Which physics and biology prevent the utopia from existing?
[spoiler alert]
Everyone has a remote kill switch in their spinal cord. Once the goverment decides to be evil, any rebel will get their legs instructed to walk to a pea facility for "reeducation".
Compared to this scenario, 1984 is almost as optimistic as Equilibrium.
> We have preliminary evidence that XYZ is a terrorist and we are sending him to a nice special house with a swimming pool to protect everyone until the investigation finishes. [OK] [Ask me later]
But personally the “dystopia” to me feels very much like something we could end up with -it’s much more a warning. Meanwhile the fantastic nature of the utopia doesn’t really matter in contrast, because the idea of sharing society’s abundance with everyone is clearly possible.
Other nations have socialized healthcare, where anyone can be treated. Other nations have calm safe and clean public transit. Other nation’s redistribute wealth and provide strong safety nets. Other nations don’t have mass violence. Other nations guarantee retirement and pensions. Other nations trust their governments.
The fantasy physics aren’t what’s holding people back.
I feel like this is very much in flux, and not a constant anywhere. And it's something that is contested over continually. In some places there have been generations of rising quality of life, but not everywhere, all at once.
It is possible. If we stopped at the invention of fire we'd all have equality by now. The problem is that people keep inventing new stuff.
Is that genuinely what you think sharing means? Everyone everywhere has everything? Obviously that’s not the case. And even if it was, why can’t independent inventors create thing in the meantime?
Have you heard anyone genuinely espouse this view? Is this what you think socialized healthcare means too? Everyone gets the exact same medical procedure at the same time too?
Just be clear, that’s not even what “communism” is. This feels like a misinformed understanding of “sharing” based on American propaganda. That’s just American propaganda derived from Soviet era rationing. Read the story this thread is about first.
> the idea of sharing society’s abundance with everyone is clearly possible
This is what I was replying to. I'm saying that discovery comes with "inequality" in some sense, because it takes time to distribute and refine processes for making things. Only rich people 100 years ago could afford what would now be classed as the worst cars in the world. Now almost anyone can buy a car, at least in developed nations. But you don't need to think of it as "sharing", but rather as "markets". Goods and services that are worth scaling, and can be scaled, will be.
> I'm saying that discovery comes with "inequality" in some sense, because it takes time to distribute and refine processes for making things.
Again, read the original source. Inequality and discovery isn't in opposition with sharing. Inequality in outcome and opportunities are very different.
All of human society produces enough food, and enough excess wealth, that we could "solve" hunger across the planet if we chose. That wouldn't require everyone eat the same meal, and it wouldn't preclude people going to restaurants or spending money on Michelin-Star meals. This wouldn't even prevent market-driven opportunities for farmers or chefs or distributors. Not everyone in the planet can be entitled to rare fish flown across the world, but for example, America has so much corn we put in our gasoline (and offered plenty of tax credits to do so).