(I am aware that it literally means "the land that does not exist") When we speak of a Utopian society, are we envisioning something more like Sir Thomas More's Utopia, Plato's Republic, or perhaps Karl Marx'sCommunist Manifesto?

What philosophic principles underlie the arrangment of social relationships and allocation of material resources in our idea of Utopia? What is the role of the individual? What technologies are prerequisite? What character is demanded of the populace? By what means is this character maintained? What of dissent? Scientific progress? Religion? Love?

I personally believe in that form of Utopia designated as the Millenial Reign of Christ. Superpowerful, wise, compassionate, loving being that has already literally died for our sakes comes down from Heaven and saves the select few from the wars, famine, and so forth that have already killed off all the wicked and selfish people. Everyone left universally acknowledges Him as King (seeing as how all the quarrelsome sorts have killed each other off). He then initiates a reign of unconditional, perfect love in which everyone has His personal guidance all the time. He teaches everyone, works with everyone, etc. etc.

Frankly, this is the only vison of Utopia that I have ever encountered that seemed both possible and desireable to me (keeping in mind that I'm probably one of the people destined to be killed off in the wars preceeding it--maybe I just like the idea of being killed off).

It seems since the dawn of civilization and recorded history (and I would be willing to bet long before then, in the dance, art, stories) that people have been trying to give themselves reason to hope, to keep going, to stick their tongue out at the bad guy/gal who escaped his/her just reward and "nyah, nyah - you didn't get it this time around but just you wait . . . "

This desire to create an utopia has taken some definite hideous turns in the 20th and 21st century - the ongoing issue of the U.S.A., vs terrorism (which could of course be turned around to the "terrorists" vs "big bad greedy destructive U.S.A.) Both sides have definite ideas as to how the world ought to be - for their side. And don't seem to really take into account the will of the people around them.

Hitler had some definite (sick)ideas. Produced definite (horrifying)results. And pretty much introduced world conflagration. (Shudder)It seems that if the Second Coming were to actually happen, that might have been a fairly ideal time.

Of course, the Native Americans have been looking for a revival for the last century. The sad thing is that we as a country we still have our proverbial thumb on top of their cultural head. Pretty hard to have a revival when you don't have much freedom.

Okay - and now before everyone gets really riled up and boots me off the forum - yes, I am very involved in my church and find the promises outlined by Christ very comforting. Particularly at times of great stress, sorrow, fear, doubt and at times when all is well. I just wonder what we all have to learn yet before an utopia can ever happen - is it possible that WE must learn to live in peace with each other?

Probably not possible. But - like I say . . .

On the "Distopian Visionary" awards list, Hitler gets honorable mention with six million innocent people killed and a couple million additional war casualties, but Stalin walks away with most innocent blood shed with over twenty million cold blooded murders. The Chinese regime gets a group award for topping the hundred million mark (though to be fair, most of these weren't outright murders). I don't know if I should mention Planned Parenthood's special achievement for shedding only innocent blood--might get me in trouble

My little utopian vision would include the following:

No right wing upper middle class white male sexist, racist, greedy pigs.

How's that for starters?

Well, let's take it farther.

Women are definitely in charge. No behind the scenes BS about it.

And life is much better.

Everyone has enough to eat, clothes to wear, education, opportunity, useful/meaningful activites; children are wanted and loved and nurtured.

Rape, pillage, plunder, murder, minor bouts of extortion and bad check writing no longer exist . . .

oh, silly me -

Sheri S. Tepper already expostulated a post-apocolyptic society dealing with this premise. And did it beautifully. Of course, all was not perfect yet, but the women and men in charge were on their way to breeding out the problems.

Rather a good read if you want to check out an alternative utopia in the making . . . perhaps that should be distopia . . . ? Actually, you could compare The Gate to Women's Country with The Handmaid's Tale for some thought provocation.

Strictly speaking, I go out of my way to avoid worrying too much about Utopia as the word is commonly used: As a place where things are perfect. In the more general sense of a Way of Life That Works Much Better, I'm actually something of a professional.

I helped found (and supplied the original impetus behind) an intentional community in Plainfield, Vermont: Meadowdance. I live there now. We spent three years planning and have been in existence for two and a half years since. We're only 12 people so far, but we own 200 acres of land and expect to eventually expand to 50-75 people total. We specifically designed this place to be a much better (for us) mode of living than Standard American Culture, by our definition. Clearly this definition won't work for everyone, but for us it means things like:

- Living in a place where children are treated with respect and love
- Having the help and support of other people whom one respects and whose company one enjoys
- Living in as ecologically sound a manner as possible
- Having work in the same context as home, so that life doesn't get split into the work world vs. the home world
- Drastically lowering our expenses while maintaining a high quality of life by economies of scale
- Having a system of governance that respects the needs and strengths of each individual in the community
- etc.

There are a lot of perks. For instance, if you don't care for cooking or dishwashing, you can get two hot, homemade, healthy, really tasty meals each day served to you and someone else will do the dishes. You may have to do more typing or building or what have you in return.

Also, I don't have any bills except for past debt. In exchange for the work I do here, everything essential is covered: utilities, lodging, food, vitamins, toothpaste, health insurance, auto insurance, gas for local travel, phone bills, Internet connectivity, etc. No one buys me plane tickets to Rio or new electric bass guitars, but the essentials are covered.

These days we're working very hard, but surprisingly, we're still working fewer hours per week (about 46, with no commuting necessary and including cooking, cleaning, household maintenance, community bill paying, car maintenance, etc.) than most salaried corporate employees (be sure to count in commuting time, time spent on off-the-job but job-related activities such as professional development, overtime, etc.), although admittedly we don't have the discretionary spending money they have. But in addition to our normal work, Meadowdance also just requires a lot of thought and attention.

So, I would submit to you in any case that there are a good number of us out there working on better ways to live, that our groups are called "intentional communities" (or "cohousing," etc.), and that no single model of a better life will suit all comers--hence the idea of a perfect environment is inherently flawed, since individuals' ideas of perfection vary so widely.

As a polytheist and a Quaker, I feel I also need to mention that I don't consider the idea of Christ coming to rule the Earth after the death of all sinners a candidate for Utopia. If all of the people who don't agree with you have to be gotten rid of before your Utopia can start, it's not a Utopia: it's a dystopia.

In this statement, I don't mean to say anything about God per se; only about the nature of Utopias (utopiae?).

Well, perfect freedom is complete anarchy. I imagine that is ideal for some people, but complete anarchy really means that you have no security whatsoever. I mean, if there is no reason someone shouldn't be able to come in and rape your teenaged daughter (since people would be free to do that as long as they don't mind being lynched--unless their friends are more dangerous than your family's friends, in which case a lynching isn't likely), your teenaged daughter (not that you have one) may life in fear of rape every day, for good reason. If people are free to bulldoze a nice wood because they want room to play lacrosse, hey, who's going to stop them? Perfect freedom starts becoming a big pain in the neck as soon as more than one person is involved.

That said, if you live among a group of people you strongly trust and respect, you can probably get away with something close to perfect anarchy/perfect freedom and live a decent life if that's your inclination. (I mean the general you, not you specifically.)

My additional two cents, for a total of four cents to date.

No human needs to do any work, unless he/she wants to.

Free public education is very easy, efficient, and plentiful. High educational achievement is also mandatory. Certain types of education are still expensive (e.g. if you want a great master pianist to give you music lessons, it'll cost you).

Everyone has their needs met to a pretty high degree. That is, everyone has a house in the suburbs, sufficient food, clean air & water, and energy. If you want to live in a palace, eat Lobster Thermadore, and consume a zillion gigawatts of electricity, that'll cost you.

Taxes are very low and government is relatively small, yet services are plentiful.

quote:

---

What technologies are prerequisite?

The most important technology is Artificial Intelligence. With robots that can do anything humans can do, productivity goes up and everything becomes inexpensive.

All the other technologies I envision also help by boosting productivity. When you can harness great energy and convert energy to matter, you can build living space faster than the human race can consume it.

A less important (but interesting) technology centers on education. My world has something akin to the "learning drugs" featured in other science fiction stories. Just assume it's a way for students to increase their learning productivity. You get a lot more learning with a lot less studying. So no one is uneducated or illiterate.

---

quote:

---

What philosophic principles underlie the arrangment of social relationships and allocation of material resources in our idea of Utopia?

---

I'm using a version of capitalism. In my milieu, humans have two main economic roles: humans consume things and humans own things. You earn you income by owning & trading stock in corporations that employ robots to produce goods and services that humans consume.

The main social support system is the afore mentioned education.

A secondary social support system will not allow anyone to become poor. If your net worth drops below a certain threshold, you lose the freedom to manage your own money. A computer automatically starts managing your money (investing, paying off debt, buying your groceries, picking out clothes, cars, entertainment, etc.) for you. It will keep doing this until you are back above that threshold. Thus, the poorest person in the world still gets new clothes, new cars, a healthy diet, etc. He/she also gets a guarantee that he/she will automatically climb to a higher social status.[/QUOTE][/b]

quote:

---

What is the role of the individual?

---

Economically, individuals own things and consume things. The greatest struggle in life is to find ways to amuse yourself. Thus, hobbies, clubs, and social organizations are very important.

quote:

---

What character is demanded of the populace?

---

Socially, I have a fairly Libertarian society. The individual's job is to have fun and don't hurt anybody. Individuals don't get many chances to break the law. For example, no one ever gets a speeding ticket because robots drive the cars.

Because robots do the work, taxes are very, very low.

quote:

---

By what means is this character maintained?

---

Education.

quote:

---

What of dissent?

---

There is plenty of room for dissent. Groups who have a certain view of right and wrong (e.g. communists, Scientologists, etc.) all get to live together in a world of their own.

quote:

---

Scientific progress?

---

Happenms all the time. Of course, most scientists are computers.

quote:

---

Religion?

---

An important part of the "hobbies, clubs, and social organizations" concep0t I mentioned above. For most people, religion gives their lives meaning. In my world, those who choose to may devote every moment to religion. All worshipers may do as they wish, as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others.

quote:

---

Love?

---

Another key to the "your job is to enjoy your life" aspect. Everyone should fall in love at least once.

Well, I'm gathering that the central proposition in the Utopia you're describing is that if you provide a pleasant environment and meet basic needs, you have the basis for a really wonderful society.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure it works that way. After all, we have the material wealth for everyone on the planet to have comfortable food, housing, etc.--but we don't choose to redistribute it that way, and if we did, birth rates would be likely to increase and keep going until we had bred ourselves into new social problems. Crowding as a rule tends to breed animosity; there is an ideal human population density, and when you exceed it, people start getting jumpy.

There's also environmental degradation to deal with, the more so if everyone in the world has the wasteful lifestyle that is part of the consumerist ideal.

Apart from this, I have to say that the description of a life where everyone has a house in the suburbs, a new car, and toys to keep them busy turns my blood cold. I appreciate that you have made room for cooperative types like myself to have our own structure, but keep in mind that some sub-groups would have very different ideas of what is good than the suburban norm described.

I'm up to six cents now. I wonder how much I have in my account?

An interesting discussion.

In order for utopia to exist, there would have to be a balance between the harmful extremes of civilization, human values, and human judgement.

An apparent paradigm: we could neither exist in anarchy or dictatorship. Democracy leans towards anarchy. Communism leads towards dictatorship. We would need a balance between democracy and communism. Total freedom should be allowed within a private sphere. And by freedom, I mean that which we are capable of doing within the limits of nature (we can't sprout wings and fly like birds). And by private sphere, I mean that that which is agreed among rational adults or decided by yourself to intentionally affect only yourself. However, most of our existence revolves around and among other people, and thus total freedom is hindered by that. Democracy fails to take the freedoms of society into full account. Whereas it should regulate more in certain areas, it gives us too much freedom, and therefore too great a variation in power. Politicians who "serve" the people and corporations that leech off society should be held in balance by those they serve and feed off of. I'm taking about corruption and unfair practices that undermine people's hard-earned accumulated resources for future living. Privatization is good, but it cannot operate purely free or minimally free. As for communism, it restricts too much. Political dissension and multi-ideological cultivation should be allowed. Instead of guiding, it steers and pushes this way and that. It is unjustified restricted freedom.

We have created the logic for our world, and we must abide by that logic, no matter how illusory or symbolic. For instance, we know what would happen if governments, whenever they needed money, simply produced it--economic chaos, inflation, depression, mass suffering. A utopia must exist through the logic of the balance of harmful extremes.

Philosophy aspects: there must be a standard of morality in the utopia. There should be total freedom of the private sphere unless it opposes the public sphere. Whereas laws serve to coordinate and occassionally uphold some morals, in a utopica, morals will supersede law. I won't go into details here about the exact moral system of the utopia, but know that one must exist.

One of the fairly universal truths of First World countries not documented in the time of Johnathan Swift: as level of education increases, birthrate decreases.

That is one of my less outrageous assumptions. So is the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence.

The only really outrageous assumption I've made is that technology can find ways to provide ample, comfortable living space for an unlimited number of humans.

Also, I wouldn't force people to live in a suburban house with a white picket fence and a dog named Spot. But even the poorest person would have enough resources to live that way if they wanted to.

The big limit to freedom my fictional utopia impose is the freedom to fail economically. As I said before, your right to fail would be limited. Once your net worth got below a certain level, you'd lose the right to decide how to spend your own money.

Of course I assume that some people won't be satisfied with it. That's how I plan to tell my stories!

quote:

---

Of course I assume that some people won't be satisfied with it. That's how I plan to tell my stories!

---

Ah, that's the part I missed. I'm taking "Utopia" too literally, as a perfect world. Technically I guess a perfect world would be a bust for storytelling, so I gather I should loosen up and think of this topic as discussing more worlds that intend to be perfect than worlds that are.

Two of the interesting ideas that have come up here: That a Utopia is a place of perfect freedom, and that Utopia is a place of perfect prosperity. Come to think of it, it's interesting what a given character considers Utopian, as an insight into what makes them tick ...

Seriously, though - how do people truly learn any valuable or lasting lessons if they are never allowed to fail? (I would surmise that part of the problem with today's educational system is that mistakes are not allowed - lest we offend someone's self-esteem, or a star athlete doesn't get to play a certain game, or a dramatist is denied the leading role . . . .)

Consequences are a natural and necessary part of life. You don't study for the test, you don't pass the test. You don't pass enough tests, you repeat the class, or lose a privilege. Hopefully this will inspire the erring member to study . . .

What is going to inspire me to keep my money at a certain level? Will the clothes the computer picks out be anachronostic and hateful? Will the car be an old beater that leaks gas and spews black smoke? I think there needs to be a prod somewhere - and I wonder if this doesn't relate somehow to the young lady who fell in love with the loser? Is there a consequence for the choice she made? Is there a lesson she needs to be learning? Or maybe hasn't learned - because mistakes aren't allowed? Maybe she's the person that says to the society - wait just a minute here!

You have definitely piqued my interest.

Anyway, my definition of perfect freedom includes the freedom to form a society for mutual protection, so anarchy is unlikely (unless the Utopia is populated by anarchists, which I find unlikely). And I didn't say it was my only criterion. Of course there are no rapists (or anarchists) in my Utopia (partly because neither can be happy in a situation where others have perfect freedom and rights to self determination).

The problem is that I don't have any mechanism that can be applied in the real world to keep rapists, murderers, theives, and general troublemakers out while maintaining freedom for everyone.

I don't consider any society that can't tolerate dissent an ideal. I don't want people to agree with me because they lack the power to dissent, I'd rather gain concensus by moral suasion. And a "society" of one consciousness? "If you suffer from loneliness, you're not alone, except in this case you're totally alone...." No room for love in that picture, I don't think.

Doc, why are taxes necessary at all in your Utopia? I mean, the machines already produce everything in the first place, right? Does it really make sense to have taxes at all in that case? Or is it window dressing, an element of a vast Potemkin village? And why? I already asked that, didn't I?

Dissent is allowed, but confined to comfortable prisons...or are they allowed to gather power in society at large? How does that jibe with maintaining control? How do you impose high standards in education? What if someone believes that the education is just brainwashing and resists it? Is freedom to dissent still preserved?

quote:

---

Questions, questions, too many questions! If you want a shard, here!

But which one is it?

Don't know. Urehuhah! Don't know!

---

quote:

---

Seriously, though - how do people truly learn any valuable or lasting lessons if they are never allowed to fail?

---

People are allowed to fail, and there is a stigma attached. But their failure can never be total. Only the truly foolish and wreched will ever experience this.

Frankly, I find the theory that humans can only "learn any valuable or lasting lessons" by failure to be fallacious reasoning. In my life, especially my academic career, I've learned a lot more by studying success than by experiencing failure.

Survivor said:

quote:

---

What is the motivation of the computers (if they really are going to stay on top of things, then they must be actually sentient--no "humanoid universe" bots need apply) or humans controlling the machines? What is their underlying philosophic reason for allowing the freedoms that they allow? Why do they limit the freedoms they limit?

---

I would love to explain this, but then I'd be giving away my whole story. Motivation is the central theme of this story: in a Universe where every effect happens due to causes, what are the causes (motivations) of human behavior? If humans could create paradise by building sentient machines, what motivations must the machines have?

Survivor said:

quote:

---

The problem is that I don't have any mechanism that can be applied in the real world to keep rapists, murderers, theives, and general troublemakers out while maintaining freedom for everyone.

---

An interesting problem. Consider this solution: I presume that you are neither a rapist nor a murderer. Why not? What caused you to be a good guy?

Come up with any answer . . . even an exaggerated answer, like a stay-at-home mom, stable testosterone levels, or Polka music twice a day. Whatever your answer is, make it an inescapable part of your milieu's culture, like reading, basic math, and junk mail are in our culture. Then see what happens.

However, natural consequences are still a needed and necessary part of life - and natural consequences can be either painful or pleasant - not all feedback is negative.
Experiential learning is a great teacher - and not all learning experiences are positive.

Yet, while the worlds seem perfect, an inherent wrongness transcends the lives of those who live in these worlds.

Here's one of the primary questions my story will explore: In a world where no one needs to work, how can humans stay motivated, enthusiastic, and happy?

Throughout the story I continually raise the stakes by giving the society more and more powerful technology. Every technical advancement gives everyone more goods and services for less cost, but it also raises their level of personal responsibility. The more technology advances, the more damage one unhappy person could do. So everyone hopes everyone else stays happy every moment of every day.

Condorcet (Progress of the Human Mind)
Robespierre (Not sure if he produced any works, but he was the guy who was behind the French Reign of Terror. The movement had VERY strong Utopian goals)
Charles Fourier (A New Industrial World)
Albert Brisbane
George Ripley
John H. Noyes (Bible Communism)
Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto)
Frederick Engels (co-author: Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific)

By the way, to get a look at what kinds of intentional communities are in existence these days, check out www.ic.org, the Fellowship for Intentional Communities. I would hasten to say that I don't consider the intentional communities movement Utopian by my definition, but certainly it's within the scope of our discussion.

Work is an interesting point within a "better society," because we're used to thinking of work as something to be minimized, avoided, an annoyance. Certainly work could be defined as "something a person has to do in order to have enough economic clout to meet personal goals, like having food to eat," but there's a potentially more useful definition: "effort that yields a benefit."

A clear-cut example: writing is definitely work in the sense that it requires effort, you have to learn how to do it well and possibly not everyone can learn how to do it well, it benefits people (the readers) and produces a product, etc. But many of us seem to be trying to find ways to be able to do more, not less, writing.

Thus, I'd suggest that ideally, a really nifty culture is one that doesn't eliminate work, but rather facilitates work being enjoyable (partly by matching up the right work with the right person, partly by work environment, and partly by eliminating the economic stress that typically accompanies work in our culture) for each worker. You could even have a society like this where work is mandatory for everyone who wants the benefits of the culture, yet virtually everyone enjoys their work (there will always be people who are unhappy, says I, regardless of how well things are set up).

Interestingly, one of the implications of enjoyable labor seems to be relaxing a little on efficiency. For instance, one of the jobs here is picking up the mail from the post office every day; the post office is about .75 miles away. The person who does this job walks round trip every day rather than driving, so it takes more time and it's officially "more work." However, by walking instead of driving it becomes enjoyable for him and no longer (to use a phrase I've heard often) "feels like work."

Seriously, though, Doc asks an interesting question, "What caused you to be a good guy?" Of course he is only presuming that I'm a good guy, but he has a point.

From any purely causitive perspective, I should be a sociopathic murderer (and possibly a rapist too, though I probably would content myself with seductions--I'm actually pretty good at that, when I put my mind to it, and occasionally when I don't). I shouldn't believe in God or a higher morality at all(here excluding transcendent experience from being a cause for human behavior). I have fully intact instincts for killing and sex, and no functional instinct for socialization.

So why am I not a murderer and debaucher? I wouldn't enjoy rape in any case, I happen to instinctively find the idea of copulation with a resisting object unattractive. My instincts are for willing partners, though I don't lack instincts for having as many as possible:lewd:

The simple answer is that I choose to believe in God and a higher morality, and I therefore choose not to be a murderer and debaucher. I choose, and I believe that those that become murderers and rapists also choose. After all, even "a stay-at-home mom, stable testosterone levels, or Polka music twice a day" can produce a serial rapist/killer (or killer/rapist, yuck). Not an answer, but that is my answer.

If you define instinct as meaning only a "behavioral pattern that we cannot control" and then define all involuntary reactions as "physiological response" (I would have called it a "reflex" myself) then you have simply defined "instinct" as an incorrect term for "physiological response".

By that argument I can prove anything either true or false as a matter of definition. Besides, that's obviously not the definition I used, since I speak of controlling my "instincts". Also, that is not an element of the definition of "instinct" in any dictionary I've ever consulted. Your definition of "instinct" serves only as an argument that there isn't any such thing.

Instinct means "an inborn tendency to behave in a way characteristic of a species; natural, unlearned, predictable response to stimuli." It can also mean a primal psychic force or drive in Freudian analysis (to which I don't subscribe). A tendency, not an uncontrollable behavioral pattern. You cannot deny that humans display stereotypic responses to certain kinds of stimuli. And it is hard to argue that none of those are the result of inborn tendancies. You could be utterly solopsistic enough to argue that humanity is not a "species" at all, but merely a figment of your imagination, which is to say that humans do not have instincts simply because you do not imagine them to have instincts....

Well, enough of that. Call them instincts or "primative tendencies" or what have you, the point is unimportant.

quote:

---

The simple answer is that I choose to believe in God and a higher morality, and I therefore choose not to be a murderer and debaucher. I choose, and I believe that those that become murderers and rapists also choose.

---

That answers the question on the surface, but you can get a much more interesting story if you go deeper.

Why are you a good guy? Because you choose to believe in God.

So why do you choose to believe in God?

quote:

---

This Utopian community (forgive me if this has been answered), is it a positive or negative influence in the storyline?

---

It's not an influence in either direction, it's part of the setting. Think of my Utopia's relationship to my characters as similar to the relationship between Starfleet Command and Captain Picard's crew. My Utopia taught my characters the skills and values I need them to have to tell my story.

Survivor! I do so love to debate , so I'm going to respond (even though it probably doesn't help Doc much...though maybe. You never know)

Perhaps one of the 10 smartest people I've ever met was a professor of humanities I once had. He taught..hmm...entry level World Civilizations, a generic freshman course. But, he also had earned his j.d. from Harvard and a PhD in neurophysiology -- to say he was brilliant would probably be an understatement. Anyway, one of the things he did at the beginning of the semester, during his first lecture he offered a challenge to the class: the first person to give him an example of instinct among homo sapiens would be awared dinner at any restaurant in town (from Burger King to 'The Ritz'). Why? Because it can't be done (to date he hasn't paid out for dinner, and the challenge has been up in the air for 15 years).

Instinct comes from physical structures within the brain (chains of neurons made up in such a way that create the behavior) that, when stimulated, result in complex behavioral patters that are identical across the species line. Further, these reactions (or 'patterns' are unavoidable, and unquestionable.
A bird doesn't wonder why it's flying south, it just does.
Human free will and human consciousness is the death of 'instinct,' as it's impossible to have that instinct at such a fully developed state of intelligence

I doubt you care so much, but, I can get you into contact with my old Prof. if you'd like.

You do have "physical structures within the brain (chains of neurons made up in such a way that create the behavior) that, when stimulated, result in complex behavioral patters that are identical across the species line. Further, these reactions (or 'patterns') are unavoidable, and unquestionable." But these are not instincts, they are reflexes. You don't close your eyes and hunch your shoulders when you sneeze by instinct, you do it by reflex.

This professor of yours is using a cheap trick to make himself look smart. I can do the same for, say, elephants, by defining an elephant as a giant, gray, reptile, then pointing out that all actual examples of giant, gray reptiles are actually dinosaurs, not elephants.

Instinct is what makes a bird (or migratory birds, at any rate) fly south for the winter. It is not "unavoidable" (and the issue of whether it is "unquestionable" cannot be answered without talking to birds). A migratory bird that finds a suitible place to stay the winter (say, a Home Depot) will not migrate. If that place should be unavailable in a later year (say, it was a Hechenger's) then the bird will follow a flock south.

The fact that some migratory birds choose not to migrate doesn't mean that there is no migratory instinct, it just means that instinct is only a tendency.

By the way, none of "the 10 smartest people I've ever met was a professor of humanities" (and none of the remotely intelligent people I've met were "professors of humanities I once had"). That might bias me against this moron of whom you speak so highly But bias or not, the fact remains that instinct doesn't mean what he said, what he was describing is reflex, which he uses as his out whenever someone comes up with an example of one. Believe me, I've met the type.

You should offer him a counter challenge. Challenge him to find an "instinct" in any species. By his criteria, he cannot do it. Anything that is not obviously a reflex can be proven to be avoidable (again, the issue of "unquestionable" will have to wait on animal language translation). Heck, even reflexs are avoidable if you use drugs and stuff.

Doc, I hate to say this, but the reason I choose to believe in God is because I choose to believe in God. I do have a choice, and the alternative (for me, at any rate) is the Nietzchean ideal of the "will to power". I am an "Ubermensch" (which is why, for me, existential dispair is not a real option).

I choose to believe in God because...I so choose.

Not a very interesting answer, I must admit.

As to humans having instinct, of course if you define "instinct" as something that cannot be resisted, humans are unlikely to have it. Frankly, though, I don't find that a very useful definition. Maybe it's useful for some other animals, but not for humans, because humans do have something that I and (sez me) most reasonable people would label "instinct," to wit: Basic, genetically encoded urges that push behavior strongly in one direction or another.

One obvious example is the parent preserving the baby. This is not simply a conditioned response: if it were, our species would never have made it into existence, because humans are ridiculously dependent on their parents protecting and caring for them into maturity.

Another obvious example is lust. Again, not a conditioned response, but rather a very powerful, hormonally-based urge. And of course the hormones are generated because of our genetic makeup, so lust ultimately comes from genetics.

Are there examples of lousy parents, examples of successful celibates? Of course. Does this mean the basic urges they have overcome don't exist? Of course not!

By the way, most of the other more complex animals could probably be conditioned out of their instincts as well, so the definition your professor is using may be useless except for simple animals (insects, bacteria, etc.).

Luc

Ahh, but Pagan, parenting(preserving) a child is a learned function! One doesn't know how to do it 'instinctually' (the wealth of books on raising a child on Amazon.com should be a testament to that fact), rather, you learn over time (even when the baby does pop out). And the preservation of life is something that's specific to our relatively modern age, as looking through history one can easily see how callously life was taken 'back in the day'.
As to lust? An emotion, rather than an 'instinct'. But in that vein, the closest thing I could ever think of was the 'instinct' to procreate, but, it seems there's been some refutation over that claim as well.

I should point out that there's no actual consensus on this, by the way, and our little discussion here is just one of many going on (I attempted to find a few books I might be able to pick up at the library on this issue and...yeah, there are quite a few) over the nature v. nurture debate.

p.s. How does one believe in God yet regard themselves as a 'supervillian' and apparently relish such a title? That would seem to me a conflict of interests... Oh well, I hope that doesn't start a theological debate as well

quote:

---

Ahh, but Pagan, parenting(preserving) a child is a learned function!

---

I'm not referring to the specific mechanics by which a person takes care of a child, but rather to the basic, instinctual reaction to children that causes parents to care for them. Note that this is a universal throughout the species and throughout its history, and needs to have been in order for our species to survive. It sounds as though your definition of "instinct" is talking about some specific series of actions rather than a basic pattern of behavior. In this sense I don't think the definition you're using is one that is shared by many people or that is widely useful.

The American Heritage dictionary gives this as the primary definition:

quote:

---

An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

---

Note the very general nature of the examples, especially the second one.

MrP, your Dr. Werrant is just being intellectually dishonest to gratify his own ego. You have noticed that he has one, haven't you? This baloney of "going on the definition that is used within the scientific community" when you're talking about a definition that excludes the possibility of the thing your talking about is just a demonstration of how contagious intellectual dishonesty can be.

If anyone wants to agree with MrP (and the distinguished Dr. Werrant, of course), then please feel free to e-mail him. And of course, MrP, if you feel that you have some stunning evidence to present, please feel free to let me know

Anyway, I'm an Ubermensh by nature, not by choice. It's really not my fault (really). And have you ever been inside a Home Depot? (third and forth generation migratory birds that choose not to migrate, I kid you not)

Now, I too am, done.

Does anyone else think I "Sound like a Calvinist" when I assert that humans have inborn tendencies? Did anyone else notice that both I and PQ actually bothered to look up the word in question? Does anyone else believe that MrP has actually bothered to so much as read my posts to find out what I think? Did anyone notice that if he has read my posts, then he is deliberately misrepresenting what I said?

Intellectual dishonesty can afflict anyone (even me) which is why thinking persons must analyze the internal logical consistency of statements rather than "taking them on authority." I never give credentials for the very simple reason that I'd rather have people disagree with me than get agreement based on "authority" (there's also the little matter of my not having any credentials I could legitimately use here--given the fact that I don't believe in using credentials to persuade).

Credentials are a useful way to know what someone else thinks of a person's knowledge and reliability. And that's all. Presenting a credential is exactly as logical as an ad hominem attack (technically, presenting credentials is an ad hominem argument, but the currant usage implies an attack rather than a defense).

Again, MrP, if you have research, then send me a copy (or post it somewhere around here, if you like). Don't just say "I've at least researched -somewhat- the topic, and, have talked to someone who's recognized in the field as an expert." Do you think that I've never done any research? Do you know that I've never talked to anyone that is an acknowledged expert in the field (I know you think that, but do you know?)?

It was kind of you to admit that there's no scientific consensus on the rather silly position your dear professor has decided to stake out. But aside from that, your assumption that your "warrent of authority" gives you the right to be taken seriously does you little credit.

I demand that right for everyone that posts here, not just those that can claim acquaintance with an "expert" in the "field". For crying out loud, I've lived in the field for decades! I'm up to my armpits in humanity. So is everyone else here. But enough of that.

I would appreciate it if people would do me the courtesy of actually finding out what I'm saying before disagreeing with me. That's all. Sometimes I am wrong (I once misquoted the population of China by a couple of hundred million people), after all. But if people tell me I'm wrong when they haven't bothered to read my posts, that does indicate a basic failure of the intellectual process.

For example, a utopia can have Hitler, but he doesn't get elected into power. We have the sniper, but no copycats.

I believe in the Republic, even if I don't believe in the methods-- censorship discussed in chapters two and three-- Plato uses to get there.

I also believe in the freedom to fail: as in, Athens was sacked by Sparta, but does that mean that the Spartans had a more advanced society and culture? It just meant that Athens had run its course.

I believe that it's possible for a Utopia to be destroyed by the lustful and violent, but so what? We all die, even the culture, isn't it more important that we live Well or at least endeavor to?

Doc Brown's ideas and PaganQuaker's intentional community seems closer to these ideals than any what we currently live in.

Some of my problems with the Constitution is that I think it's slightly too concerned with creating something that will last and is efficient, as opposed to creating something Good.

I have to agree that the Founders seemed content to leave "goodness" up to Providence in their design for our government. In a sense, by doing so, they expressly reject the idea of attempting to create a Utopian or ideal society.

I think your ideas about a Utopia allowing evil, but limiting it, are actually quite interesting. How then is a Utopia different from an ordinary society? This gets into the vision of hell painted by Sarte in his play (yeah, I'm kind of mixing my media, aren't I?) No Exit.

If a Utopia can still be full of evil people, but simply restrains the most obvious evil acts...then how is it a Utopia? And how does a society composed of evil people control outrageously evil acts except by some force imposed from without?

This very much goes with the idea of artificially intelligent computers running everything.

Actually, I'm not sure if I understand you, Tanglier (does that mean anything special, or is it okay if I call you "Tang" ). In your opinion, does the annihilation of the family that Plato suggests count as a desirable end or an undesireable means? What of his program of eugenics?

What I wonder is whether Plato's republic has the ability to survive even a few bad apples (well, you know me, I'm always wondering about everything.

Which particulars of Plato's Republic do you admire (taking it as admitted that you disapprove of some of them)?

I personally have always admired the ideal of the "philosopher king", though I've no clear idea how such a person can get into power other than through an accident of history.

But if we take it as a given that we may only do the best in our own life, and if we succeed in living our own life according to our precepts of a good life then this is sufficient, what is the role of Utopian ideals at all?

In other words, if I determine that a Utopia doesn't have to outlive me, or extend further than what is necessary for me personally to live life as I think best, then how is my conception of this ideal state of affairs a vision of an ideal society? Isn't it then rather based on...holy crap, I've got to lay off the dialogues.

What I meant to say was that I admire the goals of universal brotherhood and valor, and the search for the just society that are embodied in the dialogue of The Republic. But I find many of the means that are suggested for attaining these things not only to be abbhorent, but unlikely to work.

For instance, I don't believe that human intelligence is entirely a matter of genetic selection. I believe that having an intelligent, involved parent during the critical developmental period is vital to the development of a child's intellectual capabilities. On the other hand, I also believe that parental love is vital for the infant to develop a healthy psychology that can support a strong ethical commitment. So I don't think the system of raising children in communal nurseries without any contact with their parents (and deliberately discouraging parents from having any contact with the children) are good ideas from a practical perspective.

And considering that the stated reason for these communal nurseries is to allow the state to carry out a secret program of eugenics, I'm a little horrified. Not only do I feel that the experiment is likely to fail in producing a superior (or even adequate) quality of citizen, I question the morality of the method independent of its efficacy.

But I'm in favor of the goal, a citizenry that have been accustomed to think of themselves as all being brothers, and having the best physical, mental, and emotional health possible.

But if I reject the method of The Republic for achieving that goal (whether on grounds of effectivness or morality), then am I still a proponent of that sort of social arrangement?

quote:

---

Doc, I hate to say this, but the reason I choose to believe in God is because I choose to believe in God.

---

If you want to identify belief in God as it's own root cause that's fine by me. I really think you can find some good story and character ideas by exploring the question, though. You might at least invent ficticious characters and explore the reasons that they choose their beliefs. It's a great technique for a writer.

MrPopodopalus said (on behalf of Dr. Werrant):

quote:

---

Instinct comes from physical structures within the brain (chains of neurons made up in such a way that create the behavior) that, when stimulated, result in complex behavioral patters that are identical across the species line. Further, these reactions (or 'patterns' are unavoidable, and unquestionable.
A bird doesn't wonder why it's flying south, it just does.

---

Survivor responded:

quote:

---

Instinct is what makes a bird (or migratory birds, at any rate) fly south for the winter. It is not "unavoidable" (and the issue of whether it is "unquestionable" cannot be answered without talking to birds). A migratory bird that finds a suitible place to stay the winter (say, a Home Depot) will not migrate.

---

Survivor, your reply cannot address the question, since it will lead to an infinite logical recursion. The migratory bird that winters in a Home Depot (I happened to see one today) is still operating on instinct. It is instinctively attracted to shelter. If it exhibits a behavior that is neither migration or Home Depot wintering, that will also be an instinct.

The way to prove that the behavior is not an instinct is to prove that the migratory bird wonders: "Why am I staying in a Home Depot?" then consciously contemplates alternatives.

This is why the good professor claims that humans have no instinctive behavior. His students can't name a behavior unless they are aware of it. But they cannot be aware of it without thinking about it. As soon as the student thinks about the meaning of the behavior it is automatically not instinctive.

Oddly enough, though, I agree with Survivor. Dr. Werrant is wrong.

Just as humans can't prove they have instincts, humans also can't prove they have free will. It's impossible for a human brain to demonstrate a behavior that couldn't be duplicated by a cause-and-effect machine (e.g. a computer). Unless and until someone can describe the exact mechanism by which free will operates, the distinction between instinctive actions and willful actions is useless to practicioners of the "hard" sciences.

quote:

---

I'm not a good guy, and I never said that I was (or if I did, then I was clearly kidding).

---

You never claimed to be a good guy, Survivor. It was I who made that presumption of you. And I am shocked by your revelation, since it is so very, very seldom that I am wrong.

Now imagine a society made up of tens of thousands of semi-independent, though communicating groups of all different sizes. I'm picturing the solar system after it has been fully exploited by human technological civilization. Each inside-out bubble world is free to experiment with its own systems of every sort. To build new daughter colonies or simply grow in size. And to talk to all the rest and learn from each other.

Soon, it seems to me, the state of the art in all sorts of societal systems like education, welfare, corrections, corporate structure, food production, and so on, would be vastly optimized by the sheer intensity of the variation and competition. There might then be a society whose government is vastly better than ours today, with programs that work far far better than ours in every sphere. Then it will all snowball, of course, too. It's an exponential curve. Better education means better use of the brainpower at the society's disposal, which means better art, better technology, better everything.

That's how I picture a Utopian society coming about. Not that there are no free moral choices anymore, but that the system of moral education is so vastly superiour to ours that their worst criminals make our saints look slightly tawdry, and so on.

I realize this is a general formula and that a novel will have to envision a specific instance. As for that, I don't know what to tell you except to run the tape forward in your mind and see what results.

doesn't what you suggest echo the world's current state, replacing planets with countries of course? we don't have a Utopian society because unlike your worlds, we don't get along and share the ideas that have bettered ourselves. so my question is, why would your worlds share with eachother? it seems to me your society requires a Utopian atmosphere already in place in order to function; the Utopia isn't the effect, it's the cause.

TTFN & lol

quote:

---

We are now in a position to give an expanded definition of instinctive behaviour as comprising those complex groups of co-ordinated acts which, though they contribute to experience, are, on their first occurrence, not determined by individual experience; which are adaptive and tend to the well-being of the individual and the preservation of the race; which are due to the co-operation of external and internal stimuli; which are similarly performed by all members of the same more or less restricted group of animals; but which are subject to variation, and to subsequent modification under the guidance of individual experience.

---

As the above definition makes clear, instinct doesn't rule out the possibility of free will. And the fact that a particular instinct can be evaded doesn't imply that it is not an instinct. Babies don't learn to talk because they've had experience with talking and thus have learned that it will benefit them--they learn to talk because of instinct, then enjoy the benefits (or not, as the case may be --pity poor me!). Of course, the definition isn't up to my "amazing" standards. 'Tis wordy, poorly constructed, awkward, and actually rather obscure (and it doesn't support MrP's position any better than the concise def's me and PQ gave).

I have to say that I agree with Cosmi, on this one, Nomda. I don't see how vast wealth leads automatically to Utopia, particularly without any mechanism for preventing any one group from profitting at the expense of others.

Historically, as technology and wealth worldwide has advanced, the human race has produced ever more vile criminals who inventively use technology and wealth to commit ever more horrific crimes (I don't actually think that Hitler and Stalin were worse than anyone that had come before, but they certainly committed atrocities on a scale never before imagined, and even now the Communist regime in China is calculating how best to use new technologies to exert totalitarian control the world's most populous country).

I don't think that you can just rely on "moral education" either, not unless you actively eliminate "immoral education" (and that brings up the means/ends issue again).

"By the patient study of the behaviour of precocious young birds, such as chicks, pheasants, ducklings and moorhens, it can be
readily ascertained that such modes of activity as
running, swimming, diving, preening the down, scratching the ground, pecking at small objects, and with the characteristic attitudes expressive of fear and anger, are
so far instinctive as to be definite on their first occurrence—they do not require to be learnt. No doubt they are subsequently guided to higher excellence and effectiveness with the experience gained in their oft-repeated performance."

To draw a parallel using your child example, I've never heard an infant upon or shortly after delivery utter even a single word in their native (or any other) tongue and improve from there.
And, while it is true that there are instincts that can appear much later in life (migratory birds migrating or nestbuilding functions) it seems to be that the consensus is that to be instinctual the act must be performed fairly right the first time (and can improve from there). I don't know of a single person that can do anything dead on their first attempt, do you?

I hope hope you did read the part where it said the generic definition (of which you are so fond) is too obtuse to be useful, though. Unfortunately, while it does not strengthen my stance, for the most part it does weaken yours.

Anyhow, I have finals to study for.

Have you ever seen a bird chick, shortly after hatching, do anything more significant than cheep? A human baby does as much immediately after birth (and don't tell me that crying counts as a reflex or "physiological reaction"--because it simply isn't an involuntary response).

Birds need help to accomplish their first migration, and need to be shown how to build their first nest. How much practical experience do you actually have with animal behavior? From your posts so far, not a lot.

Did you read the part where I said the definition you're so proud of having found was wordy and obscure? It is, and it doesn't say anything more than that instinct is "an inborn tendency to behave in a way characteristic of a species; natural, unlearned, predictable response to stimuli." Go ahead and reread it a dozen times, if you like. "Complex groups of co-ordinated acts" simply translates as "behaviors". "Which, though they contribute to experience, are, on their first occurrence, not determined by individual experience" put simply means "inborn". "Which are adaptive and tend to the well-being of the individual and the preservation of the race" is the only novel element, meaning that there is a selective pressure to produce the instinct (I would argue that an instinct can be "obsolete" in the sense of no longer being preserved by selective pressure, or even counterproductive, thus being selected against--thus this definition is actually less accurate than the "generic" one in the dictionary). "Due to the co-operation of external and internal stimuli" put simply means that it is a "tendancy" to behave in a specific way in "response to stimuli." "Similarly performed by all members of the same more or less restricted group of animals; but which are subject to variation, and to subsequent modification under the guidance of individual experience" adds nothing that has not already been said.

In other words, in the only part that it substantively differs from the "dictionary" definition, it is less accurate, because it assumes that the moment an instinct might lead to maladaptive behavior, the instinct doesn't exist. According to that idea, if there are hunters to the south of a migratory bird, then the migratory tendency is no longer an instinct, because following it would reduce the bird's chances of survival!

I don't suppose any of what I've said matters, as you refuse to believe anyone other than yourself...somehow. It's as if I've been talking with a brick wall all along.

Does anyone recall the studies on "windows of opportunity" in human learning?

Humans appear to come hard-wired for language, but they have to learn it through environmental stimulation. Those infants (0-3) that were neglected and did not receive this stimulation (Jeannie, among others, in case that rings a bell for anyone) did not receive the necessary stimulation and therefore have severely retarded language capability. When they have any at all.

You all might consider checking out all the neurodevelopmental research in early childhood education and then refer back to the amazing wisdom of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers - who are probably the last bastion of "instinctive" knowledge as to what a developing child needs to thrive -