EPTI have put a lot of thought into this topic, many years of casual reasoning and observation. I do not have a strong background in political science or history, nor do I believe that is necessary for what I discuss. The world operates under a certain reason and operations, the intricacies of which are too complex to fully understand. Yet the economists and policy makers try to predict outcomes, and often fail miserably. Please do not write off proposed theories just because I am unable to attach certain terminologies to the label. I do not believe that statistics and facts are always the end of an argument. The true value of enlightened decision makers and leaders lies in their personal intuition of what is right and sensible. In an age where debating is a sport and conclusions are seldom reached, good intuition is the most valuable asset of human resource and policy setting.
The question is: How to create a utopia.
Consider the following scenario. The world has plunged into a massive war and all major civilizations are destroyed. You, along with a band of [choose the number you want] refugees, have successfully sought refuge on an island and survived the war. The warring nations have bombed themselves into oblivion and no longer exist. The island is bountiful with natural resources and has the perfect geographical climate to build a successful civilization. You are given the opportunity to build up a great new civilization and live in paradise. You may assume people have accepted you as their leader at least for the foreseeable present.
So now you are faced with innumerable questions.
1. How many people would you like to bring along onto the island? Remember you are not only vacationing on a tropical paradise, but intend to create a fully functioning town with any comforts you may desire in an optimal life. Fifty would be too few to accomplish major projects; a million may be too much to sustain and properly govern. Assume that you may filter the kinds of people you want to bring along.
2. Are you allowed to import existing technologies from elsewhere? I am not sure whether to allow this or not myself. For the sake of getting the community up and running in a reasonable time span, I propose that technologies can be imported for a limited time, say five years. The idea is that the island is entirely self sufficient when it is running at full pace. It has sufficient metals to satisfy our modern needs for construction and utility. Keep in mind, when I say island, I do not necessarily mean a literal speck of land on the ocean. The land can be quite expansive, and I just mean that it is isolated from external problems.
3. What form of government to employ? The main problem I have with traditional democracy is that smart decision making is diluted by the inclusion of the opinions not of the unintelligent or uninformed, but by those with inferior intuition. If you opt for autocracy, the people can revolt to overthrow your regime if they grow sufficiently dissatisfied.
4. What kind of market/trade system will you implement? You do not necessarily have to emulate the capital markets used in most of the world today. To facilitate trade, do you use currency? What kind of banking system? The extent of financial involvement by a government? What is the ideal distribution of wealth?
5. Physical infrastructure considerations for public goods such as transit and utilities. How to handle waste and sewage? Would you like to see roads and cars as they are now, or implement another standard of transportation? What method of power generation?
6. Legal system and the treatment of criminals. What kind of punishment or deterrence to use? How to protect the rights of citizens, but efficiently prosecute the criminals?
7. Freed of existing societal morals and standards, would you try to modify/change/create public beliefs and attitudes in being a “good” person?
And etcetera., I suppose you get the idea by now.
Just by looking at the sheer scope of these considerations, it is excusable to be not entirely informed on all the details and studied trends that may exist. Such a project may be beyond the capabilities of a single individual, so thus a council can be formed to receive input from trusted experts in their respective fields.
I am looking for creative ideas that challenge the everyday norms that we have. Given the magnitude of knowledge that we have on all relevant aspects in planning this utopia, every single idea is prone to being shot down by existing documentation and research. However, such studies have been based on familiar, standardized, almost cookie cutter methods of community governance. Radical ideas are too quickly turned down simply from their deviation from the established trends.
A fresh slate offers new opportunities and removes the burden of existing societal limitations.
Here is a description of what I have thought of. You may use the numbered points if it helps to organize your thoughts.
1. A functional utopian society has a delicate balance of the number of people it can support. You need enough so that all labour needs are fulfilled to provide adequate manpower to produce all material goods you desire. However, too many people leads to immediate crowding, less food to go around, a more diverse range of needs, more sharing of limited wealth, and difficulty of governance. The more people you look after, the harder it becomes to please everyone. Considering you are able to hand pick the population you take along, I’d expect to take the best people from their respective trades and specializations. I would estimate perhaps 40,000 is a workable amount.
Assuming that most of the world’s population is wiped out, such survivor colonies may exist scattered around the globe. Suitable “islands” as described in my scenario would be quite limited. An overly large population would deplete their resources at an unsustainable pace. I wouldn’t be concerned that the new world is limited to a comparatively low number of people... it does not take millions of people to comprise a paradise, but an adequate amount of good people. You will not be lonely with 40,000 people around you.
2. Working with existing (not futuristic or imaginary) sustainable technology, modern achievements in waste management, power generation, sanitation, computers, signal networks and other infrastructure are a necessity. I must cheat slightly and import these goods initially or otherwise it would take an impossible amount of time just to catch up with these developments. Even armed with the technical knowledge, factories and processes are not immediately available to process the raw materials on the island into workable goods.
3. No question about it, autocracy is the way to go. Screw wasting my time with stubborn, closed minded fools who can only think about themselves. I propose this argument. I believe that I am the best, the most suitable genius to lead the world to glory. People immediately jump in and assert I am way over my head, that there are hordes of people a thousand times more qualified than I could ever imagine. I concede to this attack and take it to be true. Then let us find this most qualified genius and let them lead us to paradise. There will definitely be those in this world who can resist corruption in a position of power. If that is not possible for a sane, reasonable being, then the only challenge is finding a crazy person with a character flaw that prevents this selfishness. Here the concept of the mad genius comes into play. Such a being need not necessarily be dangerous; in a sense, you could say they exceed the limitations of normal people and are a step above in terms of moral and intellectual development. Now here is a reference loop back to my own genius. I can understand and appreciate the untapped potential of such people, because I am aware of my own abilities and limitations. It comes close, but is ultimately lacking in filling this role. If I can just find one person, that much better than me, who can do the job, then the problem is solved. Not everyone may be able to envision such a being. If no one else can, then I deem myself to be the most suitable candidate and claim the title of King for myself.
At any rate, this exercise is about your own policies if you were in a ruling position anyways, so it doesn’t really make too much a difference. It does, however, in the long run, when the immediacy of establishment is finished and the community matures into a settled state.
Then to rule by being loved or being feared? It seems the natural preference would be to rule by being loved. I hear stories of kingdoms in ancient times ruled by a benevolent king, loved by his citizens, who ruled smartly and fairly. Why is this not possible in modern times? I believe the problem is that people have become both spoiled and more educated, able to see all the small flaws made by a ruler in favour of their successes. Thus keeping the population relatively low has the benefit of keeping your subjects on your side, because you will not have to weigh interests of two parties at every step and lower your popularity with one side. The people must also understand that not every decision will be perfect, but that the ruler can be trusted to make the right choice and remain fair to everyone. Ruling by fear automatically lowers people’s happiness ratings and destroys the ultimate goal of establishing a utopia, so that will be ignored.
4. The basic financial structure must be kept very simple, straightforward, and transparent. Trade should occur using government issued currency. However, the style of economy I propose is a bit different from known forms. The underlying objective of a socialist economy is to ensure that wealth is evenly distributed among everyone. It is well understood that given no direct rewards from working hard, people lose incentive and become lazy. However, it also does not seem completely just that people can use the factor of luck and skill difference to create a gaping wealth differential of extreme riches living beside the homeless and poverty.
Here is my precious idea I have developed and polished over years, which I hold very dear. In my utopia, people are required to work 20 hours a week in designated “fundamental roles”. These jobs have the distinction of providing a basic, real value to society. For example, a farmer harvesting food, a construction worker building houses, a maintenance worker repairing pipes, and a trash collector picking up garbage to manage waste are “fundamental roles”. They are essential services that must be provided by someone in order to enjoy the high standard of living people desire. Examples of non-fundamental jobs are artists who paint pictures, musicians who record songs, and dancers who perform shows. It is sinful for these people to receive remuneration for their “art” when they are entirely reliant on other workers to put the food on their table and the clothes on their back.
As long as people fulfill their 20 hours a week quota in their designated position, they are entitled to the basics of living: housing, food, clothing, and utilities. Exactly what standard of goods they are allowed depends entirely on the collective output of the society. Everyone is distributed the same standard of essentials as everyone else. Once everyone who meets the quota is given their basic dues, any excess capacity that is available is evenly distributed. Thus as time goes on and production in this community improves, that standards of living improve as well. People will employ a witness system to vouch that their neighbours were working beside them for the requisite 20 hours a week in order to receive their rationed.
How exactly are people slotted into these positions? Very strong tests must be developed to test the aptitude of individuals to match them with their profession of ideal fit. These roles must be committed for one month; each month, people may request to try a different job provided they pass the aptitude test for that position. It is rare for people to switch jobs often, and people are encouraged to find one they can live with and stick with it for most of their lives.
So it may seem on the surface that artistic professions are completely banned from society. That is not the case. Art is permitted, just as long as it comes alongside with 20 hours quota of real work. One consequence is that many jobs strictly associated with these fields, such as sound editing, image editing, producers, marketers, and photographers are forced to contribute something real and quantifiable to society. No one is spared from their 20 hour quota. Say, for example, a worker is temporarily injured and unable to make their required work hours for the month. Such exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis. In the event that someone becomes too old and infirm to carry out their duties, their quotas may be reduced. The idea is to ensure that no one becomes a burden on society that others are forced to support.
Twenty hours a week leaves plenty of time to pursue an individual’s own interests in the other 148 hours a week they have. Artists who feel the need to express themselves have plenty of opportunity to create their art. By cleverly removing much of the commercial pressures and marketable connotations of art, these people are free to produce “true” art without secondary attachments and motives.
The issue of research is a unique topic that should be addressed. Does lab research constitute a “fundamental role”? The problem is that no matter how hard an individual may be trying in a lab to produce useful results that advance the communities technological barriers, success is never a guaranteed thing, and often much luck is involved. Therefore the measurement of progress and how much actual work is accomplished in a research lab cannot be fully measured. Instead, research and development must be left as a secondary activity that may not pass as a “fundamental” job. I, too, would easily prefer to expand the bounds of technology available to push our comfort standards to the max, but I have faith that there is the type of person who truly pursues basic research for the sake of knowledge.
When the problem of making enough money to earn a comfortable living is removed, people are free to pursue what they truly value. However, an incentive system must be implemented to encourage people to go beyond the bare minimum required of them and improve economic output. Thus a secondary market economy will be implemented over top of this described socialist policy.
All men are not created equal. It is crime to ignore that some people are inherently better than others. On the human value index scale, people of greater potential deserve greater rewards than those who are unable to contribute the same amount. It is unfair to force and assume that each person must be stuck with the average community output, with no opportunity for self-improvement.
In this secondary market, wealth may be distributed according to individual talents. For example, say a craftsman was exceptionally skilled at making chairs. He might naturally arrange for a job as a chair builder for his 20 hour quota. Beyond that time, his neighbours are interested in some more luxurious chairs that are of better quality than the sustainable standards provided to everyone equally. He has the resources to construct special chairs for only 100 households. People would go and buy such special chairs with currency in the secondary market. They now own chairs of superior quality and comfort than the shared common ones available to the rest of the community, provided they can afford it.
In this way, trade and specialization and innovation continue to be rewarded, yet the basic amenities of life are still provided for. After a quick analysis, the immediate exploit of this system is that the basic quota economy may be quickly overtaken by the market economy when people can live entirely on these privately produced goods without the use of the quota needs; people still using the quota resources will get a decreasing quality as efforts shift towards private goods. The solution is to tie the most essential necessities of food and water strictly to the quota system. Food cannot be traded on these capital markets. The distribution of human work load will be designed such that food will be in plentiful supply. The difference is that if people do not fulfill their public service quota, they are not entitled to any portion of the food pool.
The allocation of human resources to the public service quota shall be mandated by the government, who shall watch closely and listen to the preferences and needs of the people. By employing this system, the traditional method of collecting monetary taxes is eliminated. All public services are provided equally by everyone. The population is small so no voices are hidden and unheard.
Point number 4 is perhaps the most challenging and creative proposition in this discussion. I will leave it at that for now.
5. Cars, while a fantastic personal comfort, are not an efficient mode of transportation when the road must be shared with all the other motorists who rely on it as their primary mode of transport. The way to go is high speed train routes with fast service. Cars will only belong on the racetrack for leisure and entertainment if the community can afford to offer this privilege. Shared/public bicycles will be offered for short-distance travel not serviced by trains.
6. Laws shall not be written out explicitly with every minute technical detail as seems to be the trend nowadays. There will be no guidelines, minimum or maximum sentences, and no definitions or categories of crimes. Instead, the law as people abide by are simply the moral goodness and standards of the community. Great reliance will be placed on people’s capacity to do the right thing. This aspect is absolutely crucial to the development of this society.
There will be no official, full time police force. Rather, the citizens are all responsible for upholding the peace and security of the society through a public policing system. Everyone is trained and taught basic theories for apprehension and dealing with criminals. As I shall explain further below, the actual presence of crime is expected to drop to near zero.
Crime and wrongful activity is met with zero tolerance. If an individual demonstrates that they are unable to display the good proper morals expected of them, they are banished from the community, no exceptions. Say a perpetrator is caught with murder. Possible suggested punishments are execution, enslavement, or exile, depending on the severity of the crime. However, there are not set rules and it will totally be up to the jury (ultimately the community decision) to decide their fate. Suppose this murderer was just defending her own safety from the attack of a rapist. She would be absolutely free of guilt and perhaps instead congratulated for being a hero.
7. If this stance seems harsh, that is exactly its intention. When the population is first carefully screened and selected for acceptance into the society, one of the key attributes to consider would be moral righteousness. Think about one person you highly respect for being able to do the right thing, who understands the meaning of etiquette. Bring together an entire community of such people and immediately the costs of policing, security measures, social assistance, miscreant behaviour and conviction of criminals (as none would exist) go plummeting to near zero. I am not talking about moral do-gooders who go to the extreme for a chance to brag of their better than thou exploits. I talk about normal people who considerately pick up their litter, who would return a lost wallet to its owner, who graciously lend a hand to the poor struggling soul stranded on the side of the road.
This automatically eliminates many subjects who may be prone to anger, confrontation, and disrespect. Such is a small sacrifice to pay for a chance to live in harmony. In time, people will feel this imposed goodness as a natural impulse and the world shall be nicer.
Challengers who disrupt the peace or given no second chance. A young child, solidly raised by very capable and righteous parents, somehow acquires an unruly behaviour problem, perhaps as a result of genetic predisposition. He goes out one night and defaces the local grocery store with graffiti. Someone catches him in the act and he goes before the jury. The jury can not forgive this child. This one pain in the ass kid has caused innocent citizens undue hardship. Any resources and efforts spent to rehabilitate him are a total waste, and much better put into improving the prospects of more promising children who understand etiquette. Furthermore, why spend so much in helping out one kid when there are countless others able to replace his role, to contribute to society and have the privilege of living in this community.
Yes, one of the goals of my community is genetic selection for only the best. Over time, this will allow the population to grow smarter, stronger, faster and eliminate the frustrations and burdens of the weak, dangerous, defective.
Points 4, 6 and 7 are the main topics of discussion I suppose. I will reformat this post for better readability and organization when I have time. In the meantime, enjoy the insanities of a mad man. I believe one of my unique traits is that I can see things for what they really are, by removing the common connotations and predispositions normally attached to them. I look at absolute fundamentals of the problem and try to fix it from the very basics. In my society, intuition and etiquette rule the day.
I plan to expand and polish up the article as time permits.
Your own thoughts? Also suggest improvements or points for clarification.
