<p>Have you basked too long in ideological fantasies to understand Realism? </p>
<p>Utopias on a large scale shall never work. You mention the good of “society as a whole.” What, indeed, is the good that must be achieved? Making human existence a bit more tolerable? Who is to say that your utopia is better than unequal capitalism. You? And what will you do with the dissenters of your utopia, “live with it or get out?” Not everyone will understand your ideology, and not everyone will consent to it. What then will you use to advocate the existence of your utopia, force? </p>
<p>What is the purpose of utopia? To make human existence a “fair and equal” one? Fair and equal on who’s terms, yours? Your idea of fair and equal may not be the same as anyone else’s. If you allow intellectual superiority to remain within a utopian community, then someone, somewhere along the line, will get the smart idea to manipulate the utopia for his or her own use. That will ultimately bring about an easy manipulation and ultimate destruction of the utopia, as the utopia requires much faith in the equality of those within its boundaries. For you see, one who has the drive to do so, can easily hide their ambition from the others, feigning an equal intellect, while in the back works of their mind they are developing a scheme to become superior. Then the utopia would have been for naught.</p>
<p>For you see, when everyone is of equal stature and does the same thing, it is very easy to be one above the rest.</p>
<p>commie: You really can’t change the whole world because there will be too many people who disagree with you. But you might be the next Mother Teresa. One person can do a lot of good for the poor… Maybe after college you could join the Peace Corps. </p>
<p>Kids: As tough as raising them is, hardly anyone would willingly give up their own children to be raised by the state. Love is a very complicated and particular thing. There are lots of different kinds of love–and most people would not be satisfied with just the impersonal “love for fellow man” kind of love. . .love can’t be measured or equalized.
I used babysit my nephew while my sister worked. I had a baby around the same age. What do you suppose happened when both of those babies cried at the same time? You guessed it–I went to MY baby first. As much as I loved my nephew, I loved my own child more. I decided then that I never wanted my children to be in daycare because I knew that the caregiver couldn’t possibly love them like I did.</p>
<p>Side note: I have siblings who were born when I was in high school. I consider it a successful baby-sitting weekend if they eat reasonably well (ice cream only once a day), don’t watch too much TV, get outside for exercise at least once, and don’t fight with each other too much - oh, yeah, and if they don’t completely hate me for all of the above. ;)</p>
<p>In some ways, CCommie is right - the nuclear family (mom, dad, kids) is just not enough for children. It’s a relatively new development - but extended families (aunts, grandmas, second cousins) can be wonderful for young children. That whole “village” concept. Unfortunately, you can’t legislate that people act well, play nice, and talk to their families (or even live close enough to their families for such arrangements to be possible)… and any way of legally enforcing such an arrangement would be done at a great cost to personal liberty and free will.</p>
<p>dstark: last time I checked my world is everyone’s world… Besides suffering does not just exist in isolated pockets of the world, it’s pervaded the entire globe.</p>
<p>ariesathena: I do realize that children can be very difficult. We were all babies/toddlers, and we can all relate. In my case, my mom simply raised me to be kind. I see it in her everyday. I’m sure most if not all the mothers/ fathers on CC do/did the same for their children. Little kids pick on how their parents act, and thanks to my mom, I am who I am. In Utopia parent figures need to act kind when they can, and we can count on a good generation to replace us, kids who can maintain Utopia.</p>
<p>If people can care, then I earnestly believe we can care for public property equally to the private property.</p>
<p>atomom: The choice between nephew and son is something that would not exist in Utopia. People won’t ever have to make that decision since it creates such division. When you don’t know who your children/parents are, then you see everyone as of equal value.</p>
<p>tlaktan: Realism is an excuse people use to ignore Utopia’s chance at existence. Humanity has a matchless potential that “realistic” people refuse to accept.Utopia won’t exist until EVERYONE believes in it. In a small community, I wouldn’t be practicing my belief in isolating myself from global suffering. No force is required. Conviction in a thought system can be measured in whether you can see everyone understanding what you believe. Regardless of the older generations’ obstinance to change, I still think that I could make them understand just through hearing my ideas. Militant groups concede that force will fill the void of a belief’s inadequacies.</p>
<p>In any argument, there should be set definitions for various elements. In this particular case, I tried to make it clear that life itself is the common trait among us all. I usually define my love as the ability to give the most precious item I possess for the sake of another, the priceless gem Life. At this point, if I had the ability to save anyone on this earth, I would do so in any way possible, including the loss of my life. I know that people value life more than anything else, and so it would logically fall that if you’re willing to give that up then that’s truly Love. Try to not confuse physical love with Love. In my opinion, the greatest unity isn’t a physical bond but instead a connection worth your life.</p>
<p>dstark: last time I checked my world is everyone’s world… Besides suffering does exist in isolated pockets of the world, it’s pervaded the entire globe.</p>
<p>ariesathena: I do realize that children can be very difficult. We were all babies/toddlers, and we can all relate. In my case, my mom simply raised me to be kind. I see it in her everyday. I’m sure most if not all the mothers/ fathers on CC do/did the same for their children. Little kids pick on how their parents act, and thanks to my mom, I am who I am. In Utopia parent figures need to act kind when they can, and we can count on a good generation to replace us, kids who can maintain Utopia.</p>
<p>If people can care, then I earnestly believe we can care for public property equally to the private property.</p>
<p>atomom: Your choice between nephew and son is something that would not exist in Utopia. People won’t ever have to make that decision, for it creates great division. </p>
<p>tlaktan: Realism is excuse people have to prevent acknowledgement of Utopia’s chance at existence. People have a matchless potential but “realistic” people refuse to accept that.Utopia won’t exist until EVERYONE believes in it. In a small community, I wouldn’t be practicing my belief in isolating myself from global suffering. No force is required. Conviction in a thought system can be measured in whether you can see everyone understand what you believe. Regardless of the older generations’ obstinance to change, I still think that I could make them understand just through hearing my ideas. Militant groups concede that force will fill the void of a belief’s inadequacies. </p>
<p>In any argument, there should be set definitions for various elements. In this particular case, I tried to make it clear that life itself is the common trait among us all. I usually define my love as the ability to give the most precious item I possess for the sake of another, the priceless gem Life. At this point, if I could save anyone on this earth, I would do so in any way possible, including the loss of my life. I know that people value life more than anything else, and so it would logically fall that if you’re willing to give that up then that’s truly Love. Try to not confuse lu****l love with Love. In my opinion, the greatest unity isn’t a physical bond but instead a complete.</p>
<p>In a population of six billion, * realistically * there is a great chance that someone out there has the intelligence to comprehend what you are proposing with full understanding, and yet will oppose it vehemently. What then, do you propose?</p>
<p>A very good question, tlaktan. I can understand that it might not be feasible for me to persuade all 6 billion in my own lifetime but that still won’t stop me from trying to help others through teaching as many as possible. Somewhere I’ll have saved a life (if not lives) and just maybe, I’ll convince one or two people. If those one or two really do agree, then we will have doubled/tripled the rate at which we can reach the entire population, and in due time (maybe generations and generations) Utopia will exist. Another great component of my belief is faith in humanity; in our current society, I really don’t see a destination. I think that Utopians must return the hope back to the hopeless, the suffering.</p>
<p>When the opponents disagree, we may discuss the flaws in our thought processes, producing an even better society.</p>
<p>Ok, well what about the trend that the world is becomming progressively more liberalized? Liberalism is an ideal situation to many if not the majority of the world’s peoples. Read “Utopia” in Nozick’s
“Anarchy, State and Utopia”.</p>
<p>See “Not Quite Utopia” in the new (Aug.) National Geographic, about the East Wind commune in the Missouri Ozarks. (I’ll admit that I’ve had their peanut butter. . .I’ll also admit to some personal involvement with intentional communities). Commie, you really should visit that place.</p>
<p>Also read “Better Off” by Eric Brende, (2004 Harper-Collins)–more about Amish style communities, and how too much technology can stifle relationships. . .It says a lot about community and human nature.</p>
<p>I still don’t see how kids won’t know who their parents are. You say you are concerned about the poor because your mother gave you such a good example of kindness. Who would you be without her as a role model? Or with a different mother, or no mother in particular?</p>
<p>I’m not trying to patronize, but spend a weekend with kids… it will RADICALLY change your perspective of them. I was a kid… and there is a heck of a lot more to it than relating to them. It tries your patience like nothing else you can ever experience. I’m serious - a weekend, without help, preferably with younger kids - old enough to get into trouble and young enough to not know better. Guess I’m just trying to say that it isn’t that simple.</p>
<p>Then again, that is the reason why I think that nuclear families (um) stink. Child-rearing is a job for a mom & a dad - and the rest of the family to give them a break sometimes. </p>
<p>As for not knowing who your parents are - try talking to adopted kids. Or kids who have only a small part of their family. My cousin was thrilled to finally travel to New England & meet us becuase, in his words, he finally knew who he looked like. I know someone who was adopted who loved the ocean - adopted parents couldn’t understand it, but went with it. He met his biological dad, who loves to surf, and everything fell into place.</p>