Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia?

ruggedraven36 said:Total nonsense. Look, if we can manage to follow basic traffic laws across the entire country, why can't we handle a simple rotation rule at the national level? It’s straightforward stuff—easy to grasp, easy to accept. Of course, that’s assuming anyone actually gives a damn about fairness. If they don't, then this whole debate is just a waste of breath. You can't force someone to be decent—that should go without saying.

The traffic law comparison just doesn't hold water.

In that scenario, the common good—"road safety"—is something all drivers create and maintain, at least in theory, equally (setting aside infrastructure for a second, even though it matters).
The assumption is that everyone on the road has undergone training and is equally qualified. Everyone puts in an equal amount of their own resources during that training... but you can't say that applies when comparing some guy working construction to a neurosurgeon.
What I said about traffic laws in practice doesn't mean everything runs on autopilot... rule-breakers still exist, just like the police and the court system do.
But fundamentally, people get it—two cars hitting an intersection at the same time isn't going to benefit anyone involved.

The social division of labor is a way more complicated beast, so while you might experiment with agreements in small voluntary communities, trying to scale that kind of practice up to massive populations is a total recipe for disaster.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, for a system like that to actually work—without a neurosurgeon or Peter feeling bitter, jealous, frustrated, or straight-up furious at each other or the system itself—you need some kind of heavy-duty psychology to keep egos in check. Or you need an external enforcement system, which we all know leads to trouble. It just creates more frustration and anger, which people usually project onto outside forces instead of admitting they might be part of the problem.

Also, I'm not sure why you're brushing off the opportunity cost argument. Every single hour a neurosurgeon spends cleaning a toilet is an hour they could have spent on something much more important. Their stakes are incredibly high; lives are literally in their hands. That time spent scrubbing porcelain could be used to sharpen their medical expertise and surgical skills, which directly lowers the risk of a patient dying on the table. If someone does die, they’ve got a valid reason to point out that maybe it wouldn't have happened if they were studying instead of cleaning toilets. They'll start questioning if doing chores is really a fair way to pay back society for all the training they received.

...Talking about opportunity costs has made me realize my own opportunity costs, and honestly, I'm not sure how well I'm handling them. 🤣

What you're missing is that this entire mindset is basically a byproduct of the social system we live in. You can't have a fair or free society until there's a revolution of the spirit. We can sit here and dream up solutions for this or that problem, but none of it matters if most people haven't realized they aren't just selfish animals driven solely by money and status—even if that's what the capitalist apologists want us to believe.

As for this whole debate about "lost time" because someone was performing a socially necessary task—it's such insignificant time that it's hardly worth the breath. Sure, we can imagine some hypothetical scenario where a person is so obsessed with their work that even a tiny loss of time feels like a tragedy. Fine. I have nothing against those rare, exceptional people being excused from the rest of life. But let's be clear: a desirable society isn't one where everyone is forced to be as "useful" as possible; it's one where everyone is as free as possible. Shortening the workday is a fundamental requirement. In that light, a neurosurgeon should be working *less*, not more. If they're so obsessed with their work that they can't help themselves, they can do it on their own time, for free.

I'm not answering the others. I've said what I need to say.

I mean, look, even if everyone is just a bunch of selfish jerks because that's how they were programmed by this whole cutthroat capitalist machine, the reality is that this is just who they ARE now, right? They’re acting exactly how they think is "correct" or "normal." If people actually stopped thinking that way and started behaving differently, we wouldn't just be talking about some minor tweak or a little lifestyle change—it would be a total, radical transformation of the human soul itself.

gentlerider7 said:I mean, look, even if everyone is just a bunch of selfish jerks because that's how they were programmed by this whole cutthroat capitalist machine, the reality is that this is just who they ARE now, right? They’re acting exactly how they think is "correct" or "normal." If people actually stopped thinking that way and started behaving differently, we wouldn't just be talking about some minor tweak or a little lifestyle change—it would be a total, radical transformation of the human soul itself.

Right... an "anthropological shift"... basically turning us all into a hive mind of insects... and even those guys have hierarchies.

ruggedraven36 said:What you're missing is that this entire mindset is basically a byproduct of the social system we live in. You can't have a fair or free society until there's a revolution of the spirit. We can sit here and dream up solutions for this or that problem, but none of it matters if most people haven't realized they aren't just selfish animals driven solely by money and status—even if that's what the capitalist apologists want us to believe.

As for this whole debate about "lost time" because someone was performing a socially necessary task—it's such insignificant time that it's hardly worth the breath. Sure, we can imagine some hypothetical scenario where a person is so obsessed with their work that even a tiny loss of time feels like a tragedy. Fine. I have nothing against those rare, exceptional people being excused from the rest of life. But let's be clear: a desirable society isn't one where everyone is forced to be as "useful" as possible; it's one where everyone is as free as possible. Shortening the workday is a fundamental requirement. In that light, a neurosurgeon should be working *less*, not more. If they're so obsessed with their work that they can't help themselves, they can do it on their own time, for free.

I'm not answering the others. I've said what I need to say.

That’s why I keep arguing that while technological progress handles the technical stuff, we also need spiritual growth. And in my opinion, neither of those is a small task. When I talk about spiritual growth, I mean becoming aware of and overcoming those primal psychological impulses humans have dealt with since the beginning of time—and doing it on a collective level. Then again, advancing technology isn't exactly simple either, as seen by things like the ‘calculation problem.’

Telling Peter he needs a side hustle is pointless—he’d probably end up doing it anyway. If cleaning is his main gig, it just means he lacks the skills or the drive to aim higher.

Maybe he could rotate between the coal mine and the restroom.

Another issue, which makes that Marxist quote sound pretty idiotic, is specialization. I can DIY almost anything a plumber or a mason can do at my house, but it might take me all weekend to finish what they wrap up in an hour. That works fine for home projects or hobbies, but on a societal level, it’s inefficient. It wastes labor and produces inferior results, eventually making a community less functional and less competitive. Specialization and trade work much better than everyone trying to do everything poorly. Ignoring that because of some ideological fantasy is just counterproductive.

bluemason3 said:Telling Peter he needs a side hustle is pointless—he’d probably end up doing it anyway. If cleaning is his main gig, it just means he lacks the skills or the drive to aim higher.

Maybe he could rotate between the coal mine and the restroom.

Another issue, which makes that Marxist quote sound pretty idiotic, is specialization. I can DIY almost anything a plumber or a mason can do at my house, but it might take me all weekend to finish what they wrap up in an hour. That works fine for home projects or hobbies, but on a societal level, it’s inefficient. It wastes labor and produces inferior results, eventually making a community less functional and less competitive. Specialization and trade work much better than everyone trying to do everything poorly. Ignoring that because of some ideological fantasy is just counterproductive.

So, just imagine for a second—what if we weren't actually aiming for this kind of community at all? What if our whole damn goal was just to see how little we could get away with doing while still hanging around? Like, what if the ultimate mission was basically just finding new, creative ways to slack off and master the art of being completely useless? Can you even picture that? Just a bunch of us sitting around, dodging responsibilities and perfecting the craft of doing absolutely nothing while everyone else does the heavy lifting... honestly, wouldn't that be something?

gentlerider7 said:So, just imagine for a second—what if we weren't actually aiming for this kind of community at all? What if our whole damn goal was just to see how little we could get away with doing while still hanging around? Like, what if the ultimate mission was basically just finding new, creative ways to slack off and master the art of being completely useless? Can you even picture that? Just a bunch of us sitting around, dodging responsibilities and perfecting the craft of doing absolutely nothing while everyone else does the heavy lifting... honestly, wouldn't that be something?

If you want more time to slack off, you have to make work hyper-efficient just so you can get it over with faster.

Plus, life is inherently competitive. Dreaming about a non-competitive society is like dreaming about having superpowers—it’s outside the realm of what’s even theoretically possible.

But I suppose this kind of delusional utopianism is just a materialistic substitute for religion, so expecting it to actually happen is probably asking too much.

bluemason3 said:Telling Peter he needs a side hustle is pointless—he’d probably end up doing it anyway. If cleaning is his main gig, it just means he lacks the skills or the drive to aim higher.

Maybe he could rotate between the coal mine and the restroom.

Another issue, which makes that Marxist quote sound pretty idiotic, is specialization. I can DIY almost anything a plumber or a mason can do at my house, but it might take me all weekend to finish what they wrap up in an hour. That works fine for home projects or hobbies, but on a societal level, it’s inefficient. It wastes labor and produces inferior results, eventually making a community less functional and less competitive. Specialization and trade work much better than everyone trying to do everything poorly. Ignoring that because of some ideological fantasy is just counterproductive.

It's actually even more interesting that Ricardo laid this all out back in 1817 with his principle of comparative advantage. That’s a massive blow to Marx... honestly, it's incredible how that mentally stunted slacker managed to churn out such a massive tome on Capital when he clearly didn't grasp what he was even writing about. lol.
Marxism is essentially just a 19th-century version of a conspiracy theory. Not that those didn't exist before, of course.

bluemason3 said:If you want more time to slack off, you have to make work hyper-efficient just so you can get it over with faster.

Plus, life is inherently competitive. Dreaming about a non-competitive society is like dreaming about having superpowers—it’s outside the realm of what’s even theoretically possible.

But I suppose this kind of delusional utopianism is just a materialistic substitute for religion, so expecting it to actually happen is probably asking too much.

And honestly, isn't that exactly what utopianism is? Just this endless, desperate striving to overcome our own biological limitations (you know, that whole thing the Hegelians call "progressing toward consciousness of freedom")

gentlerider7 said:And honestly, isn't that exactly what utopianism is? Just this endless, desperate striving to overcome our own biological limitations (you know, that whole thing the Hegelians call "progressing toward consciousness of freedom")

So, we're looking at a sort of pseudo-religious delusion here.🙂

It all sounds great on paper, until people get carried away and try to force these grand visions into reality without any grounding.😁

In practice, we've seen how sending experts and doctors out to rural areas often ends up wrecking everything from local clinics to public schools and agricultural programs. Just brilliant.😬

Andrew Booth29 said:It's actually even more interesting that Ricardo laid this all out back in 1817 with his principle of comparative advantage. That’s a massive blow to Marx... honestly, it's incredible how that mentally stunted slacker managed to churn out such a massive tome on Capital when he clearly didn't grasp what he was even writing about. lol.
Marxism is essentially just a 19th-century version of a conspiracy theory. Not that those didn't exist before, of course.

The 'Labor Party' syndrome. I honestly can't decide if I'd rather listen to cultural studies professors and linguists lecture me on the economy and the tax code, or some dim-witted pop singers trying to explain immunology.😳

bluemason3 said:The 'Labor Party' syndrome. I honestly can't decide if I'd rather listen to cultural studies professors and linguists lecture me on the economy and the tax code, or some dim-witted pop singers trying to explain immunology.😳

Well, that's democracy for you. Everyone has the right to vote, and everyone has the right to run for office. Of course, that often means people get to make decisions about things they don't understand and couldn't care less about—but hey, they have the electoral legitimacy to back it up.

Politicians are supposed to be our representatives. The real question is how much they actually represent us. How much do these union-backed politicians truly represent the working class?

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, it’s pretty obvious to me—jobs are handled on a rotation basis... unless someone physically can't pull their weight, obviously.
If a community can't even fix a problem like that—I mean, seriously—how the hell are they ever going to solve anything else?

👍

Gerald Jackson48 said:That’s why I keep arguing that while technological progress handles the technical stuff, we also need spiritual growth. And in my opinion, neither of those is a small task. When I talk about spiritual growth, I mean becoming aware of and overcoming those primal psychological impulses humans have dealt with since the beginning of time—and doing it on a collective level. Then again, advancing technology isn't exactly simple either, as seen by things like the ‘calculation problem.’

It is entirely possible that spiritual progress cannot occur without material progress. You simply cannot have a human spirit without a human brain.

If we assume that spirit and matter are fundamentally one, then they must evolve in tandem.

Gerald Jackson48 said:That’s why I keep arguing that while technological progress handles the technical stuff, we also need spiritual growth. And in my opinion, neither of those is a small task. When I talk about spiritual growth, I mean becoming aware of and overcoming those primal psychological impulses humans have dealt with since the beginning of time—and doing it on a collective level. Then again, advancing technology isn't exactly simple either, as seen by things like the ‘calculation problem.’

It's wild how much people overcomplicate things like this... honestly. People who share the same interests and grew up with similar values will find a way to build a functional community.

Tech and how it's used aren't set in stone either... you can shape them to fit whatever principles a community stands for.
Trying to design some perfect utopia for the "entire world" is just pointless.

Gerald Jackson48 said:That’s why I keep arguing that while technological progress handles the technical stuff, we also need spiritual growth. And in my opinion, neither of those is a small task. When I talk about spiritual growth, I mean becoming aware of and overcoming those primal psychological impulses humans have dealt with since the beginning of time—and doing it on a collective level. Then again, advancing technology isn't exactly simple either, as seen by things like the ‘calculation problem.’

Technical hurdles are really just spiritual ones in disguise. It’s the spirit that decides which problems are worth solving, how we tackle them, and what the end goal even is. Everything hinges on that. If the spirit is totally subservient to whatever dominant ideology is running the show, then technology becomes nothing more than an extension of that ideology—a tool used to stifle progress rather than expand it. Just look at those neoliberal types on these forums. That’s a broken, cynical mindset—a spirit that’s been completely conditioned by the system, reduced to mere operationalism. In their eyes, that's the only way to "get ahead" in today's world. Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that this exact mentality is driving civilization straight off a cliff, not to mention the absolute wreckage left behind in nature.

Lisa Jackson7 said:It's wild how much people overcomplicate things like this... honestly. People who share the same interests and grew up with similar values will find a way to build a functional community.

Tech and how it's used aren't set in stone either... you can shape them to fit whatever principles a community stands for.
Trying to design some perfect utopia for the "entire world" is just pointless.

Oversimplifying phenomena isn't some minor issue. It's actually pretty dangerous when people try to organize large societies based on those flawed models. That's what happens when you start picking anecdotes over hard, empirical data.

Plus, you can't shape technology that hasn't even been invented yet.

The late Prof. Fulgosi from the Department of Psychology at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences had this interesting saying—or at least people attribute it to him. To paraphrase: "If an average shipbuilder knew as much about shipbuilding as the average psychologist knows about psychology, every ship they built would sink."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of a utopia. I'm just skeptical about trying to pull it off "right here, right now, on shaky ground." Honestly, I'd rather be a realist and side with the "wait five hundred years" crowd.

bluemason3 said:So, we're looking at a sort of pseudo-religious delusion here.🙂

It all sounds great on paper, until people get carried away and try to force these grand visions into reality without any grounding.😁

In practice, we've seen how sending experts and doctors out to rural areas often ends up wrecking everything from local clinics to public schools and agricultural programs. Just brilliant.😬

Look, I get that there's definitely a religious undertone to any kind of utopian thinking, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

I mean, Freud argues that back in the day, during the early Enlightenment, having an anti-religious stance and focusing on a rational, technical mindset actually had its perks since it helped shake off the Church's grip, but nowadays? He suggests that kind of logic is basically just used to defend the status quo of the dominant ideology (you know, neoliberal capitalism).

gentlerider7 said:Look, I get that there's definitely a religious undertone to any kind of utopian thinking, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

I mean, Freud argues that back in the day, during the early Enlightenment, having an anti-religious stance and focusing on a rational, technical mindset actually had its perks since it helped shake off the Church's grip, but nowadays? He suggests that kind of logic is basically just used to defend the status quo of the dominant ideology (you know, neoliberal capitalism).

Just another "philosopher" pretending to be an economics "expert"? 😁

On top of that, his work in psychology falls into that pseudo-scientific rambling category. Honestly, he’s irrelevant in his own field, let alone in this one.