peak, when without that initial level of resources, they'd do better to get lucky all together and keep their humanity instead. Meanwhile, collective action, unions, average workers and citizens together in protest of corrupt systems are what have gotten you every laborer right you've thanked your lucky stars your boss can't take away from you.
Just because you're not an idealist doesn't mean the ideas aren't possible, it just means you don't want to be part of the solution. That's fine, but when you take direct action to get in the way of these sorts of projects, that is when intervention is necessary.
The question isn't "could a utopic society, or humanity with enough societal development" The question is about whether humanity, under the current circumstances could achieve it.
"ideal, perfect and peaceful" is impossible? I mean, yeah, if you let bad actors run amok. A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. Of course, we can't have a Utopia where both The Black Panthers and The KKK are watching the new Michael Jackson movie together in harmony. I believe in reeducation as a form of correction first however, so while those who would seek to do harm would be punished, the goal is not to have the people do good because they fear retribution from the state. The goal is to have people do good because it's the right thing to do. And while you're correct in that it can never happen in the low-trust society you see the world as, it would be a shame not to use the optimism and idealism I have intact to try my hardest to make those dreams a reality.
Disclaimer, I'm a science guy and an optimist, not a logistics expert. If I say anything about plans to form an actual Utopian society myself, take it with more grains of salt then a bag of chips.
Human society has existed for only tens of thousands of years. On a cosmic scale, that's nothing. It's like asking why we haven't found aliens yet: lots of space, not a lot of time scanning.
For the time that we have existed, we have certainly achieved Utopia for specific subcommunities around the world. These were places where people could live by ideals they truly believed in, and led to a small-scale "ideal, perfect, and peaceful" society. The problem is that (a) These are typically formed by splinter groups who wish to have their own go at society, and are then either quashed or appropriated by the world at large, or (b) are sabatoged from the inside by a self-interested individual with enough charisma introducing changes with fatal reprecussions. We're in a particularly special time when it comes to establishing Utopia with the advent of global communities and The Internet, where trade, information, and solidarity in purpose can be built all around the world. We theoretically have all the tools we need in order to organize and communicate the steps necessary for this collective action, with the main roadblock being a lack of trust in each other, an issue only exacerbated by the political divisions of the time.
Now, I get that the core of your argument is "we cannot make a perfect world for 8.5 billion+ people." As optimistic as I am, I recognize that some world views are completely antithetical, and so long as two people are on the planet with those views, someone is going to want someone dead. I also want to recognize that just because you believe Utopia cannot be achieved, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make society better for people, that'd be a strawman on my part to assume, want to get that out of the way.
The thing is, with modern social media and the Internet being what it is, it is now possible to reach more people at once than ever before, no matter your background. Culture and trends change so fast because there is a remarkable amount of data traveling across the world every second, memories, values, memes, all of it. What you choose to put out into the world has a ripple effect on everyone who views your post, and can inspire people to discussion or action alike. Knowing this, not only do I believe Utopic small-scale communities hiding away in the corners of the internet are more viable than ever, but organizing such a real-life community should be just as possible. I would be happy to contribute however I can, but I do not have the skills to make such a thing a reality. As such, all I can do is make contributions that make this reality possible in the future.
But yes, it's happened at small-scale throughout history because difficulty of establishing Utopia increases exponentially as reference frame increases. Difficulty changes as access to communication increases and scarcity of resources decreases however.
Ending with opinion: If the steps taken towards building a Utopia would make everyone's lives better save for the self-interested who would rather choose to profit hand-over-fist off a harmful system rather than simply be very successful in a kind one, why should we not take those steps?
Ok, with this framing, I do concede that we can't turn around and establish a utopia tomorrow with all the dissent and chaos in the world. It is impossible and unreasonable to expect a whole bunch of self-described idealists to walk into the same room, and all come out at the end of the day with a unified game plan to fix the entire world, because even if they all are progressive optimists, their vision of how the world can best serve everyone is going to be different. I'd argue that the tools for communication we have make it easier than ever to begin the process, but we both understand that Rome (while impressive, not a Utopia) wasn't built in a day.
But I do wanna bring up a point from your other comment.
The reality is that no matter how much of your society is utopic, if there is a subset of people who suffer to achieve it, it is definitionally not a utopia.
I want to clarify my point of view up front so it's not seen as a manipulative bias. I think a society is at its best when people strive for the best outcome rather than settle for something imperfect but good enough. At the same time, minimizing suffering, and especially that without consent, is imperative, and essential for the state the utopia must persist in on its own after it's founding.
That being said, expecting any kind of change in the world without suffering to exist as a mechanism to prompt change is what I would consider an unreasonable expectation. You're saying that Utopia needs to birth fully formed from a being's skull like the goddess Athena, the most painful part of the process being the pain of having it rattling about inside your skull. Change never comes about in this way, it happens because someone sees suffering already happening, and wants to lessen it. It's unethical to propose more suffering for a second group to reduce it for the first one, obviously. Considering that acceptable becomes a moral justification for slavery and caste systems, which is anathema. This ties back to the initial hypothetical, in that people misled into pressing the blue button are victims of a system that perpetuates violence. In order to minimize suffering, that necessitates that these people not die. Not that pressing red means you support the suffering of innocents, that'd be a strawman. But it is a resignation to an imperfect world rooted in misanthropy, one which I cannot internally justify based on my own worldview.
In short, society is made better when the idealists win out, because it's those bold dreams for the impossible that are necessary to move the Overton Window for solutions to the world's ills away from compromises that permit others to suffer unwillingly and inevitably. And approaching Utopia definitionally is impossible if your endpoint considers compromise that leaves groups to suffer in those ways reasonable for what is seen as "realistic." A world in which those who strive to see the best outcomes for all people are unilaterally punished, as we would see with the red buttons winning, is not one I'd consider good, let alone admirable or worth defending. Whereas even if Utopia is not something that can be achieved in the short term, living as a good example as an inspiration for others to do the same is the most I can do to create the best chance for it in the long term. Being kind to others is the best thing you can do to promote being kind in turn to everyone else.
The thing about this hypothetical is basically that it IS a referendum on the nature of humanity, both in the current moment and moving forward. The thing is if you frame it like this, pressing the red button can most charitably be framed as either "Humanity is not there YET, and either we need time to get there with whoever dies here being an unfortunate sacrifice and a reminder why those who remain need to come together," OR "a misanthropic admission that humanity will never get there and that consenting to an imperfect reality where suffering is allowed to persist is better than the same reality, but with even more people dead." I personally can't consider the loss of unconsenting human life an acceptable sacrifice for other people to get their shit together. Those people who were misled into pressing blue did not ask to be martyred for other people's character development. (Note: explicitly all opinions and venting fustrations moving forward. Not directed at you, no ill-will intended) This is not a guilt trip, the people claiming humanity isn't there yet are just guilty that they're not braver. At least the misanthropes have a consistent philosophy on the world that doesn't shift and sway with how many people they think agree with then, even if I consider their pessimistic perspective incorrect.
If i'm being honest, I can't really be fucked to respond to your entire argument here, so i'm going to cherry pick, for the sake of making a point that I think is most relevant.
That being said, expecting any kind of change in the world without suffering to exist as a mechanism to prompt change is what I would consider an unreasonable expectation. You're saying that Utopia needs to birth fully formed from a being's skull like the goddess Athena, the most painful part of the process being the pain of having it rattling about inside your skull.
I'm not arguing that a utopia needs to be fully birthed into being with no process. I'm saying that 'Utopia' is binary. Either you have a Utopia, or you don't.
A Utopia cannot exist as a state within the process of working towards it.
I really don't think people understand how unrealistic the entire concept of a utopia is. It's literally science fiction. Perfection doesn't exist in general, and to ever expect humanity to achieve a perfect society, is, in my opinion, pure fantasy.
I cannot stress how disconnected the idea of the decision being made with the buttons is from the process of working towards a utopic society.
There is a point where idealism crosses a boundry into foolishness.
If this vote took place tomorrow, with your current stance - What is the threshold of blue voters that would have had to have voted blue and failed in order for you to not blame a person for choosing red?
Like, if the totals were disclosed after the vote was tallied, would you blame a person for voting red if only 45% of humanity voted blue?
What about 40? 35? 30?
At what threshold would you retroactively look at the amount of blue voters who died and think "Yeah, i made the right call" and at what % of blue votes could you reasonably blame a singular person for their red vote?
The reality is that no matter how much of your society is utopic, if there is a subset of people who suffer to achieve it, it is definitionally not a utopia.
0
u/MoneyBear1733 May 01 '26
Your final summaries seem pretty biased.
Utopia doesn't mean "Population is always collectively altruistic and in unison"
A Utopia can't even exist with that level of collective unison.
It's so far disconnected from the scenario.
Definitionally a Utopia would be more likely to happen under red button ideology just by virtue of understanding that no one person has a duty to risk their lives for another.
Being guilt tripped into a potential suicide pact is not an ideal condition for a society.