I think it depends on how you define Utopia.
I agree with everything that you wrote. It all depends on how people define the word utopia, because reality is in the mind of the beholder. I think a utopia society could be defined in an objective way if you were to only think about it from a neurological or biochemical perspective. But it becomes subjective from the moment you start to thinking about culture, philosophy, or actions and reactions at a macroscopic scale.
My idea of a utopia could be another person’s idea of a dystopia. The different perceptions are derived from our emotions. (The way we process emotions and our emotional attachments) Most people with strong emotional attachments to our current ways of life would be afraid of the social changes that I believe would have to occur for us to have a chance of creating a utopian society.
Our general fear of change is one of the reasons why most Sci-Fi writers choose to depict the idea of radical social change or fundamentally changing what it means to be human as something that’s bad and should be avoided at all cost. I’m a transhumanist that would love to experience radical biological / social changes. And that’s the reason why I hate the common Sci-Fi narrative of preserving our current ways of life.
I think technologies like nanotech, full immersion virtual reality, cybernetics, germline genetic engineering, synthetic biology, artificial super intelligence, and hive minds are prerequisites for a utopian society. But it is highly unlikely that we will achieve anything close to a futuristic utopia if we’re just basically the same humans with better gadgets. I believe that we would have to use our technology to alter our bodies, thus changing the way we communicate, perceive reality, and acquire energy and propagate information.
reply
share