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

bluemason3 said: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.

I guess that’s exactly why people find his stuff so damn entertaining to read.

gentlerider7 said:I guess that’s exactly why people find his stuff so damn entertaining to read.

To each their own.😁

bluemason3 said: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.

I have to disagree here—that simply isn't true.

neonsailor26 said:I have to disagree here—that simply isn't true.

I’d say it’s actually spot on.

Sure, if you're looking at specific schools of psychotherapy, you could argue otherwise. But since he didn't employ any actual scientific methodology—much like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and the rest of that crowd—he isn't particularly relevant to psychological science. Real psychology is rooted in the Anglo-American experimental behavioral tradition, which has always been openly opposed to those pseudo-scientific German psycho-philosophers.

bluemason3 said:I’d say it’s actually spot on.

Sure, if you're looking at specific schools of psychotherapy, you could argue otherwise. But since he didn't employ any actual scientific methodology—much like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and the rest of that crowd—he isn't particularly relevant to psychological science. Real psychology is rooted in the Anglo-American experimental behavioral tradition, which has always been openly opposed to those pseudo-scientific German psycho-philosophers.

It doesn't really matter since he was being brought up here as a philosopher, not a psychologist. Besides, when you're dealing with a single idea like this, does it even matter who originally said it?

gentlerider7 said:It doesn't really matter since he was being brought up here as a philosopher, not a psychologist. Besides, when you're dealing with a single idea like this, does it even matter who originally said it?

It’s a valid point, much like those stories about walking on water or enduring hell. Without any actual proof, you can just ramble about whatever you want. That's how every cult leader twists history and society to fit their own little ideological bubble—and frankly, everyone's just full of it.

gentlerider7 said:So, if we’re looking at those gritty, soul-crushing jobs that nobody actually wants to touch—you know, the stuff like cleaning out sewers, hauling trash, or working deep in some dusty coal mine—how on earth would you handle them in some kind of perfect, imaginary system?

In Thomas Moore's version of Utopia, they’d basically just have criminals do all that dirty work (kind of like how things functioned in the USSR, where prisoners were stuck doing all the high-risk labor). Then again, there are always those weirdly optimistic people who argue there will always be someone out there perfectly happy to take on those kinds of roles.

I remember seeing this other thread about communal living, and people were saying that every single commune eventually falls apart because of these exact issues: like, who's actually going to cook the meals, and who's going to deal with the gross job of cleaning the bathrooms?

You seen it? Yeah, obviously—you've seen Star Trek.

Everything’s already dialed in—no need to waste any time.

We haven't even hit Type 1 civilization status yet... honestly.
Check out the thread below... Kardashev scale stuff.

Alright, let's get real for a second,

Look, implementing some kind of rotation system isn't actually that hard if you're just dealing with a tiny little circle of neighbors or friends who are all on the same page, right? Like, imagine a neurosurgeon out in a small town in Montana—he doesn't need to trek out to some 62 miles remote farmstead miles away; he just needs to clear the trash off his own curb. You could totally wrap your head around that working in a small town. But trying to scale that up to massive cities, or heaven forbid, the entire United States? Forget about it, you can't apply that logic the same way at all. If we wanted a rotational system to actually work globally, the only way would be to break every single country down into a million tiny, localized micro-communities.

Then again, since a setup like that basically requires building a whole new society from scratch with a whole new type of person, you have to wonder if that person even needs any formal organization at all. That’s why I find it much easier to picture a Utopia as this sort of anarchist collective where rules just happen spontaneously as they're needed. Honestly, that sounds way more liberating to me than your typical old-school communism.

Thomas Nelson25 said:You seen it? Yeah, obviously—you've seen Star Trek.

Everything’s already dialed in—no need to waste any time.

We haven't even hit Type 1 civilization status yet... honestly.
Check out the thread below... Kardashev scale stuff.

Yeah, sure I have, but isn't that the whole point? In Star Trek, they just slap a shiny new piece of tech on every single problem and suddenly everything is fine, right?

Most people end up stuck in jobs that are either mind-numbing from day one or just get boring over time.

That’s why you need to constantly pivot and shift things up on your resume.

Criminals can always find work in the worst sectors; it’s a reality.

Some people actually gravitate toward mining, even though it’s incredibly dangerous.

Men do the laundry at home too.😉

Carol Jackson2 said:Most people end up stuck in jobs that are either mind-numbing from day one or just get boring over time.

That’s why you need to constantly pivot and shift things up on your resume.

Criminals can always find work in the worst sectors; it’s a reality.

Some people actually gravitate toward mining, even though it’s incredibly dangerous.

Men do the laundry at home too.😉

Well, isn't that just what Thomas More was talking about?

Carol Jackson2 said:Most people end up stuck in jobs that are either mind-numbing from day one or just get boring over time.

That’s why you need to constantly pivot and shift things up on your resume.

Criminals can always find work in the worst sectors; it’s a reality.

Some people actually gravitate toward mining, even though it’s incredibly dangerous.

Men do the laundry at home too.😉

So do surgeons.

Carol Jackson2 said:Most people end up stuck in jobs that are either mind-numbing from day one or just get boring over time.

That’s why you need to constantly pivot and shift things up on your resume.

Criminals can always find work in the worst sectors; it’s a reality.

Some people actually gravitate toward mining, even though it’s incredibly dangerous.

Men do the laundry at home too.😉

Honestly? It’d be even better if we didn't have criminals at all.

gentlerider7 said:Yeah, sure I have, but isn't that the whole point? In Star Trek, they just slap a shiny new piece of tech on every single problem and suddenly everything is fine, right?

Our whole civilization is heading right toward this—the next few decades are gonna be huge.
We just need massive amounts of clean energy and solid AI
Then we toss in transhumanism too. (Kind of like how they do it in Star Trek...all those implants that make life easier or give people extra abilities...I mean, the Borg are basically the extreme version of that)

Cheers to the future 👍

bluemason3 said:I’d say it’s actually spot on.

Sure, if you're looking at specific schools of psychotherapy, you could argue otherwise. But since he didn't employ any actual scientific methodology—much like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and the rest of that crowd—he isn't particularly relevant to psychological science. Real psychology is rooted in the Anglo-American experimental behavioral tradition, which has always been openly opposed to those pseudo-scientific German psycho-philosophers.

😁

An epistemological Big Bang.

The fatal flaw in any utopia is that the architect starts with their own ego and grievances, then tries to force those solutions onto the entire world. It’s a desperate hunt for a paradise born from one person's imagination rather than actual consensus. This proves one fundamental truth: you can theoretically build a utopia for yourself, but you can never build one for everyone else. Just leave people alone.

Carol Jackson2 said:Most people end up stuck in jobs that are either mind-numbing from day one or just get boring over time.

That’s why you need to constantly pivot and shift things up on your resume.

Criminals can always find work in the worst sectors; it’s a reality.

Some people actually gravitate toward mining, even though it’s incredibly dangerous.

Men do the laundry at home too.😉

In some perfect utopia, the most grueling, terrible jobs would be handled by enthusiasts.
They'd set an example that makes everyone else feel guilty... eventually, you'd probably have a line of people waiting to take the worst shifts.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Our whole civilization is heading right toward this—the next few decades are gonna be huge.
We just need massive amounts of clean energy and solid AI
Then we toss in transhumanism too. (Kind of like how they do it in Star Trek...all those implants that make life easier or give people extra abilities...I mean, the Borg are basically the extreme version of that)

Cheers to the future 👍

To those who lived 500 or even 1,000 years ago—we are nothing more than a utopian dream.

Ethan Gomez82 said:😁

An epistemological Big Bang.

The fatal flaw in any utopia is that the architect starts with their own ego and grievances, then tries to force those solutions onto the entire world. It’s a desperate hunt for a paradise born from one person's imagination rather than actual consensus. This proves one fundamental truth: you can theoretically build a utopia for yourself, but you can never build one for everyone else. Just leave people alone.

When people pitch these utopian ideas, they're basically banking on the assumption that most folks just want more of the exact same stuff we already have. They act like there are these set-in-stone, objective benchmarks for what actually counts as "good."

Harold Doyle3 said:In some perfect utopia, the most grueling, terrible jobs would be handled by enthusiasts.
They'd set an example that makes everyone else feel guilty... eventually, you'd probably have a line of people waiting to take the worst shifts.

Not happening in my case. I’m strictly against that idea. 😁

gentlerider7 said:When people pitch these utopian ideas, they're basically banking on the assumption that most folks just want more of the exact same stuff we already have. They act like there are these set-in-stone, objective benchmarks for what actually counts as "good."

I’d love to be a slave owner, but honestly, slaves complain too much.