i was thinking about this after reading some books on the subject. what do you think?
If by “large scale utopia” you mean “My very own tropical island filled with hot and horny bikini-clad women where brunch is served 24 hours a day,” then yes.
no friedo i mean an actual functioning society. though i do like the idea you had if you figure it out by all means let me know. this society does not have to be as large as the united states, but for the sake of argument lets say over ten thousand inhabitants
No. Humans are eventually going to find something to be unhappy about and then will start agitating for change.
Define “utopia”. You’ll find opinions on what constitutes a utopia differ wildly.
I think not. Humans seem to hold a set of mutually contradictorary desires which eventually conflict with each other.
For example, we don’t like anybody else telling us what to do yet we love telling others how they should live their lives.
Not without serious brainwashing of some sort. People’s tastes and proclivities differ far too much from person to person, particularly in groups that size, for a utopia to work.
Well, to someone who’d lived in plague-infested Europe during the dark ages, most countries in the western world would probably seem like a Utopia.
For all we know, in a couple of hundred years, society might develop into what we would consider a Utopia, but that it’s own citizens might consider far from perfect.
The closest thing to a working Utopia I have read about is The Culture, depicted in a series of novels by Iain M. Banks.
It is however a vast space faring society run by machines with godlike capabilities, “Minds”, who mostly benevolantly keep the humanoid section of society running smoothly as well. Citizens are mostly concerned with as much fun and debauchery as they can get away with though there are more series branches. 
So I would say…unlikely but, yes.
However Earth humans are not a part of it, they visited Earth in the late 70’s and decided to quarintine and study the planet as an example of how humanoids can really, really mess things up.
Utopia means different things to different people. Your idea of utopia is probably different from mine.
For me, a place where people are responsible and held accountable for their actions, with minimal governmental interference in their lives, is utopia. In other words, if you drop out of high school to do drugs, I am not forced to support you via welfare.
People will always want incompatible things.
If we burn all the books and kill all the smart people who they are smart, then yes. Also, we’ll have to keep telling people they are happy, not allow free speech, and keep the people ignorant of whats going on outside the society.
Of course.
It is not only possible, but inevitable.
Why? Because people want to live in peace and harmony. It is a higher form of existance, the endpoint of our long journey from the caves.
The fact that our corrupt cultures have produced circumstances in which many individuals can’t or won’t live harmoniously is the biggest obstacle. It will require a lot of change by a lot of people. It will require the end of society as we know it. The difficulty is that most people erroniously believe that most of the misery in the world is caused by “human nature” and that therefore, a different mode of existance is unimaginable.
It is going to be awhile, I’m afraid.
A Perfect society requires perfect people, until then, you will have varying degrees of imperfection in society.
I think “utopia” would only be possible if everyone were
A) Happy in their work and
B) Had adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care.
I have arrived at the conclusion that if people are happy in their work, and are doing better than living paycheck to paycheck in the fear that if they lose their job/means of making a living, say by having to take a leave of absence due to illness or family emergency.
In my vision, every single human being would be extensively tested and interviewed periodically to find out what activites they were good at and enjoyed doing that were also of some benefit to society. Each individual would be provided comfortable but spartan living quarters and nutritious food that tasted reasonably good for themselves and their families in exchange for which they would spend a specified minimum amount of time working at these activites. The person would be given some sort of credit applicable toward luxury items and recreation in exchange for doing work above the minimum, which would be something around twenty-five hours a wee, or, if their work was in producing some sort of goods, there would be a minimum production quota, based on the market value of what was produced… If someone was good at and enjoyed more than one beneficial activity, they would be free to do that for their “luxury credits”. If they grew tired of their work, and contemplated a career change, then they would have ample free time to pursue an education that would be conducive to that career change. Thus, if someone was a skilled carpenter who also played a musical instrument well, they could “earn their living” by carpentry,and once their quota of production was filled, pick up some money for extras beyond the basic necessities by giving concerts a couple of evenings a week. If someone became ill or injured and was unable to work at their primary job, but were still able to perform the secondary skill, then that would then become the primary job. It would be extremely unlikely that someone would become disabled to the point that they were unable to work, barring quadraplegia or coma. If a person was able to do light handcrafts while sitting in a comfy chair or bed, then they would still have a means of making their living. If a person were to become disabled to the point of being completely unable to work, the nearest relative would be required to take them in and provide for their care, and perhaps a larger house or apartment would be provided for the family to accomodate the care of the disabled relative. If they had no living relatives, then the Powers that Be would first look for a volunteer to take the person in, with the same provision of living quarters, and if none could be found, the person would, as a last resort, live in a dormitory-type housing arrangement at PTB expense.
Well, that’s my vision of utopia. I think that it could work, primarily because the economy would be driven by people being happy in what they did for a living, and thus being more willing to put in extra hours in exchange for extra goods and services, but not forced to ruin their physical or mental health spending excessive amounts of time working just to keep a roof over their heads and praying nobody got sick because there was no money for a doctor.
Could you expand on this? In every conversation or debate I’ve had on this or similar subjects “human nature is the problem” is thrown out as the end point of the discussion.
Personally I’m tired of the overwhelmingly prevelant cynicism of I find around me. It seems to be “the in thing” and I’m glad to read something disagreeing with this viewpoint which is why I’d like you to expand your thoughts.
Though thats another thread in itself…
I’ve been called an “Idealist” several times in debates as if its a term of insult…if I’m an idealist then so be it, I can think of many worse things to be…