This conversation is closed.

What is your vision for a (nearly) perfect society.

If you could make your own vision of humanity, what would it look like?
What type of economic system, social structure, and government, as well as their roles would you propose?
What will humanity be like?
What will our neighborhoods look like?
Education, infrastructure, anything really.
Heres the hard part, how do you (we) achieve this vision?

  • Oct 28 2011: What may be today's brilliant idea/solution can be tomorrow's biggest flaw. THats the issue. Future is unpredictable. And not to forget, human beings are different and where there's difference there's going to be a possible conflict. And in a perfect society, we seek harmony and not conflict. However, one way to minimize the conflict is "education." Education helps understand both sides of the story to anything. This also encourages tolerance which can be helpful in achieving this ideal society we all seek.
  • thumb
    Oct 28 2011: I am greatly encouraged when I read all these and other comments on the Internet. What I hear makes it very clear that all of you are deeply concerned about the future of mankind, and are trying find ways of helping to improving the outcome.
    However, it is not for us to devise the way for future generations to follow. This has been a serious flaw in our history. The offspring’s were induced to follow the guidance of their elders. Now see what a mess in which we have landed. Whether they follow capitalism, socialism, or any other creed, is entirely their choice. The only thing we can do is ensure that future leaders are aware of all the options and the pitfalls associated with each regime. It is important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past by trying to impose our beliefs on to those who will be responsible for the future.
    Right now In Liberia and Egypt they are contemplating new ways to run their countries. They want a kind of democracy, but not the type operating in the West. The primary objectives are 'freedom' and 'equality'. All this must fit with the Muslim faith, though non-sectarian administrations have been mentioned.
    It is useful for us to discuss the various forms which could evolve. And, I believe, this might influence the outcome. Whether, they will keep money in it's present form or get rid of it, will be a vital factor. Money has served mankind very well in the past, but now it has grown into a monster. Freedom will never be complete until money is eliminated from our society.
    All the complaints about what is happening are due to money. Corruption, greed, tyranny, are all due to money. Eliminating it, immediately destroys the power bases of the enemies of mankind. Living without money requires a complete change from everything we are used to. Trade, exchange, barter, etc, will no longer be relevant. It will just be people helping each other to get whatever they need. There will be no reciprocity. Everyone will just do the best they can.
    • Oct 28 2011: I wonder if your are describing a society in which is in a state of "perpetual revolution." Also do you have any ideas to what could replace our current monetary system. Would it be a system of anarcho - volunteerism, or would there be some mandatory force operating this?
      • thumb
        Oct 28 2011: Here's a talk about replacing our monetary system (haven't looked into the programs he's sponsored in India etc. yet but apparently people are thinking about alternatives)

        And here's a great TED talk about non-monetary incentives. Basically the idea is that people aren't as motivated by money as we might believe and volunteerism of some kind just might work
        • Oct 28 2011: Thank you very much for the great talks! On the motivation talk I had heard of models like these being implemented in some businesses, but hadn't really done much research. I am also on my way to google to learn more about alternative monetary systems. Again thank you.
  • thumb
    Oct 28 2011: Before thinking of a perfect society, first we must understand the basic principle upon which this life form (including humans) exists, the best known so far is the ‘survival of the fittest’ and the continuation of its physical existence thru the process of reproduction, both these things explains almost everything. Now these principle are existed since the day one of the creation of this life form (don’t want to get into how it was created, it’s a separate debate so let’s not mix things). The conscious / intelligent mind in all the life forms has an inbuilt alarm towards moral values. A pet dog is loyal to humans than a dog living in a jungle, means even animals have some moral values; the degree might vary according to the level of intelligent brain one have. The link between these two ‘survival of the fittest’ (outer world) and ‘innate moral values system’ (inner self) has always been head to head since always and in between these two the intelligent brain comes because it offers the level of awareness towards the innate moral values. We are better than animals because we have comparatively stronger intelligent brain and more self-aware mind.

    As perfect society will be a place which completely negates the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’, as this is the root cause of all the social evils. A society which encourages that innate moral value system will have the capacity to become the perfect society. And the biggest hurdle in this is the current monetary system which purely favors the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. We have throw out this monetary system and replace it with a pure moral based monitoring system where people should be evaluated according to their moral standings and not the material worth do they have.
  • thumb
    Oct 28 2011: a world where everyone had all basic and not-so basic household compliances. (basically the perfect house is available to everyone) and we can generate electricity for this through green, renewable energy. all devices are wireless data and electricity compatible.

    achieve this through developing our future citys as renewable havens. all roofs are composed of solar panels. use of thermal venting and hydro electricity from rainfall. of course wind power too. build these electrical inputs into our societies so we can function with free electricity and the rest will fall in place.
  • thumb
    Oct 26 2011: All basic needs fulfilled, diverse & inclusive society.
    • thumb
      Oct 26 2011: define basic needs
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Fundamental level of food, clothing,shelter, hygene, health support , security which are necessary for survival of all human being of the society .
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: what is fundamental level?

          100 years ago, fundamental level of food and shelter was very different than today. even today it is very different in nepal and the US. in a hundred years, it will probably change as much as it changed in the last hundred.

          it is like that carrot tied in front of the donkey, we never get any closer.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Do you think Fundamental level of food for SURVIVAL differs from country to country or even with time ?
        Do you think 100 years back human being had very much different calorie intake for SURVIVAL.

        Though standing TODAY I defintely am not talking about standard of 100 years back.

        SURVIVAL need of shelter, Clothing, hygene & health definitely differs due to environmental factors, so it should specific to the geography.

        What is your carrot that is with in the tongue length of the donkey?
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: definitely. many things you have mentioned as fundamental level was simply nonexistent a hundred years ago. many of them are simply nonexistent in poor parts of the world today. hygiene for one. healthcare too.

          i predict that the fundamental level will include a computer, a cell phone, personal flying suit and similar things a hundred years from now.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Well you mean just 100 years back there was no Hygiene, No Healthcare ?
        No existance of any kind of healthcare or hygiene for anyone in poor part (it must not be in 3rd world I guess , it's somewhere else) of the world ?
        Is it so ?
        Really ?

        Well here the subject is about "vision for (nearly) perfect Society"

        So carrot of Fundamental are far away from Donkey's moutn but carrot that includes computer , cell phone, personal flying suits etc are just inside the mouth of Donkey , is it so ?

        If so I am more than happy to get those extras.....:D
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: okay, here is my point: nature provides us almost nothing. we have to work for everything. and we work not only to get stuff, but to advance our technology, and get even more stuff in the future.

          it is pointless to draw a line and say: that is the minimum level. every single achievement is just another step in the infinite staircase we are walking on.
      • Oct 28 2011: Krisztian I CAN censor you from this message thread, I have chosen not to. Nature provides us with everything we have to build with. I noticed you have not stated your own personal vision of a (nearly) perfect society, but have chosen to attack others beliefs instead. What might your vision be?
        • thumb
          Oct 28 2011: it is a shame that you don't follow your own conversation. i did write my own vision. it is also a shame that you treat discussion as attack. sorry to disappoint you, but this is a public forum, not a billboard. here, your views can be challenged. so i'm very sorry if i disturbed your feelings, and tried to provoke thinking, and promote a better understanding of the world.
  • thumb
    Oct 26 2011: "To maintain the integrity, stability and the beauty of the biotic communities"---Aldo Leopold

    The truth of the matter is, this is not going to happen if we continue to embrace an ideology like capitalism.

    So my vision of a (nearly) perfect society will be one that is based on cooperation/mutual aid of individuals. A society that embraces egalitarian values. A society in which the domination of nature does not serve as a pre-condition to the domination of human over human. A society in which the ecological systems are managed and conserved. A society in which we understand the biological complexities and ways to maximize their well-being. Pretty much an ecologically based anarchist society in which technology is not disruptive but helpful.

    In other words a world without capitalism and the repudiation of the symbolic nature of money.
    • thumb
      Oct 26 2011: QUOTE: "In other words a world without capitalism and the repudiation of the symbolic nature of money."

      How would we do this?
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: resource based economy
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: if you can define that term in any meaningful way, i eat my tie with chopsticks.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: I understand the phrase, resource based economy, but have no idea how we would implement it on a global scale. Give me an abridged version, if you don't mind.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: i can explain a resourced economy to and how it would work and how it could be a far better social structure then anything we have already seen but how we get there no idea especially with all the people with power and money that would fight not to have this system in place. as well as the fact that No nation today is about to give up its sovereignty for a social arrangement that has never been tried.
        Therefore and sadly it will take a social breakdown to stimulate the search for alternative social designs. This has been the case throughout human history. Our current system is not working. Unless people are aware of, or knowledgeable about what is needed, they will continue to repeat the same mistakes--war, recession, boom and bust, hunger, poverty, and much unnecessary human suffering Therefor when it does collapse if people are aware of such a system then maybe we can see such a system that the only way i can see a transition i hope there is a easier way thou, i m open to idea's i know i don't have all the answers.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Hello Thomas,
        With all honesty I do not have a precise way of coming about this. I mean anything I say will be just pure speculation but if you are interested I will nonetheless give it a shot.

        I strongly believe that thoughts, perceptions, values, etc have its origins in the human mind/brain. I think questions pertaining to any sort of social and political philosophy is really a matter that extends to psychology, biology and neuroscience. This perhaps may be an odd way of looking at it and this by no means state that looking at things politically, economically and socially are not useful. Perhaps the true nature of what I'm trying to say is lies beyond the relationship between social and political economies in correspondence with human behavior and may actually be on a more conscious, psychological and neuroscientific level.

        The best way I can describe what I am saying is this:From this perspective one should pay attention to the role ideologies play on the human mind and how accepting and believing certain beliefs to have a certain significance impacts human awareness and thought and how these contribute to human actions. For example, with capitalism (in the U.S.) we are taught that conspicuous consumption, materialism and global competition are things that are to be valued. Believing/accepting this to be true and significant has profound effects and from personal experience this is what I see: imperialism, poverty, inability to climb the social ladder etc.

        Money is nothing more than a symbol and it is by giving credence to this symbol that we allowed a dollar bill, something that can instantly lose its value when ripped up, to ruin our lives and yet be a symbol for hope.

        And as Steven pointed out, unless people are aware of the power given to money and how ideologies and language influence the mind, we will continue to make the same mistakes and I think the mistake that we are making is by basing our lives off a dangerous symbol.
        • thumb
          Oct 27 2011: Hi Orlando,

          It seems you have fairly deep foundational principles that will need to be addressed if we are going to operate without capitalism and without a symbolic means of representing wealth - money.

          I do think money is "symbolic" (obviously) but it is more than that. It is also a "medium of exchange" - a function that is facilitated precisely because of money's symbolic nature. So beyond its symbolism, it is also fundamental to a process that is very real: exchange.

          It is not something I have given much thought to but I have always felt money arose as a result of underlying human attributes - much as the ones you mention - and that, in many ways, it is a symbol of our own desire for security. This "symbol" represents, amongst other things, the ability to acquire something I may need or want at a later date; and having this ability provides a sense of security.

          If we felt secure, without knowing we could exchange this symbol for, say, a chicken or a bag of rice, in a week's time, we would not need it.

          Once we invented money, it provided such a sense of security (false security many would say) that it has become ubiquitous.

          Of course, aside from any underlying human motives (for security, status, etc,) it is still a highly functional medium.

          A "major" problem with a symbol is it can be manipulated, at will. As we learn to manipulate this symbol (that is also a medium of exchange) we see people who do so, for their own personal gain (the Madoffs, etc.) but we also see it being done by institutions, including entire nations. We engage in a manipulation of "the symbol" with, it seems, little understanding of the outcomes such manipulation will have on the functional reason we have money which is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.

          If we knew what we were doing, we would not have meltdowns like '08

          But I cannot imagine how we would operate without money. Unless we revert to local, small-scale, agrarian communities of, say, 250 people or so.
        • thumb
          Oct 28 2011: The ZeitGiest Movement has considerable info describing resource based economies. Just go to TZM. I have also described a similar scenario in my book. I can upload the text if you want.
      • thumb
        Oct 28 2011: Consider this: when there is a recession and people have little money to
        buy things, isn’t the Earth still the same place? Aren’t there still goods on
        the store shelves and land to grow crops? It is just the rules of the game
        that we play by that are obsolete and cause so much suffering.
        The existence of money is hardly ever questioned or examined, but let’s
        consider our use of money. Money itself does not have any value. It is just
        a picture on a cheap piece of paper with an agreement among people
        as to what it can buy. If it rained hundred dollar bills tomorrow, everyone
        would be happy except the banker
        It is claimed that the so-called free-enterprise system creates incentive. This may be true, but it also perpetuates greed, embezzlement, corruption, crime, stress, economic hardship, and insecurity. In addition, the argument that the monetary system and competition generate incentive does not always hold true. Most of our major developments in science and technology have been the result of the efforts of very few individuals working independently and often against great opposition. Such contributors as Goddard, Galileo, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and Einstein were individuals who were genuinely concerned with solving problems and improving processes rather than with mere financial gain. Actually, very often there is much mistrust in those whose incentive is entirely motivated by monetary gain, this can be said for lawyers, businessmen, salesman and those in just about any field.
        resource-based economy, a holistic social and economic system in which the planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. The current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant, counter-productive, and falls far short of meeting humanity's needs.
        Simply stated, within a Resource Based Economy we will utilize existing resources - rather than money - to provide an equitable method of distribution
        • thumb
          Oct 28 2011: You are pointing to the obvious dichotomy. We love money but hate what it does. What would we say to a highly evolved alien if it asked how come we can fly to the planets but cannot even feed our population?
          We just have not got our priorities right. The age old Capitalist expression about acting in one own best interests by making maximum profits, should really read. Acting in your own best interests means living in peace and harmony with your community.

          Let's get practical. I have an idea that I shall post shortly describing a possible course of action to resolve the impending crisis. It is not perfect and all suggestions and constructive criticism will be welcome.
    • thumb
      Oct 26 2011: this is the "truth of the matter"? it is not even debated now? we can consider capitalism being the culprit as a fact?

      egalitarianism. i see you have a nice pair of sunglasses. not everyone can afford sunglasses. so i urge you to sell it for, say, 5 dollars, and send the money over to madagascar right now. hm, and about that suit ...
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Krisztián,

        Are you even capable of engaging in a mature conversation with someone who does not share your misguided idealism without being petty and condescending?

        Do you think this is somehow witty? Intelligent, perhaps?

        It is nether: It is banal, and adolescent at best.

        I see you are quite bright. Not everyone is bright. So I urge you to, say, use your intelligence and drop this whole "if-you're-not-a-buddhist-capitalist-you-must-be-an-idiot" thing you've got going on.

        If you have something constructive to say, say it.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: eeer. what? you accuse me of something my opponent did? how did that happen? was it me to say that "the truth is"? was it me that hinted that capitalists need psychologist? (i refer to another conversation.) was it me to advertise internet censorship as an acceptable policy?

          i don't want to oppress other people. i want to stop other people oppressing me.

          you can think equality is good. i don't. you can think capitalism is bad. i don't. i don't want any of you telling me what to do, instead of convincing me what to do.

          message to everyone: please stop commanding other people what to do. you are not worthy. nobody is.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: Thank you Thomas,

          I would also like to add that I may be critical of capitalism but I too am a capitalist and I am in a way responsible for everything that I criticize it for (the clothes I by, the food and candy I eat, the environmental hazards that I contribute to, etc) but I am aware of this and I try to be mindful of my actions. When I talk about how ideas and values have an influence on the human action I am not depriving the individual of personal responsibility, I'm just saying that sometimes their actions are not of their own volition but is created and motivated by other factors.

          I've discussed this issue with Krisztian before and he had interesting points but I never once stated that capitalist needed psychologist. As a matter of fact that does not sound like me. I just stated that capitalism is the enabler of excessive self-interest(w/ excessive self-interest being a human quality or a product of human nature) and by doing so it allows this excessive self-interest to come about in destructive way, such as theft, greed, murder over frivolous things, divorce over money, budget cuts, etc.

          As an individual who knows what its like to be homeless and all the way at the bottom of the social ladder my perspective is purely empirical being that I can relate to the everyday individual. At the same time I'm not saying capitalism is entirely bad. If practiced right it can be a good system but I'm not surprised that it turned out the way it is now and this is because it is not based on principles that we can say are good ones. At its core, capitalism is individualistic and allows individuals to act in their self-interest.Anarchism at its core is not based off individualism but instead its all about community.

          I do know this: all that we are talking about goes back to human mind and perception. This is the main reason why the public relations industry was created: to control the human mind/interest. This of course is not what I'm advocating.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Hi Krisztián,

        I appreciate your candour.

        QUOTE: "i don't want to oppress other people. i want to stop other people oppressing me."

        That is a fair statement but, a far as I can tell, no one is oppressing you. However, in your zeal to "not be oppressed" you have a tendency to act as if the world should use your value system to govern itself.

        For all I know, your system (whatever it is) might be the most effective system (or non-system) ever imagined but, the fact is, there are almost seven billion of us on the planet and we each get to choose the system we want to use. We choose individually and collectively. You might not like some of the choices we have made but then, by your own admission, you do not want to "oppress" by imposing your particular worldview on others.

        So what's the "logical" extension of all of this? We accept that others are free to make choices (individually or collectively) that we might not endorse but we respect their decision and, if we are inclined, offer what we believe to be superior options for people to choose from.

        This works best if we refrain from calling people who have not chosen "our path" idiots, murderers, inherently violent, and so on. Not that you have used all those phrases but you get my point.

        QUOTE: "you can think equality is good. i don't."

        I'm not following you: You don't think equality is good? What do you mean?

        QUOTE: "you can think capitalism is bad. i don't."

        I don't think any reasonably functioning system is "good" or "bad." I think they are systems that are as effective, or ineffective, as the people who operate within them.

        QUOTE: "i don't want any of you telling me what to do, instead of convincing me what to do."

        I think the idea is to share openly and let each other make our own choices. I'm all for a challenge; I quite enjoy it. But I have no desire to really change anyone's mind.

        I would appreciate it if you stopped being so dismissive of people you do not agree with. But, again, it's your choice.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: let me tell you the "logical extension". for example nobody can force his values on others. that is, no governments should be able to censor the internet. because there can be two people, one providing a service and one subscribing to that service. nobody else have a say in that matter. it is their business. so interfering with that is immoral. supporting such behavior is also immoral, as supporting immoral things are immoral. so if you say that internet censorship is acceptable policy, it is immoral. it is that simple.

          you don't find any recommendations on my part that would involve forcing other people in any way. however, you can often find me arguing people who do support such ideas.

          also please note that i have the right to call immoral things immoral. even if i hurt the feelings of that person. and i also can call ideas "inherently violent" if i so desire, as long as i can demonstrate my reasons for it. i can not, however, make other people follow my path using force. nor calling for using force. nor hinting the use of force.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Krisztián,

        I undersand your position, you are a free-enterprise kind of guy.

        My point is your assertion that others "should" do anything contains an implicit declaration that what you are telling them they should do is superior to what they choose to do by themselves. And from someone who says no one "should" tell others what to do, this is a contradiction.

        You might believe a free market economy is a panacea, fine. Say that. But to continue and say Bignoseistan "SHOULD" practice free market capitalism is a violation of your own stated ethos ... that no one "should" tell anyone else how to live.

        In fact, for YOU to say anyone SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do ANYTHING is a contradiction of what appears to be your own highest ideal.

        QUOTE: "you don't find any recommendations on my part that would involve forcing other people in any way."

        Again, when you say a group of people SHOULD do something, the force is tacit. It may not be physical force - in fact, it is quite clear you are not advocating physical force of any kind. But there is an implied force whenever we tell someone they SHOULD do something. Perhaps a moral force, or even an emotional force but it is still a force.

        QUOTE: "... however, you can often find me arguing people who do support such ideas."

        Frankly, your arguments often come across as you simply telling people they SHOULD do what you think they SHOULD do; and, if they don't agree, they are in some way mentally deficient. (For example, "Wow, you have managed to be wrong and meaningless at the same time," or whatever it was you said to that fellow whom you obviously did not agree with. Not a particularly Buddhist approach, I might add!)

        If (IF!!!) you think no one should tell anyone else what they should do or should not do, then (THEN!!! "If/Then") then you should stop telling other people what they should or should not do -- Even if they are doing something you think they should not do ... like censoring the internet.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: no, it is not. telling someone what to do is very different from telling someone not tell someone what to do. committing aggression is different from forcibly preventing someone committing aggression.

          i'm perfectly OK if you seek a leader for yourself. i'm also perfectly OK if you seek for servants to lead.

          i'm also perfectly OK with any opinions, but this does not mean i don't find many opinions perverted, wrong, evil or demented. i do find many opinions such. and i will call these opinions as such. for example i will continue to call anyone who seeks control over other people immoral and/or intellectually lazy.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: That reminds me Krisztian

        As far as my sunglasses a friend of mines actually gave it to me since they had an extra pair. The suit, shirt and tie I wore actually was a birthday gift. I am also aware that the clothes that I am wearing were perhaps created from a 12 year old whose labor was exploited but then again I can't go to a job interview naked can I? Also I do not own the sunglasses anymore. Any guesses where I sent them?

        Before you judge a book by its cover please get your facts straight. I have nothing to prove to to you but what I will say is before you blame me, blame the leaders of the world who think that exploiting the labor of individuals in third world countries to serve their own agenda is a virtuous act and then make it nearly impossible for others to not engage to these affairs to a certain degree.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: equality can be put on hold, if you have a good excuse? it does not seem to be a very consistent world view. i thought equality is as simple as those who have more simply transfer some stuff to those who have less. so if you are a fan of that, i suspect you are working on it, aren't you?

          i don't blame you anything else but being wrong and being inconsistent. and being not honest, most likely with yourself, not with us. this idea of equality and blaming government and blaming wall street is just a big setup in order to ease the mind. there is not a single egalitarian on this planet who thinks wealth should be transferred from him to the poor. or else he could just do it on his own. everyone believes we need to take from the "rich" (which means richer than us). what a strange coincidence!
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: QUOTE: "no, it is not. telling someone what to do is very different from telling someone not tell someone what to do."


        And therein lies your inability to see that which you decry in others first in yourself.

        As our old friend Matthew would put (perhaps too strongly:)

        You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye. – Matthew 7:5
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: very well for me. but let me just underline it, so it is crystal clear to anyone.

          thomas jones asserts that stopping aggression using force is aggression.

          for the record.
      • Oct 28 2011: I hope you forgive me for not seeing your "vision" I apologize. I do follow my conversations, its just this one got bigger really fast. I am also dealing with an upper respiratory virus thingy. I love it when people challenge ideas, it just seems, and judging by the replies to your comments I am not alone in this view, that rather than challenging ideas you are attacking peoples characters, when none of us know really anything about each other than what we have stated on these message threads. You seem to make outlandish claims about things you could not possibly have any knowledge of, as when you stated no egalitarian would give to the poor. Sorry for no direct quote everything gets kinda jumbled after awhile. For one this is not the comments section on youtube, so you must understand there is a certain degree of respected civility in these forums.

        I will not respond to any message from you as should anyone else on this forum, unless it is one that characterizes this level of civility that is expected on this forum.

        And for the record it takes a lot more than an internet troll to hurt my feelings.

        Have a good life.
        • thumb
          Oct 28 2011: can you show me where did i attack people's character? i also demand an example for my lack of civility.

          because as of now, you are the one attacking me, and not vice versa. and you called me troll, which is, i suppose, a civilized thing to do.
    • thumb
      Oct 27 2011: QUOTE: "very well for me. but let me just underline it, so it is crystal clear to anyone.

      thomas jones asserts that stopping aggression using force is aggression.

      for the record."


      For the record, let me point out that Krisztián Pintér has a tendency to read into what others have said and make assertions he believes to be true, and, based on my personal observation, he is always wrong.

      He also has a tendency to get petty, personal, and resorts to ad hominem attacks whenever he reaches the limits of his intellect. (Which is quite often.)

      For the record.
  • thumb
    Oct 25 2011: In my book (A DiFfErEnT PoInT Of ViEw, just publishing) I describe how life could be. We are on the verge of dramatic changes in our current social & economic systems. It is inevitable, so we will have choose our futures very soon.
    At present we compete with each other, and consider winning is laudable. We are encouraged to be greedy and ruthless. I believe this is against human nature and we suffer the consequences Such as fear, insecurity, violence. This is uncomfortable for most us. To change, we must try to reverse these conditions and learn to live by co-operating and communicating with each other. Acting in our own best interests is to live in peace & harmony with our communities, not in making more & more profits.
    Freedom is the catch cry of all the protesters. What binds us most is money. If we trust each other and communicate fully, there is no need for money.
    A future I would choose would be as follows:

    All necessary work would be automated. We would follow whatever hobbies we wanted to.
    Whatever we wanted could be posted on a website, and we would all help each other to get what they want.
    Food, water, accommodation would always be available.

    This sounds idealistic, but only because it is so different from our experience. I truly believe this would be much nearer to our true natures.
    Of course, There are many details to be worked through. To implement this, take advantage of turmoil that will occur and start living this way in small groups. As we gain experience we make any beneficial amendments. Gradually, groups will merge until we all arrive at the kind of life we all want.
    • thumb
      Oct 25 2011: sounds like your describing a resourced based economy similar to the Venus project
  • thumb
    Oct 25 2011: QUOTE: "What is your vision for a (nearly) perfect society."

    Planet earth. Now.

    (Vision complete.)
    • Oct 25 2011: Realy? Millions dying of starvation and thirst famine and war. Eniviromental destruction, mass poverty, rampent preventable disease, Glenn Beck.

      If your fine with these things then I suppose my vision of a perfect society is one without people like you.

      If you think the world is perfect you have never realy been in it.
      • thumb
        Oct 25 2011: Well, if you wait long enough Joe, I'll be gone soon, as will you. And then the world will be that much better off won't it? Missing a couple of SOBs like us!

        You can see the world you want to see, Joe ... I'll see the world I want to see. (And you did say "nearly.")

        Have I really been in it? Hmmmm ... let's see: Born in Canada, lived in America, Kenya, China, traveled to most of the rest of the world; been in two countries when war broke out. Seen suffering you cannot even imagine unless you've seen it yourself (and not on TV), crashed a plane, had a son kidnapped ... etcetera.

        And you?

        But, and this is probably the difference, I do not watch the news or read newspapers ... I'll bet you do.

        As horrible as all those things you mention are, believe it or not they are a very, very, VERY small part of what is going on on planet earth right now.

        By far the vast majority of us are born onto this amazing planet and get to live out our lives with surprisingly few "traumas" ... and the ones we do get to experience seem to make us stronger and more appreciative.

        Should we "fix" all the horrors you see? Sure, why not? ... But it will have to start with you, Joe. Are you willing to start there?

        What would you like to focus on?

        It's your call. And you won't get to hit the rewind button or get a "do over!"
        • Oct 25 2011: k good was realy just hoping for some clarification. Your message cam as apathetic. I have no room in my world for such a thing, yes the change does begin with me and everyone else as well. The nearly was a preemptive strike against a boring parade of wether perfect is possible. Maybe you should make sure to write more detailed posts when you throw a little detai you shine far brighter. You do bring up an interesting point if we were to atain "perfection" would w loose the traumas that result in the best of our species. Finaly someone who doesn't want to talk ab the venus project! Also my generation gave up on newspapers and TV's awhile ago. I have seen som things that horrify me too this day. Call me young and naive if you must but I want to see more, I w to see first hand what needs to to be eradicared from this world, and I want to go out an SOB who leavess a slightly better world than the one I came into. I apolAgize for the malice in my first reply perceived or real apathy brings out my passionate side.
        • thumb
          Oct 25 2011: we are not an advanced civilization until, war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but totally unacceptable.
        • thumb
          Oct 25 2011: I am responding to;
          "Have I really been in it? Hmmmm ... let's see: Born in Canada, lived in America, Kenya, China, traveled to most of the rest of the world; been in two countries when war broke out. Seen suffering you cannot even imagine unless you've seen it yourself (and not on TV), crashed a plane, had a son kidnapped ... etcetera.

          And you?

          But, and this is probably the difference, I do not watch the news or read newspapers ... I'll bet you do."

          I have to say the Media and ignorant dogmas are what is making people see "evil" in the world. For me I have been around for a short time. However for the last three years I have lived as hitchhiker. I have only been Throughout the continental US and Norway (random journey my life has taken me on.) What i have experienced well; love, compassion, generosity, and acceptance. Now who have i experienced this from? Everyone all races all economic backgrounds countless generations of people. Have I seen suffering? Yes and I have suffered but there is more good in this world and i have experienced it.
      • thumb
        Oct 25 2011: Hi Joe,

        Here's my take: I work in my world one person at a time, starting with me and then moving out to anyone who "crosses my path."

        You have crossed my path and I am going to be very direct.

        If you are "realy just hoping for some clarification," ask, before you jump to conclusions.

        You say my message, "cam as apathetic." I would suggest you check your assumptions at the door, particularly, when you open a conversation on a public forum.

        And let me be clear, if you are attempting to initiate change it does not "begin with you AND everyone else as well;" it begins with you. Period.

        If you are an inspiration, others may choose to join you. If you're not, they won't.

        You say, "Maybe you should make sure to write more detailed posts when you throw a little detai you shine far brighter."

        So what you are suggesting is you would like me to compensate for your tendency to jump to erroneous conclusions?

        My post was sincere. It was genuine. I said exactly what I wanted to say; and I meant it.

        That you chose to interpret it as you did is your responsibility, not mine. (However, now that you have asked, I am very happy to clarify my position.)

        You "w to see first hand what needs to to be eradicared from this world, and I want to go out an SOB who leavess a slightly better world than the one I came into."

        I suggest you start small. Start with "Joe." Discover what is amazing about "Joe." "Eradicate" anything that keeps you from seeing your own potential. Eradicate anything that is an obstacle to you actualizing your own innate skills and attributes.

        If you want to make BIG changes, you have to start by making small changes.

        If you have not already done so, I recommend reading about people who have "made a difference" - Gandhi, Mandela, etc. They were humble men.

        QUOTE: I apolAgize for the malice in my first reply perceived or real apathy brings out my passionate side.

        Apology accepted. And I trust you will forgive me for being so direct with you.
      • thumb
        Oct 25 2011: QUOTE: "we are not an advanced civilization until, war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering are viewed not only as avoidable, but totally unacceptable."

        I think there are one or two civilizations that have realized these ideals already ... no?

        When was the last time a Dane or a Swede, started a war, went to bed hungry, or was poor?

        Iceland? New Zealand? Australia? Canada? Argentina?

        But if you mean on a universal, global scale, well, we do still have quite a few rogue nations. And a ways to go.

        Some folks are quite optimistic and have set a "five year deadline" for peace.

        Here's an interesting link:

        While I think these movements are laudable, I prefer a more modest approach - experience peace personally. And - with that - do what I can in my immediate "circle of influence."
        • Oct 25 2011: I guess we will have to disagree on some things. I am cool as hell, soooo... I don't think you should waste any time on me. Spelling errors result from virtual keyboard, first world problems you know.

          Peace, love, and compassion are ideas always worth spreading.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: Hello Thomas
          I Live in Australia and it is a great country but there is plenty of debt and unnecessary suffering and I am sure wherever you look around the world you can find it,not saying there is great people and great places full of kindness and selfishness there is more then you know. i problem is that we have good countries and we have third world countries this shouldn't be the case, but unfortunately its a bi product of our society for one country debt =money, money = debt so for someone to have a lot of money there's going to be a lot of debt. As well the very nature of capitalism drives us to compete against each other rather then help each other, everyone is your competitor whether it be in the classroom, in the workforce, or in the general public most of times the friends you choice to keep are because they can give you advantages and these friends may not be a person of real common interest and that are like minded, the problems lies in that money corrupts. The wealthy buy and control the politicians, courts, judges, media, police, entertainment, and even the universities. They set the agenda and the laws for their own advantage. It is the taxpayers who pay the salaries of the police while they work for the wealthy (who pay very little taxes) to violently put down peaceful protestors who threaten the status quo.
          Those in positions of advantage will not yield their control willingly.
          Calls for stopping wars seems to be a fruitless plea when there is so much money to be made from them. Peace is the brief interval between wars. We have many real problems as a human species, but wars should not be one of them. Wars are the supreme failure of inadequate social structures. Conflicts must be expected when people have unequal access to goods and services. Your only as free as your purchasing power. time is long overdue for us to re-examine our values and to reflect upon and evaluate some of the underlying issues and assumptions we have as a society.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: Thank you for that link, ill defiantly look at there approach.Thank you for informing me of your thoughts on society i find it Informing and also i would like to leave with ideals i try to live by.
          The greatest achievement is selflessness.
          The greatest worth is self-mastery.
          The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.
          The greatest precept is continual awareness.
          The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.
          The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways
          The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.
          The greatest patience is humility.
          The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
          The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
          The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearance.
      • thumb
        Oct 25 2011: Agreement is not a necessary goal. Understanding is worth working for. If we waited for "universal" agreement to do anything we would still be hanging out in trees.

        I don't consider time spent in a lively exchange as wasted. I enjoy it. And I usually learn a thing or two.

        I thought your typing was the new style that has originated with texting OMG ur 2 ... w8 ... CU.

        I'm very old school, I even write in full the days of the week and numbers up to ten .. Wednesday, one, two, ....
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Hi Steven,

        Thanks for your thoughtful reply and your list of precepts.

        I understand and appreciate your point of view and I think it important that a certain number of use look at the world the way you do, and act accordingly.

        I also think it's important that others (well, at least, one) look at the world the way I do.

        I do not think one view is better than the other, I think they both have their place.

        For example, I am not THAT interested in "systems" (capitalism, democracy, socialism, religion, management, etc.) I am more interested in individuals. After all, it is individuals who create, sustain, and transform systems. (I do study systems and I even teach management but they are not my primary concerns.)

        And I do not see peace as an absence of war. I see peace as a presence that can be experienced only by an individual. When enough of us experience "inner peace" then it will have an appreciable impact in the "external" world.

        In my opinion, one "problem" with BIG solutions is they are very often the source of BIGGER problems, problems that we then try to solve with newer, better, and BIGGER systems.

        If we expect our systems, or our environments to make us "happy" (and I believe we do) we will be continually disappointed - unless we are already happy. Then, our systems and environments (within reason) are irrelevant.

        Some of the happiest people I know personally, live in "houses" that are about twelve meters square, have no electricity, have to walk several kilometres to fill a "jerry can" with water, and so on. They are joyful in conditions that would very likely render you and me non-functional.

        Should we improve our systems?


        Will that "make us happy?"

        Not if we are not already happy.
        • Oct 26 2011: I wonder how many babies have died of thirst since I started this conversation... it cant be the system... its me.. its you... guess that hundred million ad campaign for coke was necessary after all... go back to bed world there will be a new Ithing for you in the morning.
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: I agree with you that is its important to appreciate everyone point of view on some level and i appreciate yours. but points of view are based on the perception of reality, from past experiences mentors, teachers, parents, and anything or anyone that has shaped there mind. This is why people from different cultures often have different, values and principle and different way of looking at the world granted its not as extreme with globalization so the environment(society) shapes the individuals wouldn't your agree. and i agree with you on individual peace and happiness and i believe I am at peace with myself as a person and Im happy and thankful for who i am and where i am in this world but the world as whole saddens me, the fact someone can be a millionaire or even billionaire and yet there can be another persons dying of starvation that fact doesn't sit well with me, and i believe we the understanding and the technology to change this globally if people become aware and know that we can do something about it
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: QUOTE: "I wonder how many babies have died of thirst since I started this conversation... it cant be the system... its me.. its you... guess that hundred million ad campaign for coke was necessary after all."

        [Sorry, I originally addressed this to Steven ... but it was Joe, who made comment!]

        Hi Joe,

        I'm sorry, I'm not following you.

        I'm sure you are using emotionally charged phrases (babies dying) for a reason. And how that ties in to a Coke campaign, I'm sure makes sense to you. But again, I am not following you.

        I may be misreading you but you are coming across as angry. Are you angry?
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: no i rarely get angry I am sorry for coming across that way. i did not use phrases such as babies dying. i
        • Oct 26 2011: Disappointed actualy. Angry as well but not at all at you. I was making a point of reality. Yes, I wanted it to have my statement emotionally charged, it should be. Our species has been lacking in that regard. I wanted to point out the the misallocation of resources, we have become accustomed to. You had stated that some people had far less than others and were happy, this I can agree with you on. But you keep talking about how we each individually need to be happy with ourselves, and such and completely dismiss the system we live in. Yes we are all part of this system, and we need to be aware of our own responsibilities, but as long as there are millions of people who die from lack of basic needs of life, while people sit at desks collecting billions for doing nothing, for doing what the system told theam to do... well yes I will be disappointed in my species, and angry at the system.

          Some of this hard to describe to someone who didn't grow up in my generation. An age when Paris Hilton gets an hour a night on television, but wars are shunned. Where you can see a woman stoned to death, or a corrupt goverment slaughter its own citezens, without the filter of mainstream media. Growing up with globe being your neighbor, knowing their is no difference between the people of the world. Knowing the games rigged, and not beleiving the lie that everthing is allright. And having the power to change it ;)
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Hi Steven,

        Yes, sorry for the mixup: I was responding to Joe's comment and mistakenly addressed it to you.

        You do not come across as angry at all!
        • thumb
          Oct 26 2011: no need to apologize mix ups happen. just to but in in regards to Joe i can understand where his anger comes from but perhaps it is misplaced because social change is not brought about by men and women of reason and good will on a personal level. The notion that one can sit and talk to individuals and alter their values is highly improbable. If the person one is talking to does not have the fundamental knowledge of the operation of scientific principles and the processes of natural laws, it is difficult for them to understand how the pieces fit together on a holistic level.
          i can explain that the so-called free-enterprise system creates incentive. This may be true, but it also perpetuates greed, embezzlement, corruption, crime, stress, economic hardship, and insecurity. In addition, the argument that the monetary system and competition generate incentive does not always hold true. Most of our major developments in science and technology have been the result of the efforts of very few individuals working independently and often against great opposition. Such contributors as Goddard, Galileo, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and Einstein were individuals who were genuinely concerned with solving problems and improving processes rather than with mere financial gain. Actually, very often there is much mistrust in those whose incentive is entirely motivated by monetary gain, this can be said for lawyers, businessmen, salesman and those in just about any field.
          and that the ultimate survival of the human species depends upon planning on a global scale and to cooperatively seek out new alternatives with a relative orientation for improved social arrangements. If humankind is to achieve mutual prosperity, universal access to resources is essential. but it realistic doesn't to much to sway someone's opinion or invokes someone to seek change.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Hi Joe,

        I admire your passion. I am sure your generation is unique and you have experienced things no other generation has. That's sort of true for most generations in the last 150 years or so. Before that, things did not change much for generations at a time.

        My father was a farmer. He used horses to plough and work the fields. Electricity was a "novelty" used to illuminate World Fairs and so on. It would have no "practical" use, or so the common wisdom would have it.

        He lived to see people walk on the moon, pacemakers regulate heartbeats, and laptop computers!

        QUOTE: "... you keep talking about how we each individually need to be happy with ourselves, and such and completely dismiss the system we live in."

        I am not dismissing the system, I am focussing on the fundamental building block of the system: The individual.

        We can fix "the system" - and we do need to - but if that which creates the system (that would be you and me) has not also been "changed" it will simply replace the "old system" with a similar "new system."

        Changing the system is dealing with the symptoms. Changing ourselves is dealing with the cause.

        We need to do both if we hope for long-term improvements.

        For example, an angry person would not be very effective at promoting peace; and if that is what they wanted to do, a good first step would be to become peaceful.

        Channel your passion.

        (By the way, using emotionally charged phrases - like dying babies - is a very effective tool - check out "Virus of The Mind" by Richard Brodie.)
        • Oct 26 2011: I was not try to use a phrase. I was expressing reality. Nothing more nothing less, suffering is not a tool, I am not an ad man, this truth. Should I try to cover it up with pleasentries? Anger is not a bad thing. Emotions exist for a reason. Use them responsibly they are powerfull but they are human and sacred lose one and you lose a piece of what it means to human.
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2011: Joe,

        I now you were not "trying" to use a phrase. You actually did "use a phrase."

        Have you noticed you react quite strongly to simple phrases? You imbue them with meaning that the author has not intended.

        Again, you seem to COME ACROSS as angry (you might not be but that is the impression that your writing creates.)

        If you really would like to make the changes you seem to, you might want to consider that emotionalism, in general, and anger, in particular, might be motivating to you personally, but they can also be alienating to those who you interact with.

        For example, if I wanted to participate in the creation of a "perfect society" I would certainly encourage you in your effort but I would not align myself with you on any practical level. You are too volatile emotionally.

        As you say, anger is not a bad thing and it does exist for a reason. Do you know what that reason is?

        I know you are young and it is to be expected you will be passionate and emotional but, if you would like to be a catalyst for change, as I say, it starts with you.

        PS As to the number of babies dying: There are fewer deaths per capita now that at any other time in the history of this wonderful planet earth. And, yes, if we can improve on that even more, that would be a good thing.
    • thumb
      Oct 25 2011: Your answer is surprising, but I like that about it! There is something to be said for being happy with what you have. And if everyone felt that way, then they might not feel the need to exploit other people in their greed for more which is ultimately driven from their own unhappiness with what they have or don't have (be it material goods or wealth or power or love).
  • Oct 24 2011: First we all have to agree on a society being a group, wether small, like the venus project or large like the raman catholic church. We have to agree on the society being part of an overall civilisation, not a all encompassing world population. The ideal society in this case has to be self sustaining, with laws that are based on moral restriction, laws that ignore the prevalent existing of prisons and laws that will allow happyness for each individuals own existence. In other words, you must allow small groups within a society to follow their own religion, allow them to be represented by a forum of his own. New cities are just to inhibitive to personal growth, a kibbutz in Israel will go through many volunteersand many will move on. Like minded people would exhibit a strong resentment for being excluded for reasons that must exist in a structured society. In the arctic, a small village by the name of Kugluktuk, was by appearance very content, not to say happy, a society formed a few hundred years ago. Today with the influx of strangers, like us, since the days of Peary, this small society has chanhed. Hunters still hunt with retsriction, laws imposed by anoother society, us. I Have the strong belief only a small society with the hedgehog defense will be able to exist. The bristly spikes will not allow others to get inside, so the small society can exist. The Venus project is an idealistic approach to a utopian, not future, wishful thinking. Again as the last negative impact I see a certain isolationist idea. Where do you have room for the men that love the out doors, sitting on the porch and look out over their domain. You build new cities you abandom the history we all have, the graves of our ancestors and the monument in our hearts. Where do we go to visit the monuments of Trafalgar, Lord Nelson or George Washington? Where can our children go when new cities are crowde and become another project?
  • thumb
    Oct 24 2011: My perfect society. For me this means I have to think of "what I want in the future that I don't already have?" Then I ask my self "what is it that everyone else wants and does not have?" Since I view motivation and wants as a purely conditioned on the current state of mind (I.E a starving person envisions a world with food.) That is to say in our current state as a species what would be the ideal future?
    Now this is where my philosophical stance plays a huge role. I Could easily see The Venus Project as being a good example of a "Utopian" society where; resources are shared, technology is implemented to improve life, preserve nature, and where we are given necessities of life to allow us to reach our full potential.
    That is a good look however in my opinion we are already in the perfect society. What i mean is, our current state is in an evolutionary process. In our short experiment with civilization not a one has lasted. Our first attempt at a global civilization will fall. I also see the change occurring and the growth persisting. I know the earth can bounce back from our impacts and life will survive. The question is "Will we survive the consequences of our actions?" Also ultimately "Can we mature as a species and step into a role of steward and not of conquer of this world?
  • thumb
    Oct 24 2011: my perfect society would be one without initiation of aggression, and no other rules. it would maximize the freedom and everyone could seek ways to live to their maximum potential. ideas would be treated equal, and their values would be measured solely based on their success. diversity would greatly increase. no lifestyle would be condemned as long as it does not hurt others. free migration and free enterprise would grow to unseen levels. the world would transform into a colorful adventure park, a place of opportunity.
  • thumb
    Oct 24 2011: an Utopia like a Brave New World
    • Oct 24 2011: Would your utopia have "savages" as well?
      • thumb
        Oct 24 2011: ahh.. you see.. i never actually read the book. (that song from curb your enthusiasm starts playing)
  • thumb
    Oct 23 2011: i do not believe will ever obtain a perfect society but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try i have spent a lot of time thinking on how to improve the social structure's of our society, improving government i have written down many system that i believe to be better , but if you your looking into a better vision of society and how to get there something worth looking at Jaque Fresco seems to have some good idea's and makes alot of sense.
    • thumb
      Oct 23 2011: One thing that I wonder about regarding the Venus Project is this: It seems to involve building cities from scratch. (Obviously we're limited by existing infrastructure if we do anything else) I wonder if that is necessary or not? I can see two major problems with it: One is that people get very attached to "home" and that includes inefficient old buildings with history etc. The other is that it seems like a waste to throw away what we have and start over. Maybe that's sentimental. It would be interesting to see plans for some sort of a "test-city" though would it not?
      • thumb
        Oct 24 2011: i completely agree with you, but the new city does make sense, in a lot of ways and in some ways it doesn't but i do agree with there approach for society but even if he move in that direction a little i think we will have a better system. but there is a place called auraville, In India i believe that have a similar resourced based economy and its been working very well for over 70 years and the population is over 2000 if i remember correctly, and there based on low tech so this gives me hope for our future. the best way to see if it work work would be a test city. in the meantime i believe people need to realize are system is seriously flawed and corrupt and we need to stating working on ways to give more power to the people, and free education to all
      • Oct 24 2011: I am well familiar with the venus project, and think it has many good ideas incorporated into it. I asked myself the same question once Letitia, and I came upon the conclusion that the city envisioned is more an optimum blueprint rather than an end all final draft. I think every city in the world could incorporate some if not all of the functions described, by Mr. Fresco. We didn't have to destroy our cities when we wanted to incorporate modern plumbing, electrical wiring, etc. Also there are many technologies which will be invented, that we cannot possibly foresee which could outdate some of the ideas in the venus project.To sum it up the venus project isn't a cookie cutter, its the dough.
  • thumb
    Oct 23 2011: New Zealand from the Chrysalids is coming to mind...hahaha! (Lets hope that by the time we get around to creating the perfect society the rest of the world looks NOTHING like that! Although the mutants are cool...)

    Anyway, in all seriousness I am so excited that these kinds of questions are on people's minds! I remember worrying about everything as a kid: Global warming and pollution and AIDS and privatization of social services...and its really exciting to be growing up and finding your place in a world where people have had enough and are ready to start doing something about these issues.

    I'd like to see an economic system that encourages creating quality goods and services and is less wasteful, social structure where people cooperate instead of competing (this is probably tied to the economic system), and government that serves a function in society instead of perpetuating itself with little contact with the voters who are supposed to be in control.

    If I could design things any way I'd like I'd really like to see a return to more communal living. I think that one house per family is a wasteful way of living, that high divorce rates have a lot to do with couples sharing a lot of responsibilities just between two and being each other's primary companion. And I think we've minimized very important bonds between different age groups like grandparent-grandchild relationships in our current social structure.

    How to achieve these goals? I don't pretend to know but I think talking about it is a good start :) Thanks for the post!
  • thumb
    Oct 23 2011: Society is like the air, necessary to breathe but insufficient to live on.
    George Santayana
  • Oct 23 2011: In my vision of 'perfect society' it all hinges upon good people that are willing to listen, empathize, think rationally, be skeptical, and care about the world. I think if you have a whole society of those kind of people, then it would be perfect.

    How to achieve this idea:
    -The education system would be absolute key here. Teachers set forth mechanisms for independent learning: how to research, how to think logically, how to empathize with someone different, and how to listen.
  • thumb
    Oct 23 2011: Norway.

    1. Norway has no crime, in comparison with the U.S.
    2. They take care of their own. Free universal healthcare.
    3. It is filled with harmony. They don't fight over religious points of views.
    4. The government REALLY has the people's best interest at heart.
    5. Prisons are nearly empty, schools are full, and free, forever.
    6. Jobs pay well and unemployment is almost nonexistent.
    • thumb
      Oct 23 2011: Norway like other countries has its own problems. (many of them are enviornmental)

      Norway's economy really revolves around three things: Oil, Tourism, and Fishing.

      Tourist create a lot of pollution and if the economy is bad in other countries (USA, Europe, Etc.) then tourism is likely down.

      While oil is making Norway wealthy it will not last forever. Eventaully new energy solutions will arise or the oil supply will run out and Norway will have a large problem.

      Pollution and overfishing have caused fishers to lose profits and the number of fish they catch is down dramatically cauing the price of seafood to rise.

      Norway has applied to become a member of the EU but has been refused several times making travel and trade to Norway more difficult than with other European countries.

      Yes, Norway is a lot better of then other parts of the world (Rest of Europe, America, Etc.) but they still face many real challenges like every country/society faces.

      No country is perfect and no country can be perfect. There will be people that want to harm others (Commit crime). There will be problems with illegal immigration and with the short term economy in every country. With that being said, my idea of a country that has solved many of these problems is a democratic union that is midsized in both population and land. The birthrate is zero and enemployment is low. Healthcare is recieved when born. The government has subsides food for the poor so that no one will go hungry, ever. Education is prioritized and the country creates its own power using Hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal.