“Utopia” is in the title and specifies stasis. Any plan specifies stasis on some level because you can’t plan unending change.
If the configuration of society is isolated as the only element of importance, and you have full control over the configuration of society, and you need to give an acceptable solution to the configuration of society, you get stasis in the configuration of society or there’s no point.
You’re bringing a lot of assumptions to the table. Basically every statement you made just now was not included in the OP.
You can design a system to be flexible and resilient in the face of inevitable change, without actually planning the change itself. Will that work? Well, probably not, just as most static utopias probably won’t work.
You can also plan/allow for change that isn’t about the configuration of society (nowhere was it implied at all that configuration of society was the only variable you cared about. The only stipulation was that manipulation of biology, nanotech, etc, were the only variables you couldn’t mess with).
Well that’s silly. If I can manipulate everything except the human condition and technology, then I can create such an extreme surplus of resources that all the problems not directly related to technology or the configuration of society just disappear. If you take away tech advancement, that just leaves the configuration of society. Plus, I thought he was pretty clear at first that we were supposed to be looking for sociological solutions to the problem.
And you just agreed that any plan that we come up with will fade with time and become irrelevant. I still say that either we advance in some way, or considering the system on a societal level is not worth it.
“Utopia” is in the title and specifies stasis. Any plan specifies stasis on some level because you can’t plan unending change.
If the configuration of society is isolated as the only element of importance, and you have full control over the configuration of society, and you need to give an acceptable solution to the configuration of society, you get stasis in the configuration of society or there’s no point.
You’re bringing a lot of assumptions to the table. Basically every statement you made just now was not included in the OP.
You can design a system to be flexible and resilient in the face of inevitable change, without actually planning the change itself. Will that work? Well, probably not, just as most static utopias probably won’t work.
You can also plan/allow for change that isn’t about the configuration of society (nowhere was it implied at all that configuration of society was the only variable you cared about. The only stipulation was that manipulation of biology, nanotech, etc, were the only variables you couldn’t mess with).
Well that’s silly. If I can manipulate everything except the human condition and technology, then I can create such an extreme surplus of resources that all the problems not directly related to technology or the configuration of society just disappear. If you take away tech advancement, that just leaves the configuration of society. Plus, I thought he was pretty clear at first that we were supposed to be looking for sociological solutions to the problem.
And you just agreed that any plan that we come up with will fade with time and become irrelevant. I still say that either we advance in some way, or considering the system on a societal level is not worth it.