I am curious what other people’s goals for society are and why. In a recent discussion I brought up a couple potential goals and I am curious what other goals for society people around here have.
Optimal technological and evolutionary advancement of the species. I believe that even though we have “won” the fight for survival on this planet eventually we’ll be put into a situation where we will once again struggle to survive as a species. This could be due to anything from astronomic events to aliens that threaten our planet, solar system or galaxy. When that time comes I want humanity to be as prepared as possible.
Also, I like to see new technology and it brings me personal enjoyment to find out about some cool new technology. Because of this, I want society to progress in a way that results in the highest output of technological advancements.
Another point of view that EvilSocialistFellow took is advancement without willingness to sacrifice humans along the way. This is similar to above with a desire for success of the species but with the caveat that no one along the way can be sacrificed for the greater good.
A common stance taken by socialists is that all humans should have an equal quality of life. I can’t really expand on this one much since I don’t fully understand it but none the less I have run into plenty of people who have this for a goal of society.
What about you? As far as society goes, what would you like to see and why do you want to see it? I’m not talking about a political system (anarchy, minarchy, libertarianism, socialism, etc.) as a political system is just a way to reach a goal. A goal is more along the lines of what do you want to see society/humanity do/accomplish/become, not how will it get there.
Edit:
It seems that the purpose of this post was misunderstood so I have explained it in a different way in a reply a few posts down: Goals for Society?
The idea of an equal quality of life for everybody simply isn’t doable - what one person considers the good life may be hell on earth for another(for example, there’s really no way to create an “equal” lifestyle between an office worker and a pioneer). The closest possible goal would be to allow everybody to lead the life they wish(though that does need to be qualified for people like de Sade).
I’d rather people chose their own goals. I’m not in a position to chose what is best for “society,” (not that a society can have goals in the first place - only people have goals) and neither is anybody else.
.. But if it’s a purely personal thing, it’d be pretty sweet to have a personable jetpack or something. Society has to get on that pronto.
That’s equal life, not equal quality. Equal quality is when the office worker and the pioneer both have the kinds of things they need to live an equally fulfilling lifestyle.
Honestly I think striving for equality specifically is putting the cart before the horse. In making everyone’s life optimal for them, you get equality. Valuing the equality over the optimality is… well it’s just stupid.
I think the well-being of the people of society is a noble goal achievable via capitalism. Not necessarily everyone’s material well being (not that its not important), but the well-being of not be afraid of the state, the well being of not being ashamed of individuality and success.
I agree with Micah that the advancement on humanity is an important goal. I doubt we will be wiped out by aliens(if they are advanced enough to find us, shouldn’t they be somewhat libertarian?). We have basically progressed past survivial mode, which was no small accomplishment. The only caveat is that we are still vulnerable by all being on the same planet. Our basic needs are already taken care of: food, shelter, water and community. We have accomplished so much already: heated indoor plumbing, electricity, flight, space travel, etc. Humanity’s desires are infinite, not only for basics, but for dreams as grand as time travel and immortality. Humans will always be chasing these things and the great story of humanity is not the politicians, wars or socialist idealogies; but the never-ending push to achieve.
The question is nonsense. It’s like asking what someone’s goals for the universe are. The universe doesn’t give a shit what your “goals” are for it, and neither does society.
It seems that the point of this post is being missed here so I’ll try to clarify. Very often on these forums people debate about which society is more optimal or which society is more moral or some combination of morality/efficiency. What I don’t see people talking about though is why they care which society is more optimal or more moral. I feel that a lot of the debates come down to a core difference in the ‘why’ between the participants.
For example, I can argue until my face is blue that anarchy is more optimal than anything else when it comes to the advancement of science and technology but if the person I am arguing with doesn’t care about those things and instead cares only about increasing the quality of life for disabled people my arguments will fall on deaf ears.
This post is an attempt to get people to do a bit of introspection and figure out why you argue for one type of society or another (anarchy, minarchy, libertarianism, etc.). Personally, I argue for anarchy because I want to see humanity’s science and technology boom as much as possible, regardless the cost. Some of you want to see that as well but at the same time you do not want to see certain moral guidelines being sacrificed in the process (such as child abuse in a recent thread). Others have a very strong sense of a set of ‘natural laws’ that they feel need to be adhered to first and foremost, after those are met then humanity can focus on technological advancement. Some people don’t care about technological advancement but instead want to focus on simply increasing their personal quality of life as much as possible using the technology currently available.
All of these different ‘goals for society’ are in some kind of opposition to each other. You cannot have any two of them to the extreme at the same time and I think this is why a lot of debates result in no one really agreeing. They all want different things from society.
I think what you’re touching on here is the “how” to go about achieving goals. I thought everyone’s goals were pretty much falling into one of only a few catagories. They either want everyone to be as happy and comfortable as possible, or just themselves to be happy and comfortable as possible, while having most everyone else subordinate in some way.
Can anyone really present another held view?
I would certainly hope someone who cares about increasing the quality of life for disabled people would have an interest in the advancement of science and technology. If they don’t, then I’m not exactly sure how they presume to achieve their goal.
I think this is a categorical mistake and I think that there is no difference between arguing for anarchism as a collective outcome and arguing for socialism or a drug-free society as a collective outcome. Here’s my post on the subject:
My goal is to make society more intelligent (i.e., to raise the population’s average ability to learn). I believe that making people more intelligent would improve everyone’s quality of life and increase our species’s odds of long-term survival (which is another important goal). Humans should be selectively bred to make this happen.
This goes without saying, but genocide is an absolutely unacceptable way to make the population more intelligent on average. Human rights violations aside, killing people who are even minimally productive decreases our odds of long-term survival since it reduces the positive externalities that most people produce.
This is morally repulsive and anti-human. Selective breeding implies preventing people who would have voluntarily bred with one another from doing so (specifically, preventing the best women from being bred by men who are “inferior”), it also implies redistribution of resources from the offspring of those who are inferior to the offspring of those who are superior.
Leaving aside the obvious moral problems, it also just won’t work. The wise planners who would implement the selective breeding system necessarily know less about the conditions for reproductive success than the entire population does unless you really farm humans in full captivity like cattle. Unless you control the conditions for success, therefore, a distributed population will have greater knowledge of the conditions for success than a wise central planner.
Finally, evidence suggests that intelligence is not the most important criterion for human survival (otherwise, there would not be such a wide distribution in intelligence capabilities in the population) so, even if you did fully captivate all humans in cattle-like manner and began breeding them for intelligence, you would necessarily reduce the chances of human survival.
If you mean that humans should voluntarily breed for intelligence (rather than being bred), this is a separate matter. We are probably becoming smarter over time since a man’s intelligence is a factor in the female mating choice (women do consider intelligence when choosing a mate). Also, intelligence is definitely correlated with economic success which, in turn, is correlated with reproductive success.
Eugenics has always been and should continue to be the domain of individual choice. Women and their parents are Nature’s eugenicists and it is their choice with whom to mate that controls our future. Laws that reduce female reproductive choice (e.g. marriage laws that obstruct polygamy, divorce, remarriage, etc.) must therefore have a dysgenic effect on the population. I just watched the movie Freakonomics where economist Steven Levitt attributes the decline in the crime rate in the 90’s to Roe v. Wade… it just goes to show how important individual choice really is.
This is exactly my point of how it comes down to a difference of goals. He explicitly stated that he was interested in maximizing human intelligence. He did not say he was interested in moral rights, liberties, etc. You can argue all day long about how eugenics are bad for society but it won’t matter to someone who doesn’t care about society but instead only cares about increasing the average human intelligence. However, if you were to argue with his reasoning behing wanting to increase the overall intelligence of humans that would likely be far more successful.
I have no need to “be successful”. Society is indifferent to the “goals” of tyrants and dictators, let alone Internet punks posting from their mother’s basement. Nothing I’ve said is incorrect, I invite you to challenge a specific point.
Can’t an individual want something of a bunch of other individuals?
(Maybe Micah would find it satisfying to see him and the rest of the individuals making up the society in a certain situation, and maybe robertbwell would find it satisfying to see everybody be more intelligent. And wouldn’t those just be 2 examples of somebody wanting something? How’s that outside methodological individualism?)
Would you care about putting an effort into advancing the species in such a way as to aid the next species-wide struggle for survival even if the struggle doesn’t come about until long after you’re dead?