Utopia
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | Adopted children are far more likely to suffer from mental illness/behavioural problems etc and have issues with making emotional attachments. While there is less abuse and neglect, I would assume that stems from the fact that adoptive parents have to jump through hoops and be desperate to raise a child that is not theirs biologically. This makes them an uncommon sort of 'kind soul' in the first place and I would also assume that they would be highly unlikely to abuse their own children. Also adoptive parents are more likely from a higher economic class compared to step parents, statistically speaking.
We have a biological drive to mate and to healthily and successfully raise our own children to pass on our genes down the generations. Meddling with this most basic of human behavioural drivers through social engineering would, in my opinion, lead to horrendous unforeseen social problems. Even in your defense of children raised by the community, these were either extended family groups or small 'tribal' setups. There was still pair bonding amongst parents and a biological drive to see these children succeed. There is no such successful picture of community child raising once large cities become the norm. The thought of parentless children raised by random people and the State just chills me to the core
. |
yup
Reminds me of the creepy scenarios of some prime time crimes series!
Just too easy to have sinister intention. Brrrrrr |
I agree with you, but it's no less sinister than these, which happen to be tolerated and sometimes even justified by many of the same people who say they fear your creepy scenarios:
**Apologies for the shocking pics, but they are necessary to highlight what is a bizarre contradiction.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | Adopted children are far more likely to suffer from mental illness/behavioural problems etc and have issues with making emotional attachments. While there is less abuse and neglect, I would assume that stems from the fact that adoptive parents have to jump through hoops and be desperate to raise a child that is not theirs biologically. This makes them an uncommon sort of 'kind soul' in the first place and I would also assume that they would be highly unlikely to abuse their own children. Also adoptive parents are more likely from a higher economic class compared to step parents, statistically speaking.
We have a biological drive to mate and to healthily and successfully raise our own children to pass on our genes down the generations. Meddling with this most basic of human behavioural drivers through social engineering would, in my opinion, lead to horrendous unforeseen social problems. Even in your defense of children raised by the community, these were either extended family groups or small 'tribal' setups. There was still pair bonding amongst parents and a biological drive to see these children succeed. There is no such successful picture of community child raising once large cities become the norm. The thought of parentless children raised by random people and the State just chills me to the core
. |
yup
Reminds me of the creepy scenarios of some prime time crimes series!
Just too easy to have sinister intention. Brrrrrr |
What makes you think that the standards would be any different for parents under this system than they are for adoptive parents now?
Wokko, I still want to know how your criminal justice system would operate.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
Wokko, I still want to know how your criminal justice system would operate. |
Firstly there would be no criminal sanction for people who use or purchase drugs/alcohol. Using these substances is a personal decision, not a criminal one and abuse or dependence/addiction is a medical issue. So I'll get that one out of the way first.
Secondly defence of self, home and family would be absolute. There is no need to make decisions on use of force when someone breaks into your house or is assaulting you. Reasonable force only comes into effect when dealing with things like theft or arrest, not when defending oneself. With this in mind, firearms for self defence in would permitted to any and all peaceful citizens who want them.
A small police force would of course be a necessity but without drug issues to police they can focus on dealing with crimes against people and property. I'm no expert on criminal justice but it seems apparent there needs to be three tiers, rehabilitation, deterrence and punishment. Sentences would be weighted by a panel of judges based on suffering caused to the victim vs suffering caused through punishment to the offender. If someone steals a lawnmower then they would have to compensate the victim (buy them a new one), go through some kind of education/rehabilitation like community service and then rejoin society with a clean slate. Any property crime would meet these punishments, someone who steals $1 Million that can't be recovered would probably be spending the rest of their lives paying that back, but wouldn't be spending 10 years in prison. In effect if you want to steal from people, you then become a bonded worker until that theft/fraud/whatever is repaid.
On the other hand anyone who commits unprovoked violent acts (assault, attempted murder, rape etc) would face time in prison, and rather than unproductive prisons I think a work camp with wages kept in trust until the prisoner is freed are more useful than today's system of chucking them back on the streets with nothing. During this time prisoners are educated beyond their current level with mandatory counselling and mental health therapy.
The worst criminals are locked away forever. If you take a life then your life is taken from you. Not state sanctioned murder, but lifelong incarceration and labour. Cases are reviewed for new evidence every 5 years to try and ensure wrongful convictions are overturned. Any assets of the murderer are given to the victims family, including wages earned in prison.
I could probably go on and get more specific, but I'm spent. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ ptid, I've seen those photos before (NB the first of the two is controversial for more than one reason relating to the circumstances of its composition), but what is your point in this context ?
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nice vulture. Someone's pet? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Those pointing to Brave New World as a critique of some of my ideas might not be aware that Huxley wrote a much later book, Island, exploring what he thought a real utopia might be like. This Wikipedia page offers a brief overview of some of the similarities and differences between the two books:
http://tinyurl.com/qydqofh
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Those pointing to Brave New World as a critique of some of my ideas might not be aware that Huxley wrote a much later book, Island, exploring what he thought a real utopia might be like. This Wikipedia page offers a brief overview of some of the similarities and differences between the two books:
http://tinyurl.com/qydqofh |
Haven't read it, will track it down. Note the main, overarching difference is the action as individual choice vs the action as state enforced coercion. The context for a society choosing its way of life is very important. Something that is perfectly fine in a free society is horrendous in a totalitarian one.
Anyway, too drunk right now to say more than that... indeed this took an effort to retain cohesion  |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | ^ ptid, I've seen those photos before (NB the first of the two is controversial for more than one reason relating to the circumstances of its composition), but what is your point in this context ? |
The inconsistent expression of horror. People obsess and rage in anxious moral outpourings at dystopian scenarios such as might (or might not) accompany David's imaginings.
And yet, such dystopias already exist in actual reality for many other people whom we share an increasing interconnectedness with. I understand the evolutionary advantage of the psychiatric disconnect, I just don't buy the value in mollycoddling and reinforcing it anymore. Many of these primitive mechanisms are obviously no longer useful at our level of mass social integration and come at too great a cost, namely a denial of agency in problems such as Iraq and many other problem within the realms of solution or mitigation.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Good then you can explain it to me. |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | Adopted children are far more likely to suffer from mental illness/behavioural problems etc and have issues with making emotional attachments. While there is less abuse and neglect, I would assume that stems from the fact that adoptive parents have to jump through hoops and be desperate to raise a child that is not theirs biologically. This makes them an uncommon sort of 'kind soul' in the first place and I would also assume that they would be highly unlikely to abuse their own children. Also adoptive parents are more likely from a higher economic class compared to step parents, statistically speaking.
We have a biological drive to mate and to healthily and successfully raise our own children to pass on our genes down the generations. Meddling with this most basic of human behavioural drivers through social engineering would, in my opinion, lead to horrendous unforeseen social problems. Even in your defense of children raised by the community, these were either extended family groups or small 'tribal' setups. There was still pair bonding amongst parents and a biological drive to see these children succeed. There is no such successful picture of community child raising once large cities become the norm. The thought of parentless children raised by random people and the State just chills me to the core
. |
yup
Reminds me of the creepy scenarios of some prime time crimes series!
Just too easy to have sinister intention. Brrrrrr |
What makes you think that the standards would be any different for parents under this system than they are for adoptive parents now?
Wokko, I still want to know how your criminal justice system would operate. |
In a perfect Utopia there would be no criminals, ergo no need for criminal justice. Of course the problem would be that 2 apples would fall from a tree and two people pick them up. But one apple would be better than the other and a dispute would start. Or one person would pick them both up and hand to another while a third would be envious.
There would also be no football as we know it. Competition per se would be seen as gladatorial and be changed to non competitive. We could instead go the MCG and watch brilliantly executed but pointless pieces of play praised whilst children say kumbaya.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Some might say that crime could never be eradicated in any real utopia; that any society trying to do that would end up stripping us of our humanity. But I think it goes without saying that there'd be a good deal less crime, definitely (but why get rid of competitive sport? That's a good thing!).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Some might say that crime could never be eradicated in any real utopia; that any society trying to do that would end up stripping us of our humanity. But I think it goes without saying that there'd be a good deal less crime, definitely (but why get rid of competitive sport? That's a good thing!). |
Think about this - eradicate privacy and you eradicate crime.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Can you remember any time that [quoteDavid]Some might say that crime could did it? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | Some might say that crime could never be eradicated in any real utopia; that any society trying to do that would end up stripping us of our humanity. But I think it goes without saying that there'd be a good deal less crime, definitely (but why get rid of competitive sport? That's a good thing!). |
Think about this - eradicate privacy and you eradicate crime. |
Nonsense. Anyone could still snap and king hit a stranger outside a pub, or commit an act of domestic abuse, or drink-drive. Not all crime is premeditated, and even some premeditated crimes would still occur in a state without privacy (like if you just really really wanted to kill someone and didn't care about the consequences).
Also, keep in mind that even an 100% surveillance state could never have monitoring 100% of the time. How many people would you need to employ just to watch all the security cameras, listen to all the conversations and read all the emails? And how many subtle actions would still slip under the observers' noses? Think about the stuff that goes on in prisons despite all the monitoring.
No, to get rid of crime altogether you'd need to be eradicating freedom of thought. That's real dystopian stuff.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Bumpity Bumpity
Got to get the page turned,
The small print is doing my head in.
Who doesn't know how to shrink a pic?
OMG that hurts the eyes,
Very annoying,
Is this enough yet,
Ugh
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
