You can act them into existence, but you’ll never even start if you can’t imagine anything better, even if that’s just “we should improve society somewhat.”
Any society needs resources. In order for a society to grow or maintain itself, their consumption of resources must not exceed the production of it.
Should we pursue a society that doesn’t depend on the heavy exploitation of resources, it would mean to severely limit the reproduction of its population within the society’s means of sustaining them.
Our planet does not have the capability to sustain our current 8 billion population.
Many of us will die and after that many would be restricted in their rights for procreation.
As such, while those societies might be pleasant for some humans, the ones it needs to get rid of to achieve its desired status won’t be too happy with it needing them gone.
What’s the other option?
We just need to have some bell riots and WW3 and then bam star trek
Don’t forget to add a little bit of post-atomic horror!
Are you telling me you can’t even imagine a better world?
I think that they mean you still have to eat and sleep and try to have joy in your life.
It’s easy if you try.
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too
Can you simply imagine things into existence?
You can act them into existence, but you’ll never even start if you can’t imagine anything better, even if that’s just “we should improve society somewhat.”
Not a dystopian nightmare?
Your nightmare is someone else’s dream.
My nightmare is a libertarian’s wet dream?
No idea. Never met a libertarian.
No realistic society can satisfy everyone, because when it comes to individual desires, “we the people” falls apart.
How about a society that isn’t predicated on the exploitation of others?
Some societies are objectively more pleasant to humans than others, otherwise we wouldn’t strive at all
Any society needs resources. In order for a society to grow or maintain itself, their consumption of resources must not exceed the production of it. Should we pursue a society that doesn’t depend on the heavy exploitation of resources, it would mean to severely limit the reproduction of its population within the society’s means of sustaining them. Our planet does not have the capability to sustain our current 8 billion population.
Many of us will die and after that many would be restricted in their rights for procreation.
As such, while those societies might be pleasant for some humans, the ones it needs to get rid of to achieve its desired status won’t be too happy with it needing them gone.
I think it’s doable. Sure we won’t have so much cheap crap in the north, but no one needs to starve.
It might be. Depends on the people really. Hopefully there will be a good example to follow.
People all over the world have agency.
Moving on from class society