So, Utopia

Given that this is all pretty subjective, what ought a more perfect union look like?

I would say something about a society that serves the greater good, except that 'the greater good' rings all sorts of alarm bells.  That is, people can justify all sorts of horrible things so long as it serves "the greater good".  (I get flashbacks of the movie Hot Fuzz, though the point has been made elsewhere.)

I could get into a long discussion on ethical dilemmas, particularly the rather famous Trolley Problem and variants such as the one with the fat man.  Suffice it to say, this utopia should serve the greater good so long as (or while acknowledging that) the greater good involves the utmost respect for the free will and autonomy of the individual, and does not involve crossing ethical lines such as murder in the name of that greater good.

All of which could spur endless debate, which I don't want to get bogged down in right now.  Rather, I want to focus more on the greater good (with the acknowledged limitations/caveats).

A society that benefits it's citizens the most is one where the most people are able to become their best self.  (Again, that is loaded with so many subjective statements we could spend hours debating it).

What is our "best self"?  How do we get there?  All of that is tricky, in and of itself, though I think recent research on happiness gives us some clue.  That is, we want people to feel happy, feel a sense of mastery and connectedness, empowered, living up to their full potential, etc. and so on and so forth.

The only problem is that there are so many, many different ways people can be developed in order to achieve that.  Some people, for example, hate feelings rushed and pressured and perform best in a supportive and nurturing environment.  Others swear up and down that they perform their best when they feel their backs are against a wall and that the pressure is on.

What works for one person doesn't work for another.  Which is why I imagine the solution we grope for is one that offers a variety of custom-made options.  All of which is horribly difficult to do, especially in bureaucratic environments that require standardization and consistency.

Art of the Impossible, Cont.

So okay, we'll throw out all the pesky realities that mire us in the status quo.  All the reasons we can't do something.  All the world-weariness and cynicism that makes us accept a society that is often less than it could be.

Take a deep breath, let out all the preconceptions.

What do we want society, and the economy, to look like?

Well...first of all you have to admit this is pretty subjective.  As my brother likes to say, there is an "is...ought gap".  That is, you can say "about 44 million Americans have no health insurance" or "33,363 Americans died of gun use in 2013", all of which are statements of 'is'.  Facts.  This is the case (unless the facts themselves are disputed, of course).

But what ought we to do about those facts?  You can say this is the case, but what someone thinks we ought to do based on those facts can vary wildly from one person to another.  We ought to have more accessible healthcare, and the government ought to provide it.  Or the private sector ought to provide it.  We ought to have stricter gun laws.  Or we ought to make it mandatory to carry a gun.  Or the good old classic - There ought to be a law! 

These are actually subjective statements, based on what you value, and part of the reason why we have such heated discussions over these is that people come to such wildly different ideas about what ought to happen.

So, for example, I think everyone ought to have access to a good quality education, have the opportunity to succeed through their own efforts, etc, etc.  But if you asked me why I believed that, it would depend on my personal beliefs.  I have a hard time understanding why anyone else would think it's better NOT to let people have access to a good quality education (and really, most Americans agree that this ought to happen, support for a good education is a rather consistent polling point.  It's just that people disagree very strongly on the best way of making this happen.)

As I said, with that ought I'm not saying anything about which particular path is best for achieving that goal.  It's not based on a fact, per se.  It's based on my personal values and beliefs.  (Okay, yes...we can build up some evidence for why people should care about an issue.  Evidence, for example, that a strong middle class provides stability and wealth to all, including the top 1%, and should be encouraged.  Then again, stability is another subjective value.  Yes, of course, most of us prefer stability to living in an unstable environment...but again, it's a value.  The value of not worrying that you or your loved ones will be murdered, or die in poverty...something that seems self-evident.  And yet there are always people who seem to thrive in chaotic environments.  Who, to quote Littlefinger, believe that "chaos is a ladder".  We again come to an ought that is subjective.)

So if we want to throw out all the pesky possibilities, and reach for the impossible, we have to first grapple with what, exactly, we ought to see in a better, more perfect society.  And understand that will always be subject to debate.

Art of the Impossible, Cont.

I said I wanted to discuss the impossible, and immediately I feel compelled to write about just why and how this is not easily done.  Mostly, I think, people in our day and age have come to appreciate just how difficult it is to create lasting change.  Whether it's the legacy of our Civil Rights Movement, or criticisms for how foreign aid has actually hurt Africa, or the shrinking of the middle class, or the difficulty in coordinating international efforts to stop environmental destruction, we seem to live in a time where we are forcibly reminded of our limits.

I think that's part of why dystopia appeals.  That, and we have a really hard time imagining any 'perfect' world that doesn't sound boring.  Like in the movie The Matrix, when Agent Smith says the attempt to create a happy matrix was a disaster...people didn't accept it.  Or the old joke about how when someone dies they want to go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company. 

Besides which, there's a long historical legacy of failed attempts to create a utopia - like New Harmony, Indiana (an economic failure after two years), or the Oneida Community (not sure it counts as an attempt at utopia, the wikipedia site says it was a Perfectionist religious communal society) that eventually turned into a silverware company.

There seems something intrinsic to the human condition that defies attempts to build a lasting utopia.  To create perfection.

So why bother?  Well, here's the thing.  We can't always predict the consequences of change, and we're terrible at predicting what changes will make us happy...but change IS inevitable.  And the people who shape that change, who help direct that change in certain directions, are the ones who help dictate what the future holds.

Mistaken at times, sometimes idealistic, all too often wrong - the future is shaped by those who dream of something better.  Different, at least.  Since some dreams are only 'better' for that particular person.

And the ideas that spur development can pay off in ways you don't predict.  I'm not talking about big utopian goals here, more the fascinating interplay between science fiction and technological development.  Like the classic example of Star Trek's medical tricorder, which is coming closer and closer to an actual reality.

Change is inevitable, and envisioning the possibilities can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Art of the Impossible

I read an article the other day that was thought provoking for a variety of reasons.  I clicked on it for the title, of course ("Sci-Fi, Fantasy and the Status Quo").  I stayed with it despite the discussion on Hillary Clinton.  Or perhaps because of it.  It was one of those articles I didn't necessarily agree with, but didn't necessarily disagree with either. 

I know I've wondered, myself, at the appeal of monarchy in the sci-fi/fantasy world...though I assumed it had to do with making relatable characters.  That is, it's kind of hard to have a hero off fighting the evils of bureacracy.  And it's hard to make a President quite as much of a character as a King or Queen. 

I've also wondered, sometimes, at (what sometimes appears to be the left's) obsession with creating dynasties.  That is, the Kennedy family seemed to keep coming up in politics ever since JFK, and now we've got the Clintons.  Whereas Reagan, revered by the right though he is, has not had his children enter politics.  So far as I know.  I have to admit, while there may be more political dynasties than I'm really aware of (families more under the radar unless you know who is who) I've always thought the presumption on a family name to smack of something - unAmerican.  Like aristocracy or something.  Yes, we had John Adams and John Quincy Adams; George Bush and George W. Bush.  And FDR was related to Teddy Roosevelt to a certain degree.  That's quite enough, to be honest.  (I also wonder about that article some time ago, how Democratic donors met and decided to back Kamala Harris.  I haven't fully made up my  mind on her yet, but it seems sort of premature/presumptuous and a sign that the Democrats haven't really learned that it's a mistake to crown someone 'heir' before we've even started the primaries.  I dunno, I suppose I can't blame them for doing what they can given their political preferences and resources, but it again smacks of the oligarchy I'm afraid we're becoming.)

But those are all sidebars to conversation I wanted to have.  Namely, the point this article made that science fiction and fantasy are the art of the impossible.  I could make my own guesses as to why dystopian fantasy is so appealing right now, but again it's not the discussion I wanted to have. 

See, I've sometimes thought about how capitalism is just one more 'ism in the world's history.  That is, we had feudalism, we had the Roman system (with it's slaves), and there's no reason to believe capitalism is the end all and be all in terms of socio-economic structures. 

The problem with having this conversation, however, is that it is bogged down in all the Cold War baggage.  That is, the fight between capitalism and communism has made it pretty much impossible to suggest alternatives without sounding like you are, again, unAmerican (since support for capitalism goes hand in hand with being American) or a commie, or what-have-you.

And to be honest, there are some things I think capitalism does very well.  Better than some.  I kind of like having continuously better technology.  Smarter, faster smartphones and computers that can store all kinds of things.  I see the importance of incentivizing people by allowing them to benefit from the risks involved in building a business, investing, researching, etc.

Yet I feel like the Cold War era politics have made it impossible to discuss some of the flaws in our socio-economic system.  The loneliness endemic to our modern way of life.  The throw-away-culture that doesn't bother learning how to make things last. 

And the perennial challenges of fairness, justice, and the distribution of power.  That is, do we truly have a level playing field when certain companies dominate their industries to an overwhelming degree?  And how can we say it's a meritocracy when so many people are disadvantaged in terms of their school choices and more, all before they've even reached maturity?  (That's not even getting into larger issues). 

The funny thing is, the critiques are not actually new to me.  I learned some of them through the Catholic schools my parents sent me to, where we were taught how sad it is that our pop culture is so focused on superficial things (like appearances, designer clothes, etc.) 

Which happens to be some of the same criticisms the jihadists have of Western society, tbh.  See, while I vehemently disagree with their tactics and old-school beliefs (killing innocent people, believing women should wear veils, etc) I do see the appeal of trying to build a community dedicated to serving God (i.e. "Muslim" means "one who submits or serves God", shari'a law is supposed to describe the path required to build a community of faith.  There are different interpretations of all of this, though the hardcore jihadists tend to believe the harsher, less forgiving, and more brutal forms.) 

I underlined, bolded, and italicized 'community' because that's the key draw, I think.  The thing we ourselves (and outsiders) see missing in our modern society.  That loss of connection.  And the importance of serving something greater than ourselves, though I don't necessarily feel it has to be God.  Or rather, there are very good historical reasons why we have a separation of church and state and I don't feel like repeating the religious wars of the 1600's, so I'm emphasizing the universal bits.  Humans are social, and they need to feel a sense of purpose. 

So if we accept the criticism from the article I originally linked to, if we say that science fiction/fantasy is the art of the impossible and that we should let our imagines run wild, to picture what could be (but isn't), what would I come up with?