Skip to main content

Utopia, Wherefore Art Thou?

Imagine a world where people are content, and governments serve the populace, not the other way around. Freedom is granted to all, and a sense of law and order are still felt. Governments trade freely, and poverty is minimized, while jobs are offered even when technology advances to the extent that it reduces the need for a larger human workforce. Food, energy and other resources are available in ways that do not damage the environment, and their costs don't come as expensive as they do these days. A belief in humanity is common and encouraged, and people are free to practice whatever religion they choose and say whatever they want in all forms of media.

Now, imagine if all that was possible in this world.

Utopia is not attainable. Ever. It's a sad fact of life, but people will tend to be leaning towards negative values for their own "positive" ends. Perfection is something no one, no nation, no people will ever reach: it's a fantasy that escapes all one's wildest dreams. Whatever is easier for one to obtain personally in one's character is usually an exhibition of some of man's worst qualities and natures. Everything that has been set before him has been misused and abused to the extent that it begins to harm those around him, whether human or animal. Even his fellow man becomes an object of his distaste, just because that said man committed the crime of conflicting with his interests, ambitions and desires.

But there are a few people out there, willing to show the world that there need not be such cruelty and inhumanity. There are people, like myself and other like-minded people, that are willing to take the extra mile and show the world that through education, patience, reform, and progress, the world, if it can't get to utopia, will at least become a better and more survivable place for all who live on it. As they say, it takes one person to make a difference, but given the hapless state the world is in, it would take a whole lot more than just one person to make up for what the people of this world, especially those in power, have plunged this world into. Surely, a united effort might win it...

Alright, alright. I sounded a bit too optimistic there. Even if such a plan is implemented, there are many people out there who will resist this change, and such a change could be disastrous. Why is that? Francois de la Rouhefoucauld, a classical French author (and what a name!), once said that the only thing constant in this universe is change. This means that even if a pseudo-utopian state is finally obtained, some of the people under this state category will want to see some sort of change eventually. This has also been explained by a saint, Sir Thomas More. More (I don't mean the comparative form of much, but Thomas More) pointed out several qualities that make up a dweller of utopia, among them rationale, pacifism, godliness in act (meaning that no sins or crimes are committed), etc. Such a utopian nation would exhibit the qualities that I described above. But even in such a nation would the mind be tricked into committing an act that would defile the utopian nature of the environment. In short, even rational people can act irrationally, pacifist people can act war-like, godly people can commit sins, and so forth. A sense of order will always require some sort of chaos to fuel it in order to incite an act that would restore the sense of order in the first place. Even one step out of the line is enough to destroy the perfection of such a "utopian" society.

Political utopia is also hard to achieve, because it will require the simultaneous attainment of social utopia and economic/fiscal utopia. The attainment of social utopia is difficult. Regarding issues of abortion, crime and gun control, people will always have conflicting views. For example, in the U.S.A., there are many states that have gun control laws, and states that do not. In either one, crime is rife. Therefore, a centrist solution would probably mean nothing. Abortion is a hot topic for debate. As a liberal-leaning centrist, I don't mind others having an abortion, though I tend to hold personal beliefs that contradict with my social philosophy; however, there are others who just can't shut up, and demand an end to abortion, even if the mother's life is in danger. The topic of social programs is intertwined with the fiscal/economic aspect of the topic. Privatization, while supported by many, is despised by others who claim that subsidization is a better alternative to this "capitalist evil". Having attained a way to make suitable the situation for such a utopian attainment, one has to consider politics. In utopia, it is argued that limited government is best as it increases personal freedom and promotes liberal society, which itself is pseudo-utopian. However, others argue that a bigger government is needed in order to ensure the security and safety of the populace, but I think you all know how these turn out to be, eh?

Regardless, there will always be a portion of the populace that will confront this change, or urge for a different mode of change than the one proposed for a certain attainment of utopia. And then there are those who mix political matters with personal affairs, which make it all the more messed up. To attain a mentality that comprises of beliefs in humanity, progression, and acceptance/tolerance is difficult for many people, and there will always be a fair share of racists and other bigots in society who will do everything in their power to make another group of people feel unaccepted and incite strife between nations that already co-exist, or are on the path of doing so. Stability is not something constant; when governmental policies cease to be functional, they must be changed in order to suit the ever-changing demands of the spurring populace that the government represents, or supposedly represents in the case of authoritarian regimes. It is possible, however, that with reform, old policies will be replaced with new ones that may not only restore the economic and social stability of a certain populace, but also bring it closer towards utopia. What I'm getting at is that through keeping up with the change if not staying ahead of it in the first place, one may keep the stability of one's nation, and make possible a more stable society that succeeds in all aspects, socially and fiscally.

Utopia may be the light at the end of the tunnel that we might never reach, but at least we can keep that light in our sights and not lag behind to the extent that it becomes nothing more than a mere spot on the horizon. I believe that it's becoming like that today, with all the war, misery, suffering and death that humanity has faced. Humanity is also going down the same path, with governmental corruption at an all-time high, and politicians looking forward to serving their own interests instead of their people. My friends, we are behind, but if we can find to keep up if not catch up, then we will succeed. It won't be easy in the long run, but I'm sure that if we settle down and solve our problems as mature as man can be, we can make it.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un