Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Can We Create Utopia?

"Peace People in N.Z."

Friends, Monica asked me recently whether or not I'd consider beginning a World Political Movement. Who me? I thought with a laugh.

While I do not consider that I have the necessary qualities to either create or lead a movement of any kind, her question has got me thinking about the chaotic world we live in and the way it's cleverly organized to advantage certain powerful minority groups (the rich, the political elite, big business, institutionalized religions, etc).

I tried to come up with some points/principles that I feel would apply in an ideal world, ones that would provide us with a starting point to seek urgent and immediate change. How about:

WORLD UTOPIANS DEMAND THAT:

1. Each child born must, as a world citizen, have the right to share equally in the planet's bounty, no more no less.

2. Each child born must have the right to develop to adulthood in a normal family situation without being subjected to any ideological, racial, social, sexual or theological pressure.

3. Each child born must have the right to access medical care regardless of financial status.

4. Each child born must have the right to be free from all sexual exploitation and violence.

5. Each child born must have the right to a broad education based upon rigorous questioning and rational thinking and be able to fully develop all their talents especially artistic and contemplative ones.

6. Each child born must be taught the vital importance of genuinely caring for and respecting all other people and our fragile planet (which does not have inexhaustible resources nor does it have room for infinite numbers of humans).

7. Each child born must be taught that they are merely mortal animals and that they are no more important than any other life form. All life therefore must therefore be respected and preserved.

8. Each child born must be taught that human instincts and traits like arrogance, greed, lust and the urge to kill are responsible for most of the world's ills and must be despised and eradicated.

9. Each child born has a right to grow up in an unpolluted world that has no dominant or domineering nations, no exploitative economic system, no undue influence by any religious, nationalist, social or political group or institution; and no weapons, armament industries or armies.

10. Each child, wherever they are born, must have the right to be surrounded by peace and love. They must be helped to live a life that embraces simplicity, honesty, loyalty, decency, generosity, personal responsibility and social and humanitarian values, a life that is in total harmony with nature and reality.

To achieve these objectives it will be necessary to completely neutralize the power and wealth of Religious Institutions and their Pressure Groups, Capitalist Robber Barons, Rapacious Multi-National Companies, Political Potentates and Dynasties and, of course, the Media Moguls.

What do you think of my list? What would you add or take off? Would a movement based upon these ten points have any chance of succeeding given the strength of the vested interests?

Photo Image Link.

*********************************************

UPDATE. 4/9/2007
. Some Further Thoughts.

Ideally a Utopian World would not be run by any person or small group of powerful people or a single nation which uses military force or psychological duress to impose their rule. I envisage there would be a World Government to oversee international affairs one that was not subject to bullying or manipulation by individual nations. One nation - One vote.

All national governments would be subordinate to the World Government and to a World Court. As well, all national governments would be extensively decentralized to stop the accumulation of power and any future chance of imperialism.

I believe that the world should operate more on a co-operative communal basis much as rural communities once did. Each citizen of each community would be educated to see the benefit for themselves and the world of adopting responsible, altruistic, rational attitudes and behaviour.

However what is ideal and what humans respond to are different things. I feel a carrot and stick approach is required initially to destroy the deeply ingrained, selfish, greed-based status quo. Once one generation begins to think positively and work cooperatively rather than competitively with their fellows and other nations, they will then teach their kids who will grow up thinking that that is how the world should be.

Eventually, with positive attitudes ingrained and with the benefits flowing to everyone, the whole thing should work smoothly.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

27 comments:

Lang Mack said...

In an ideal world, problem is, kids grow up and turn into Bushes and Howards, also 'criminals'. Cause, what makes 'em so, now there is the question.
You may have some idea that I respect animals a lot, I watch and observe them as it's the way I live and make a living, there's nothing malicious about animals , it's what they do, as for humans,well, mostly, not always, you just don't know where you stand, ask any animal :). If it's in an ideal situation, the answer would be ,yes.Animals take their life as granted. Ask a human, well you know the answer to that. Interesting that people with wealth who have more than enough to satisfy their whims are always sniffing around for excess, to the cost of others. And look at distaste those who are happy getting by. I know such people and find amusement in their attitude.

Lang Mack said...

As an aside, I walked from here through to continue reading and Steve Irwins daughter was on TV, a doco about something or other, and the book that I'm reading is Elfriede Jelinek's "Greed". Spare me........

Nancy said...

How are you feeling about the 'fence' around Sydney, to keep the protestors away from the poow widdle weaders?

It seems to me that the Australians are futher down the road to ruin, fascism, whatever you call it, than the USA is.

Daniel said...

I agree about animals, Lang Mack. I haven't struck a deviant animals yet!

I still have hopes for the achievement of human nobility although what prompts me to believe such a thing is possible I don't really know. All the evidence points to its impossibility but hope springs eternal I guess. Cheers.

Lucyp said...

Got nothing to add to the list, pretty much covers everything.

Daniel said...

Given Howard's sycophancy to Bush, Nancy, we are close behind the U.S. But there is an election due shortly and that may change.

Lucy, thanks for your comment. It's hard to encapsulate so many aspects in ten points. I'm sure I'll have to do some fine-tuning.

Cheers!

enigma4ever said...

so how do we sign up? and where? and can we recruit you to another country? this is wonderful....thank you...

Daniel said...

Enigma, you're too kind!

I had the idea of forming this party on the internet. 70 million bloggers all working together. Sounds impressive, eh, but would it be a goer?

Renegade Eye said...

Your program is quite radical. As radical as any manifesto written.

Daniel said...

To stop humans from destroying themselves and the planet something radical must be done, Renegade!

Monica Thatcher said...

A 70 million strong mastermind group with a clear objective. would indeed be a powerful base to with massive legs. Dan this needs working on! I'll give it some more thought and get back to you. Have to pick a load of apples with the kids today, we're going to make cider... But think about this. Seventy million people lets say donating 20 £/$ a piece would be some kind advertising budget to get our message across!

Daniel said...

What's required first, Monica, is a clear idea of how best to set up the framework for a worldwide political people's movement.

That means cutting across national governments, perhaps setting up a world government, but one without big players who stack the deck (like America does with the U.N.).

I need time to think about this, we both do. We might get some ideas from other commenters.

Meanwhile, good luck with the cider! Cheers.

Fleming said...

Beautiful ideals, Daniel. You are, after all, seeking Utopia, and where you (and we) be without Utopian ideals and aims?

I fully support your ideas and the concept of a world movement to make them realities. One has to start somewhere.

At this point I haven't thought of anything to add to your list.

Thanks for this inspiration.

Davo said...

Has been tried previously ..many times. Best wishes, laddie.

Daniel said...

Fleming, your thoughts are valuable as is your continuing contribution to a better world.

Davo, there are many who are not happy with the current state of the world and who are being unfairly treated. It has always been this way but why should it be allowed to continue?

But I agree that improving the world has been tried many times and failed. I suspect that human nature is the culprit!

Cheers!

Dylan said...

Hi Daniel:

Just a few comments on a couple of your ‘demands’:

2. Each child born must have the right to develop to adulthood in a normal family situation without being subjected to any ideological, racial, social, sexual or theological pressure.

How are we going to define ‘normal’ here, Daniel? Who is the group that is going to say what is normal and what is abnormal? And if there is a normal (and an abnormal) then isn’t this ideologically driven by definition?

3. Each child born must have the right to access medical care regardless of financial status.

If every child has this right then does not it also mean that a certain proportion of people might be forced into working in medicine to deliver this right? After all, while there may well be enough people who want to work in medicine voluntarily, if everyone has the right to care and there is a shortfall in the number of practitioners then won’t we be forcing people into the profession to guarantee this right? Further, and in line with your first demand that all share ‘equally’ in the wealth of the world, won’t the financial rewards that today flow into the pockets of doctors disappear and reduce the pool of potential doctors?

4. Each child born must have the right to be free from all sexual exploitation and violence.

They have that right already – under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, I believe – yet the violence and exploitation continues. Why?

7. Each child born must be taught that they are merely mortal animals and that they are no more important than any other life form. All life therefore must therefore be respected and preserved.

and

8. Each child born must be taught that human instincts and traits like arrogance, greed, lust and the urge to kill are responsible for most of the world's ills and must be despised and eradicated.


These two ‘demands’ seem a little contradictory to me. The first suggests that animals are just as important as humans and should be respected. Yet the second suggests that human instincts are wrong and must be despised. Why are the instincts of some animals (humans) to be eradicated but other animals and their instincts are to be respected and preserved? It seems to me we are either more important than other animals and can be treated differently (your instinct eradication program) or the same and treated the same (but then you accept the instincts of humans like you would any other animal). Can you really demand both of these?

9. Each child born has a right to grow up in an unpolluted world that has no dominant or domineering nations, no exploitative economic system, no undue influence by any religious, nationalist, social or political group or institution; and no weapons, armament industries or armies.

I guess you mean ‘no undue influence except for that of the people who have produced the set of rights’, right? Imagine your set of demands became law: would not this create undue influence over the lives of all humans? Wouldn’t it create a new institution in and of itself? Wouldn’t it demand someone enforce the rights of the people and, thus, some sort of institution would emerge with some significant power?

Just a few thoughts, in any case.

Cheers, Dylan.

Monica Thatcher said...

In response to Davo I would say “Try telling that to Thomas Edison”. I also am fairly sure that this particular approach using a web based communication between like minded individuals has never been tried before. The beauty of this approach is the speed at which the whole movement could be formed.
The first step I think would be to be to expand the base of individuals who would be prepared to front up when the inevitable resistance to the ideals emerge. I feel therefore that we, the contributors, need to make as much effort as possible to engage as many people as we can using the power of the word and our own blogs and acquiantances. Once we have the power of numbers we can then start to organise ourselves. I believe this can be done but it will take a good deal of courage and commitment from all involved. I cant remember which poet wrote this:

“ I bargained with life for a penny,and life would pay no more,
However I begged at evening when I counted my scanty store.
For life is just an employer, he gives you what you ask,
but once you set the wages, why, you must bear the task.
I worked for a menials hire, only to learn,dismayed,
That any wage I had asked of life, life would have willingly paid”

So friends if we don't aim high then it'll be ground hog day until we die in the knowledge that we just could have made a difference. I for one certainly don't want it written on my gravestone, “Here lies Monica Thatcher, damn,she could have made a difference."!
In my humble opinion the idea is no more radical than anything offered by the ridiculous
'American world police' system we now have. As far as I can see it, common sense is anything but radical.

Time to employ the Butterfly effect!

Daniel said...

Dylan, I'll respond to your 'constructive' comment tomorrow!

Monica, I'm impressed by your enthusiasm. The world has many knockers but few idealists and even fewer leaders! Be in touch!

Cheers.

Monica Thatcher said...

Dylan, Daniel didn't that this is set in stone and did ask for your comments which are valid of course. I agree with you as to the use of the word Normal it's always going to be relative, but I do not agree that arrogance, greed, lust and the urge to kill are in fact 'human instincts' they are in fact learned behaviours. As such they could be removed.
Daniels list is a broad shot at in the direction of where I believe Mankind should be headed. Like I said earlier when we know we have enough support then we can all put our minds to creating a workable manifesto. The start has been made!

Daniel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel said...

Now, Dylan, to your points:

What is normal? Most folk would call the heterosexual family unit normal. I tend to agree. If other types of relationships are preferred then perhaps those concerned should remain childless!

Medical care has been hijacked by medical and pharmaceutical interests for financial reasons. If that monopoly was broken then medicines and medical staff would be plentiful.

Sexual exploitation? You can't ban it by a law or resolution. You have to change the thinking of society generally. The mindset of the sick must be changed medically.

Point 7 is important because many humans do not consider themselves animals and this gives rise to fantasies like religion. Reminding humans of their reality reduces their conceit, puts them in touch with reality.

In Point 8 surely we can expect humans with their small to moderate intelligence to see the benefits both for themselves and society of eschewing killing, lust, greed, etc.

Your comment in Point 9 misses the whole thrust of my list. These 10 points are intended to be willingly accepted by each individual because they improve the quality of life for everyone. I did not say they should be imposed upon them by law or force.

Thanks for your input.

Cheers!

enigma4ever said...

Of course it is a goer ...you have all of these wonderful people with great ideas...

navyswan said...

"What is normal? Most folk would call the heterosexual family unit normal. I tend to agree. If other types of relationships are preferred then perhaps those concerned should remain childless!"

I disagree. Orphaned children will always be a problem in this world, through tragic accident or death, etc. Why then would you keep childless couples from raising children no matter what their sexual preference? Or would it be better for those children to be raised in an institution without a family unit? I know a lot of heterosexual families that I would not call "normal".

Dylan said...

Thanks for the response, Daniel.

Daniel said...

Navyswan, given the diversity of human nature I cannot come up with a list that is going to please everyone.

For example, I did not say that paedophiles should be able to indulge their passions even though they might claim as a justification that that is how they were born and society should be changed to accommodate them and not to do so is discrimination.

If we can establish some general principles first then, as we proceed, we can deal with peripheral issues in a caring way, but one that puts the interests of the child first.

Cheers!

navyswan said...

"For example, I did not say that paedophiles should be able to indulge their passions even though they might claim as a justification that that is how they were born and society should be changed to accommodate them and not to do so is discrimination."

Let's not compare pedophiles with homosexuals. That is such a dishonest comparison.

"If we can establish some general principles first then, as we proceed, we can deal with peripheral issues in a caring way"

My general thought on these matters is the idea of 'do no harm'. There has been plenty of research that says that children who grow up in homosexual households are just as good off as ones that grow up in heterosexual households.

Pedophiles are harmful to children, whereas caring homosexual parents are not. That should be the guiding principle. If there is no harm inflicted on another person, it should be acceptable. Whereas homosexual couples are both consenting adults, they are doing no harm by being together. Whereas a child would do better with loving parents, no matter their sexuality, than they would in an institution, this also causes no harm.

Daniel said...

Navyswan, what do you want me to say? That I think that a child brought up by two homosexuals has hit the jackpot, that that child will be totally unaffected by that environment?

I majored in psychology and I know that the impact on a child of its environment especially during the years 1-6 is dramatic. A child gets its first impressions of male and female and the dynamics of a heterosexual relationship (which is the prevailing gender arrangement across the world) from observing and interacting with its parents.

If a child only sees two women or two men as its parents how can it possibly achieve a fully balanced outlook? However, perhaps such an arrangement would be better for a child than life in an institution.

Anyway, I don't want this important post to become bogged down by the pros and cons of what is a fringe issue.

Thanks for your input. Cheers.

ShareThis