Utopia Hypothetical, Cont.

My last post described a situation where everyone was individually wealthy, but that doesn't necessarily make for a utopia.  I wanted to explain why I put it there -

The definition of a utopia is "an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect."  There are some things I don't think any society can make perfect -

People longing for something they don't have the talent for.  Like someone who wants to be a famous artist, who doesn't have the skills or talent or what-have-you to become one.

Relationship problems (friends, family, lovers, etc.)

I could add things such as 'health problems', but it's hard to say how much can be solved with technology in some future point.  So most likely there's still going to be something outside our control, healthwise, but it could be to a larger or lesser degree than we imagine.

These are things I don't think any society can ultimately resolve, though perhaps that's just my personal lack of imagination.

Having everyone independently wealthy, however, would lead to all sorts of 'perfect' possibilities.  Assuming we've got the technology/resources to continue manufacturing desirable goods, and that people willing do the work that can't be automated, and so on and so forth.

How so?  Mainly because everyone, and not just the few, would have the resources to do what they truly wanted to.  They wouldn't be stuck in some mediocre, dead-end job just to pay the bills.  Wouldn't be wasting 8 hours a day (and possibly an hour or two of commute time) doing something tedious and mind-numbing because it's the best they think they can get. 

There are all sorts of frustrating things we endure on a daily basis, that we just accept as 'the way it is' because we don't see any other choice.  N. N. Taleb (author of The Black Swan), had an interesting article discussing why and how businesses require employees...and use it as a form of control.

This has an interesting resonance with other things - the term 'wage slave', which sometimes differentiates the modern economy from our agricultural past where each farmer was essentially theri own small business owner.  (There's a loss of independence, and consequences associated with that, which affect us all today.)  The issue with modern slavery, and with businesses who exploit workers to make bricks, burn charcoal, and so on and so forth.  There's even been some discussion/debate over whether Google and other Silicon Valley companies are re-inventing the rather disastrous company town.

I started with N.N. Taleb's article because he attributes this drive for control to business needs.  That is, a business needs to be sure they can offer their goods and services on a consistent and reliable basis...and independent contractors may not be as reliable as a business could wish.  (In the example he gave, a pilot was offered quite a lot of money to break contract and take a client on a unplanned trip.)  This is a rather non-judgmental explanation for the incentives for controlling your employees...

And it brings up questions about power, control, and how we can have a modern society that meets our desire for fast, reliable service while at the same time creating a world where people can live their lives to the fullest.

Utopia Hypothetical, Cont.

I didn't try to answer my question last night because I wanted any actual readers to have the space to think about it themselves. 

If we ever did reach my proposed hypothetical situation, I can image a couple of immediate consequences - inflation would rise, and more jobs would be automated.

Of course, that still leaves a whole slew of questions.  Like - how much would inflation rise?  And for which items?  Would it lead to everyone ending up exactly where they are now, or is there some limit it would reach.

That is,  demand would rise and prices rise, but there's sort of an upper limit in some cases.  Like consumable goods - one person can only consume so much, so even if everyone who wanted to could afford to buy as much as they want it the demand would eventually level off.  And how many cars would someone really want/need, anyway?  Some economic equilibrium would be reached, just at a higher price than it currently is.  And demand would fall for goods that would be considered inferior, so more people would be buying Mercedes or Porches and less would be buying the more mediocre car-makers.  Meaning a boom time for high end manufacturers, while low end manufacturers would either go out of business or move into the high end market.

Businesses would automate the hell out of things, since there'd be few people willing to work the lower status jobs. 

But what about the jobs that just can't be automated?  Like cherry picking.  Would there be enough incentive for someone to find a way to automate it?  Or would people decide that they want cherries enough to pay really high prices, so that cherry farmers can pay someone enough to convince them to harvest cherries?  Or will people who enjoy cherries decide to work, as a matter of pride and service (ensuring people can enjoy fresh fruit)?  And if so, would they decide to work for an hour, four hours, eight hours? 

What would this do for work schedules, and productivity, anyway?  I mean, if you didn't have to worry about making the money that comes from a 40 hr/workweek, why not work different hours? 

And if you don't actually need a salary, then maybe businesses would just pay some amount as more of a status marker (which it kind of already is, tbh) than anything anyone is expected to actually live off of.  Like, you could totally leave the place if you wanted to...but you stick around in the position you're in because you care about the work, and hope to build enough experience to move on to something better.  Not because you have to pay the  bills.

This hypothetical is so far out there that I have a hard time picturing it, but I do have some semi-educated guesses.  First - most people need some sort of purpose in their life, so you will still have people choosing to work (I'm sure some people wouldn't bother, but I have no idea how many.  I'd want a study of our current multi-millionaires to see how they wind up spending their time.  From what I can tell, most still seem to work somewhere, or attend board meetings, or volunteer philanthropically, or find something to keep them busy by choice even though they have absolutely no need for the income).

Capitalism seems based on fear, sometimes.  There are people who sincerely believe humans need to be motivated by their fear (of losing their homes, or starvation, or what-have-you) in order to get them to do the work needed.  Which is kind of BS, I think.  Or rather, it may be true for the sort of demeaning and menial tasks that people don't volunteer for...but if people were truly at a state where they're needs were met, where they weren't in danger of starvation or homelessness, I really don't think they'd decide to spend the rest of their lives hanging out on a beach.

I know that's kind of a common fantasy, but honestly?  After a week (or a month, or a year, depending on the person) most people would get bored.  Itchy.  Sure, some people might enjoy doing nothing else in their life...Every. Single. Day.  I can't imagine that the majority would, though. That fantasy only works because of the contrast to our current existence. 

So what can we guess would happen?  Inflation (which may or may not cause a problem, depending on how much and with what goods).  Automation (which is already happening).  People working by choice, in positions of their choice, and who are willing to speak up or move on if necessary because they're not in deathly fear of losing their jobs.  Some question about who would be willing to take on the dirty but necessary tasks that can't be automated.  The likelihood that people will work fewer hours, and devote more time to entertainment of one sort or another...

A boom in luxury goods, arts, and entertainment industries but a bust in businesses that compete for the low end/high volume markets.

Hmmm.  And probably a boom in the financial markets.  To the investors and money managers, since even though everyone should know how to manage their money there's a difference between knowing how to evaluate a wealth manager and knowing how to invest your money yourself. 

It's the sort of thing that seems utterly impossible, like there's some basic flaw that would make it unworkable.  But it'd sure as hell be a fun thing to try.

Utopia, a Hypothetical Exercise

I decided to skip a bunch of topics and discuss a hypothetical situation I've sometimes pondered.

Imagine you are a multimillionaire, perhaps even a billionaire.  You walk outside and grab the first random person you see.  Joe Schmoe or Jane Schmane.  You know that most people who are not already wealthy don't really know how to handle it.  That's why so many lottery winners wind up right back where they were.

So you say "I will give you a million dollars under the following conditions:

1. You must invest it all
2. You must meet with me periodically over the next five years and we will discuss how to manage your wealth
3. If you ever double your principal you will pay this forward by making the same offer to the next random person.

Now, this might make a huge difference in one person's life (and the lives impacted by that person), but it's probably not going to change the world.

Hypothetically, though.  If enough people did this, and people did pay it forward consistently, over some unknown period of time...

You could reach a tipping point.

A time where the vast majority of people were independently wealthy.

What would that economy look like?

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.