Once Upon a Time in Postopia, somewhere in the Future
“Our paradise, a time and place we can only reach in our mind. It will be our hope, faith, vision and dream, always ahead of us, giving us meaning in life and something to strive and live for since it will be reached.”
This story seeks to pinpoint basic principle that outperform the expiry dates of former and traditional utopia. Principles which are sustainable and are not solely a contextual reflection of today’s zeitgeist – although time will tell if this is or was not the case in this very instance again ;-). Postopia is also a “realistic” (depending how your personal perspective is on the world and life) conclusion of the Utopian chapter. I deliberately started my grand story with Utopia, to emphasize and promote optimism, positivism and idealism, since the world could be substantially more ideal if we were not disabled by fear, our limited realities and the invisible sacred cows.
The Power of Utopia
Thomas More had major impact on contemporary leaders, missionaries and noblemen, some of which even tried to make More’s ideas “there in Utopia” a reality in the “here and now”. Many utilized untouched soil and green field to built up “utopias” from scratch. But one notable person saw More’s utopia as an escape from reality, a reality with an existing society where there is no elsewhere. It was Machiavelli who in his works “The Prince” or “Discourse on Livy” largely agreed with More’s views on politics and society but clearly did not want to run away from the current state of affairs. Instead, he proposed to target the malfunctions directly and enforce change ‘here’ and ‘now’.
It can be highly frustrating for philosophers, futurists and visionaries to be constraint by the boundaries of the current day rigid affairs and ingrained mindset. In fact, how much of a vision can be built on unjust, immoral, corrupted and erroneous laws, economic and political systems? It is brave for great thinkers to seek and enforce reforms, revolutions and radical change within existing flawed systems. And after brutal force (whether physical or mental) change might have been come about which would “justify the means to the end” and resulted in a state of satisfaction. However, it might have even been more satisfying, liberating and enlightened to limitlessly unleash thoughts on how an utopia would be. Something More felt was the best medium considering his position as free thinker and at the same time an official advisor in a conversative monarchy.
But many might still agree with Machiavelli and consider utopianism as pies in the sky, and what has come from those pies they might argue. Haven’t they all become a product of our historical zeitgeists or victims to an inevitable dystopia after all. As mentioned, past and current Utopia’s of any kind are highly susceptible by the zeitgeist in which they are born and bred. But this doesn’t always fully disqualify it’s impact.
In contrast, many utopias have contributed to accelerate societies from one taken for granted (unconscious) zeitgeist into an improved one. And having arrived at a new zeitgeist unlocks new wisdom which enable us to get new insights in order to imagine renewed utopias and evolve to the next zeitgeist and so on. In short, utopianism whether pure imagination or not, is beneficial for all of us. Or, in Ernst Bloch (author of “The Principle of Hope”) words “The spirit of utopia becomes a way of thinking about becoming as opposed to what has become; what is emerging, as opposed to what is fixed and static” he adds that it “provides the content of the hope principle”, the hope for a better world!
Utopian thinking might be the only mental tool we have to accelerate our evolvement and get us passed the hordes in human life as a collective. Moreover, Utopianism is essential for human progression and the only tool we all (potentially) posses to avoid regression.
Beyond Utopia
In previous section we agreed that there is no such thing as a blueprint nor a ‘perfect state’ to be achieved. First of all, any proposed utopia is seen from a certain perspective, secondly for each utopia’s proposer an opposer can be find (making one’s utopia someone else’s dystopia) and thirdly, whenever we have reached a ‘past’ utopia only than we see the flaws and room for improvement to achieve an even better or new utopia.
In addition, as stated before, an utopia effectively is mostly if not always a mixture of all categories described in Utopianalysis. In fact, if it would be purely ‘spiritual, contextual, social or ecological’ it is merely an envisioning of the ideal state of what solely architecture, politics, sociology, religion or ecology could look like in isolation. But in reality everything is intertwined whether we like it or not. In short, an utopia should at least take into account all aspects and then again intend to seek the balance in finding a universal and ideally fluid configuration which serves all in society at all time.
Moreover, we have to think beyond utopia, or in other words post-utopia, hence postopia. As alternative of Postopia I long thought about Happytopia, since making the nation, world or universe a place whereby ‘happiness’ for all is the starting point and purpose, it would provide an timless utopia. But before doing so, let’s first have common ground on what we mean with happiness on which I will elaborate later.
In an Postopia our drivers are intrinsic and visions are the same, it doesn’t matter when, what and where we do, act and start, the starting point and the purpose of our doings will all contribute to the same better world or universe for that matter. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t propose sameness as often implied in utopian science fiction novels. With the same vision it doesn’t matter what shapes, colors, sizes and structures our context has, everybody can still express him- or herself individually or as a society as they please.
And it is speculation of course, but it is highly probably that if in the past and present world we (the world) acted as one with one vision and didn’t get stuck in a ‘prisoners dilemna’[1]) the human race would already been far ahead of it’s current state of development, being and potential. More about this in Team Earth! However, the good thing, we (in 2019) know this principle as opposed to our less insightful and wise ancestors in the year 0, 1000 or 1900 for that matter. And being aware of a problem is the first step towards acknowledging it and making a change. Or in psychological terms, it is an opportunity to break our “addiction cycle” (the behavior, rituals, emotional triggers and cravings of our ego-driven society which we are accustomed to) and replace the unhealthy behaviors and actions (for nature and mankind) into healthy ones.
In fact, it is a simple change in our decision making, whether it be for small or big choices, a start would be to make ‘each and everyone’s happiness the primary objective of our actions, purposes, ambitions and existence. No, this does not mean we all have to work for NGO’s now or do something in the stereotypical “social” sectors such as health, green energy, development cooperation or the like. In contrast, we still need tables, glasses, clothes, communication devices, entertainment and pretty much everything you see around.
The difference is, how did these things (or services) came about? Or, to go back to yourself, in your daily life and work, what does your company, your team, your job entail? Is it making products from ecological and Fairtrade materials, is it social-driven or money driven, is it taking good care of colleagues. In short, does it make you and those involved “happy” or not? And if the answer is “yes”, then pretty much all can still exist, the only thing that changes is the drivers, manner and purpose of it, that’s it!
Any imaginary perfect place which is not created with the principle idea of universal and sustainable happiness (more about it later) is neglecting a large part of the population by definition and therefore bound to (soon) be dystopian (for othres). So that should be a basic principle as a starting point before building an imaginary ideal future.
So, we have a start, then, how do we address the diversity of a nations, continents or the earth’s population? Does this leave us in an inevitable concession-Utopia? Satisfying all as much as possible but at the same time not satisfying anybody to the fullest? I think not, the following four bottom lines are compatible which each and everyone’s individual utopia:
One Rule: No harm to living beings and nature…
One Principle: We are one (team)… = A world of talents to be actualized, synthesized and synergized.
One Vision: Anticipating a harmonious and liveable (for all) earth and universe…
One How-to: Achieving sustainable happiness for all = Reaching each and everyone’s full potential
And however you would like to interpret the above four bottom-lines, those in not any way imply specific rituals, behavior, appearances or epressions. I think everyone, in his or her own way can understand the meaning of it and it is not a detailed utopia, like a handbook, but (hence) postopia since it provides one compatible belief for all, unifying, harmonious, inclusive and based on ubiquitous progression.
Sargent, a great contributor on the science and topic of Uoptia, argues that Utopia’s nature is inherently contradictory, because societies are not homogeneous and have desires which conflict and therefore cannot simultaneously be satisfied. In addition, if any two desires cannot be simultaneously satisfied, true utopia cannot be attained because in utopia all desires are satisfied. Looking to history and the present-day, I agree with Sargent a 100%. Moreover, Utopianism should never become extremism, an individual or collective rigid belief which polarizes, excludes, destruct and privilege one’s progression above some else’s regression. Such Utopias[3] miss the point and it are dangerous.
Nevertheless, as optimistic and positive as I am (call me a dreamer), with the four bottom-lines – the Postopia – in mind we can only accelerate towards our full potential and happiness!
[1] In short and to put it simple, in a prisoners dilemma the most benefits can be yield when one can trust another blindly, even if it puts oneself in a vulnerable position. Reality however shows that many geopolitical relations are not based on trust which leads to a sub-optimal situation where nations (out of distrust) spend unnecessarily large amounts of resources and effort in human-destructive matters such as nuclear weapons, bombs and what have you to defend or attack the neighbors in this small earth.