This post has risen up the first page on HackerNews - one insightful comment, which I was not previously aware of "Nabokov's final Russian-language novel, The Gift, includes a devastating mini-biography of Chernyshevsky, ostensibly written by the protagonist. Think of it as a Russian equivalent to Twain on Fenimore Cooper. That it happens to be the best biography of Chernyshevsky available in English (translated by Nabokov's son) is icing on the cake.
The whole novel is great, but Chapter 5 (the biography) is a beautiful introduction to possibly the worst writer in all of Russian literature." link to comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42586262
I have not read this book or even read a lot of literature, which I need to since I think two areas I need to read more about are biology and literature to enrich my understanding of the world. The only book I have read about utopia is about modern utopia. I found the book -Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World (https://tinyurl.com/38y7ef6y) interesting, particularly its ideas for improving society, like universal basic income and shorter workweeks. Yet, it left me with lingering questions:
Would this vision of utopia reflect the desires of a select few or serve the aspirations of the majority?
Is it even achievable without changing human nature and society significantly?
- Is societal change easier to achieve than altering human nature?
I do not have answers to these questions, but it is on my list of items to explore. Let me be clear: I am not a pessimist, but I believe that society will get more out of any move towards a “utopia” if it is not an elite version and involves all parts of society.
A few questions I want to explore when I explore this topic further are:
- On Inequality: Is it possible to eliminate inequality, or should we aim to minimize its harmful effects instead?
- On Human Nature: How much of human behavior is biologically fixed, and how much can be shaped by societal structures?
- On Technology: Can technological advancements help us achieve utopia, or do they risk creating new forms of inequality?
- On Progress: Is the pursuit of utopia about achieving perfection or incrementally improving life?
My current belief is the question of whose vision shapes a utopia is central to its success or failure. Historically, utopias have often been imagined by individuals or groups in positions of privilege, reflecting their values and assumptions. This has led to “top-down” visions of utopia—plans imposed upon society rather than co-created by it. As you will notice from the above, my thoughts on this topic are not fully formed or may even be coherent.
The lingering questions you pose are central to any meaningful discussion about utopia. On the question of whether societal change is easier to achieve than altering human nature, it's still a debate about how much of human nature, while influenced by biology, is deeply shaped by culture and environment. As such, societal structures might be a more practical lever for change, though not without resistance or unintended consequences.
Your concern about inequality is precise. Rather than eradicating it, a task that may be infeasible given the diversity of human ambition and capability, focusing on minimizing its harmful effects, such as poverty and lack of opportunity, seems both pragmatic and moral.
Hmmm – the canary in the coal mine… technology, history suggests that it often amplifies existing inequalities unless actively steered toward equitable outcomes. This raises questions about how society can govern technological progress to ensure its benefits are distributed widely rather than hoarded by a privileged few. I’m not so sure!
Your point about the importance of a co-created vision for utopia is well-taken. The question of whose vision shapes utopia is central. It invites us to ask not just what utopia looks like, but who gets to decide and how those decisions reflect the collective aspirations and values of humanity. Perhaps the pursuit of utopia should focus not on achieving a static perfection but on cultivating systems that allow for continuous, equitable improvement.
Each of your points are complex and warrant a deep analysis, this is a great foundation for further meaningful exploration. I think we need more social capital and community to bridge divides across society.
I will check out Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World. Reading the blurb I am reminded of Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves?
I like Bergma’s books. He writes well and gives you something to think about. He is also one of the non-US writers I read to get a different view. If you have come across any other good non-US writers, let me know. Matt Ridley‘s book has been on my list for a while, but I haven't gotten to it yet.
'Inequality' needs an agreed working definition. Most, I guess, automaticaly assume 'financial equality'. I would think more in terms 'equality of opportunity to self-direct one's own life in the direction of doing something one enjoys, free from undue political interference'. If society were structured to encourage that, then there'd be a lot more happier people - which I assume is a step in the direction of utopia.
It is a conundrum for sure Joshua. Inequality is complex, multifaceted and has many forms and components. You are right here is a need to address the different dimensions of inequality. The UN probably have some definition for the SDGs. Likewise governments for regulations. There is a summary of the concepts of inequality here - https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_dev_issues/dsp_policy_01.pdf which is quite interesting.
I like your definition and strive to live this way: 'equality of opportunity to self-direct one's own life in the direction of doing something one enjoys, free from undue political interference'.
link to comments on Hacker News - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42586262
This post has risen up the first page on HackerNews - one insightful comment, which I was not previously aware of "Nabokov's final Russian-language novel, The Gift, includes a devastating mini-biography of Chernyshevsky, ostensibly written by the protagonist. Think of it as a Russian equivalent to Twain on Fenimore Cooper. That it happens to be the best biography of Chernyshevsky available in English (translated by Nabokov's son) is icing on the cake.
The whole novel is great, but Chapter 5 (the biography) is a beautiful introduction to possibly the worst writer in all of Russian literature." link to comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42586262
I have not read this book or even read a lot of literature, which I need to since I think two areas I need to read more about are biology and literature to enrich my understanding of the world. The only book I have read about utopia is about modern utopia. I found the book -Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World (https://tinyurl.com/38y7ef6y) interesting, particularly its ideas for improving society, like universal basic income and shorter workweeks. Yet, it left me with lingering questions:
Would this vision of utopia reflect the desires of a select few or serve the aspirations of the majority?
Is it even achievable without changing human nature and society significantly?
- Is societal change easier to achieve than altering human nature?
I do not have answers to these questions, but it is on my list of items to explore. Let me be clear: I am not a pessimist, but I believe that society will get more out of any move towards a “utopia” if it is not an elite version and involves all parts of society.
A few questions I want to explore when I explore this topic further are:
- On Inequality: Is it possible to eliminate inequality, or should we aim to minimize its harmful effects instead?
- On Human Nature: How much of human behavior is biologically fixed, and how much can be shaped by societal structures?
- On Technology: Can technological advancements help us achieve utopia, or do they risk creating new forms of inequality?
- On Progress: Is the pursuit of utopia about achieving perfection or incrementally improving life?
My current belief is the question of whose vision shapes a utopia is central to its success or failure. Historically, utopias have often been imagined by individuals or groups in positions of privilege, reflecting their values and assumptions. This has led to “top-down” visions of utopia—plans imposed upon society rather than co-created by it. As you will notice from the above, my thoughts on this topic are not fully formed or may even be coherent.
Incidentally, there is a good overview on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(novel)
The lingering questions you pose are central to any meaningful discussion about utopia. On the question of whether societal change is easier to achieve than altering human nature, it's still a debate about how much of human nature, while influenced by biology, is deeply shaped by culture and environment. As such, societal structures might be a more practical lever for change, though not without resistance or unintended consequences.
Your concern about inequality is precise. Rather than eradicating it, a task that may be infeasible given the diversity of human ambition and capability, focusing on minimizing its harmful effects, such as poverty and lack of opportunity, seems both pragmatic and moral.
Hmmm – the canary in the coal mine… technology, history suggests that it often amplifies existing inequalities unless actively steered toward equitable outcomes. This raises questions about how society can govern technological progress to ensure its benefits are distributed widely rather than hoarded by a privileged few. I’m not so sure!
Your point about the importance of a co-created vision for utopia is well-taken. The question of whose vision shapes utopia is central. It invites us to ask not just what utopia looks like, but who gets to decide and how those decisions reflect the collective aspirations and values of humanity. Perhaps the pursuit of utopia should focus not on achieving a static perfection but on cultivating systems that allow for continuous, equitable improvement.
Each of your points are complex and warrant a deep analysis, this is a great foundation for further meaningful exploration. I think we need more social capital and community to bridge divides across society.
I will check out Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World. Reading the blurb I am reminded of Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves?
I like Bergma’s books. He writes well and gives you something to think about. He is also one of the non-US writers I read to get a different view. If you have come across any other good non-US writers, let me know. Matt Ridley‘s book has been on my list for a while, but I haven't gotten to it yet.
'Inequality' needs an agreed working definition. Most, I guess, automaticaly assume 'financial equality'. I would think more in terms 'equality of opportunity to self-direct one's own life in the direction of doing something one enjoys, free from undue political interference'. If society were structured to encourage that, then there'd be a lot more happier people - which I assume is a step in the direction of utopia.
It is a conundrum for sure Joshua. Inequality is complex, multifaceted and has many forms and components. You are right here is a need to address the different dimensions of inequality. The UN probably have some definition for the SDGs. Likewise governments for regulations. There is a summary of the concepts of inequality here - https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_dev_issues/dsp_policy_01.pdf which is quite interesting.
I like your definition and strive to live this way: 'equality of opportunity to self-direct one's own life in the direction of doing something one enjoys, free from undue political interference'.