The Ethics of Seeking Utopia

In the best of the worst scenarios free will is gone and everyone is in perfect continuous harmony, with no one to complain or enter conflict with one another. Just like Corals under a beautiful reef. Ideally heaven is everyone hooked into a VR type thing into their personal nirvanas.
What if I'd rather die than be locked in a VR with no other people, no matter how realistic the simulation?
 
What if I'd rather die than be locked in a VR with no other people, no matter how realistic the simulation?
I mean if you are tied in a rig you might as well have the option to nitrogen asphyxiation , when it happen it will be painless or mixed with chemicals so it would be a joyful experience for you
 
I would be incredibly lonely without other 'real people.' A VR no matter how good wouldn't make me forget about them. Could I be happy? Maybe. Depends on what flavor of happiness the VR offers. If it's just sunshine and rainbows all the time I can get behind it yet the loneliness. :(
 
@Nerx can we be a little more positive about our fake utopian scenarios?
This is sorta my beef with utopia ideas. They tend to go from "impossible" to "horrific" as soon as the holes start appearing. The best way to get close to a utopia is to address that everyone will have their own ideas and preferences about what is a perfect society, and try to make as many options for long, contented human lives available as we can without accidentally blowing everything up.
 
Yes, I can see where you're coming from. My original suggestion of a democratic vote would leave some dissatisfied. Better to ask each individual what they wanna and try to make a utopia around that I believe. Otherwise we're violating ethics all over the places.
 
I can agree with that too I was just worried that it broke rules or something?
 
Sorry. Suicide triggers me. That's it. I wasn't attempting to attack his ideas.
 
I was recently reminded of the admiration that some people voice for the Iroquois Confederacy as an example of society governed along more just, humane lines. On one hand, maybe there's idealization and whitewashing going on there. On the other hand, it's a big example of a gripe I have with how I see "utopia" discussed as it often is. People will criticize utopia as the notion of a "perfect" society, and yet end up coming off as dismissing any proposed social system more equal and less bureaucratic than current liberal democracy as pie-in-the-sky impossibility. I think talking about it in such a way... I don't know, lacks enough anthropological breadth, doesn't see that many different social norms and cultures have existed throughout history, and some could in their example give us hope in the posssibility of a world that is "utopian" by our standards.

Anyways, I always have more learning to do if I want to develop a more worldly understanding of politics. The future books on my list most relevant to me rethinking how I approach utopian anarchist politics are probably Communal Luxury by Kristin Ross, Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott, and Pastoralists: Equality, Hierarchy, and the State by Salzman
 
Last edited:
That makes you Last Humans under the kind of Utopian theories I usually seek out. Considering I would prefer to go down the other path in the Utopian forked road in such theories: Have fun with your juice and don't offer me none please. I'd rather not go all Oshanta.

That's why utopias that offer choices are the best. Even if it would make you objectively happier (in the chemical sense), who are others to force such a change in the mode of existence for you? And if the others want it for themselves, who are you to stop them?

What if I'd rather die than be locked in a VR with no other people, no matter how realistic the simulation?

Personally, I would treat it as a lifetime solitary imprisonment with the best entertainment system possible. Not the worst possible fate, but certainly not an utopia.

One possibility (that you will probably find existentially horrifying) would be to voluntarily erase your memory of the fact that none of that is real. If the simulation is truly that realistic, then you would be happy and never know the difference.

That's where the "everyone in their own VR!" things comes from.

To refine that thought experiment, maybe a necessary compromise would be to have the different VR domains still able to connect with each other, like a "multiplayer"?

That would still allow humans to emotionally harm and manipulate each other, but that could be the necessary compromise to a lot of people, who need to know that they are not alone, to even be able to function, let alone be happy.
 
Last edited:
VR sounds wonderful in theory. I even agreed with @Nerx's original suggestion because like living in a perfect VR world sounds fun. Then @Kaiya came along and suggested that there would be no other ppls. Well maybe a multiplayer would work? Yet they still wouldn't be 'real' and there would be no physical connections.

@Dmol8 we won't offer you any juice yet would you try these cookies? *Smiles.* ^_^
 
No, suffering is not 'inherent to existence.' That's defeatist. Suffering is something that happens when bad things happen to you. Consider a popular girl versus an unpopular girl. One has tons of friends and a good life so doesn't suffer and the other girl's life sucks so she does suffer.
 
No, suffering is not 'inherent to existence.' That's defeatist. Suffering is something that happens when bad things happen to you. Consider a popular girl versus an unpopular girl. One has tons of friends and a good life so doesn't suffer and the other girl's life sucks so she does suffer.
It is impossible to fully remove suffering. That's not defeatist, it's a fact. Lots of things cause suffering, many of which are beyond our control. Everything from hot weather to bug bites to pain itself. We can't end all of it.
 
Last edited:
Its just the problem of fee will and emotion, cant have heartbreaks if ya dont have heart. There would also be no complaints since they dont know what feelings are.
 
Back
Top