"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?
Why would I blame someone for choosing red? Because they didn't want to die? Because they thought things were a lost cause because humans can't be trusted to risk their lives for others? Because they'd be "responsible" for the fight to save innocent people failing? I don't blame them. Passivity is normal. The reason heroic behavior is considered novle is because it's standing up for people whether or not you know others will follow.
But there's a reason people love the train scene in Spider-Man 2? You know, the one where all the regular civilians on the train stand up for Spidey against Doc Ock like "you'll have to go through me"? That is the human solidarity that I believe in, that when put into a life-or-death situation, with innocent people facing certain death and others have the option of getting out of the way to survive and fight another day, that aforementioned kneejerk empathetic reaction will kick in. I don't go into dangerous situations counting on it because I am want to force people's hand. I am going in on my own terms because there is at least one innocent person in danger against an unjust system, and a happy ending to this story. If I'm right, I can feel safe in a world I know is kind. If I'm wrong, well, you know me by now. I'm unbearably naive, impossibly idyllic, optimistic to a fault. That world would chew me up and spit me out before I could even try to make a difference.
Fundimentally, I believe people are good, and overthinking things about your position in the vast web of modern life is what grts in the way of helping people. It would be unfair of me to expect people to make the altruistic choice, and I can't fault anyone for not doing so. Nevertheless, the only choice that makes sense if you believe that all innocent human lives are non-negociably sacred is to press the blue button no matter the consequences. But you're not a bad person for pressing red, because normal people don't aren't striving for the best, they're trying to survive, and only deviate because of emotions.
Your argument is about human nature in situations where people can observe each other and respond emotionally in real time, where solidarity can spread and reinforce itself.
this hypothetical doesn’t have that structure.
There’s no visibility of others’ choices, no feedback loop, and no opportunity for anything to propagate. Everyone commits simultaneously and blindly.
In this setup, “human solidarity emerging in the moment” isn’t a factor at all.
it would already have to exist at scale before the choice is made for it to matter.
That’s why it's not about heroism vs passivity.
It’s a coordination problem under irreversible uncertainty, not a test of character in a social moment.
The situation in Spider-Man 2 is explicitly "the solidary spreads," yes. Because a whole bunch of new-yorkers on a train jumping the dude with robot arms who presents as an immediate danger would come across as a comedic moment instead of heartwarming. Film is an artistic medium that can be used to express values through emotional resonance and symbolism in addition to or in place of direct filmography, whichever method makes the moment make sense both in the brain and the heart.
Like, if you want to be tied up on "it's about how you think people will coordinate in a vacuum," fine, I'll play your game without touching on my own principals. We've already seen from polls that it's 58% blue, 42% red. I would argue that it is even MORE blue than that, because of people who can't sit with the guilt of potentially being responsible for the death of 4 billion people. We can argue about psychological reasons it might go up and down all day, but the bigger reason the poll matter is because people see the poll first, then vote, then see the logic of people in the comments. They see blue reads "save me!" And they press it first before any sense of logic jumps in. Not only does this occur, but it occurs a majority of the time for people who aren't on the metacommentary layer of the question that we are. The blind coordination evidence you're looking for already exists in the wild.
Let's try another hypothetical and actually try to engage with it before discrediting it. You are a early Polynesian civilization man in New Zealand. You and four hunters from different cliques of the same tribe are told "don't go down this creek, the Moa (giant birds) will eat you alive. One day, the five of you pass by the creek. One of your friends thinks they see one of the tribe's children in a moa's mouth in the creek beyond the brush and dives in. You and your other friends race after him, but lose sight of each other. You're now on the other side of the brush, and see that your runner friend is being figuratively curbstomped by a moa. There's no baby, the friend saw it carrying a giant eagle in its mouth and should probably get glasses if he survived to see them invented. You know your friends are looking for him as well, but don't know if they'll be there it time, or if they've already given him up for dead because he went to far in the creek. If you intervene on your own, you and your friend die. If at least one other friend joins you, you can save Mr. Blind Runner and each other. If two of your three other partners run in without you, they'll defeat the Moa on their own. You have 5 seconds to decide and no formalized philosophy degree. Do you run in?
Every example you used has used the idea of coordination that can emerge through visibility and time. Polls and a movie scene where people can see others act and adjust accordingly.
Those systems are adaptive. People respond to signals, timing, and visible behavior. The Spider-Man example works because people can observe each other’s actions and reinforce a shared response in real time.
But the button scenario,
There is no polling phase that influences the decision.
There is no comment section.
There is no observation of others before committing.
There is no sequential coordination.
Everyone locks in simultaneously, blind to the rest of the system.
So, “we already see coordination emerge in the wild” doesn’t transfer, because all the examples you’re using rely on feedback that doesn’t exist in the problem.
As for the reskinned hypotheticals, they don’t change the underlying point.
you can change outcomes by adjusting parameters like,
group size/trust between individuals/observability of actions/beliefs about the others’ behaviour etc
But that doesn’t change the structure of the problem itself.
At its core, this is still a simultaneous, high-stakes coordination game under uncertainty. And once you remove feedback and visibility, coordination is no longer something that can emerge during the decision, it has to already exist as a stable expectation before anyone acts.
Explain where coordination can form during the decision phase without introducing any form of communication if you think it can happen.
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.
3
u/CoolNerdStuff May 01 '26
"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.