Introduction
Questions
A Small-Scale
Utopia
A Global
Utopia
Introduction
Why would anyone want to design a utopia? There are several reasons. The most important is that utopian thought is essential to social change. Without a vision of something better, something that inspires, the chance of social progress is low; and the clearer the vision, the better the chances of achieving it.
While the idea of overhauling society as a whole can be daunting, utopian thought does not have to be applied on a global scale to be of value. In fact, it often serves as the impetus for small experiments, which serve as models. These models can and sometimes do become the triggers for the adoption of ideas which, except for the models, would never have been adopted wholesale.
Given this, the importance of utopian thought in the present situation seems obvious. We’re faced with massive ecological destruction (so massive that the survival of the human species might well be in doubt), overpopulation, a seemingly never-ending arms build-up, new, inadequately tested, and sometimes incredibly dangerous technologies, and murderous religious fanatics and amoral corporations utilizing many of these technologies. A way out is clearly needed, and utopian thought can point the way.
Simply considering the questions presented in this pamphlet can help us to understand that the present social, political, and economic systems are human inventions, and that we, collectively, have the power to change them. Beyond helping to produce this understanding, the purpose of this pamphlet is to help those using it to clarify their own ideas, values, desires, and relationship to others. Awareness precedes action, and the higher our level of awareness, the higher our chances of achieving a humanistic reorganization of society.
NOTES: This questionnaire was designed to be of use to both those interested in small, intentional communities and those interested in broad, global transformation. A few of the questions below are specific to small communities, while a few others are specific to global utopias; the large majority of questions are applicable to both. Use your common sense in deciding which questions are applicable to your vision.
To avoid fatigue, we suggest that you only answer the questions in one or two sections at a time. We’d also suggest that if you’re answering this questionnaire as an individual activity, you write out your answers rather than give them verbally or mentally in order to attain greater clarity. In a group-activity format it would probably be more useful to answer questions verbally.
As a final note, we should acknowledge that the inspiration for this pamphlet came from a utopia-design questionnaire written in the 1970s by Peyton Richter and Walter Fogg. We should further note that the questions in Richter’s and Fogg’s work bear very little resemblance to those in the present questionnaire.
I.
Scope
1. Would your
utopia be a global utopia?
If not, would it be a
nation state? A bioregion?
A city? An eco-village
or other type of intentional
community? If none of
the above, what?
II.
Goals & Values
1. What would be the fundamental
values of your utopia?
2. What would be its goals?
3. Would individuals choose
their own goals and values,
or would their goals and
values be those of your
utopian ideology?
III.
Members/Citizens
1. If your utopia was
less than global, what
would be the characteristics
of its population?
2. Would it be open to
all, or would you select
its members? A. If you’d
select members, how and
why would you do so? B.
What would be the criteria
for membership?
3. If your utopia was
small in size, would you
find the physical site
or the community members
first? Why?
4. What would be the rights
of the members of your
utopia?
5. What would be the duties
of the members?
6. Would there be social
stratification (e.g.,
owners and renters, different
roles for males and females)
in your utopia?
7. If there would be social
stratification, what roles
would different classes
of individuals play? Why?
IV.
Children & Education
1. Would the number of
children per parent be
limited in your utopia?
A. If so, to how many
children? B. Why?
2. Would children live
with their parents? A.
If not, what would be
their living arrangements?
3. What rights would children
have?
4. Would restrictions
be placed on children’s
activities? A. If so,
what restrictions?
5. How would children
be educated? A. Who would
be the educators? B. What
rights would children
have in deciding what
they learned?
6. Would your utopia feature
sex education of children?
A. If so, who would conduct
it? 7. Would the traditional
higher education system
be retained, modified,
or discarded? A. If modified,
how? B. If discarded,
how would your utopia
conduct higher education?
V.
Power & Politics
1. Would your utopia be
based on any particular
political theory? A. If
so, what? B. And why?
2. What form of social
and political organization
would your utopia have?
A. Would it be based on
political authority, with
some giving orders and
others obeying them in
a vertical, hierarchical
structure, as at present?
B. Or would it be based
on voluntary cooperation
in a horizontal, noncoercive
structure?
3. What would your decision-making
process(es) be?
4. Would you have a constitution,
other written agreement(s),
or verbal agreements?
5. How would officials
or coordinators be selected?
6. How would you deal
with abuse of authority
by officials or coordinators?
VI.
Economics, Work, and Leisure
1. How would production
and distribution be organized
in your utopia?
2. Would your utopia retain
the use of money? A. If
not, would there be a
means of exchange? a.
If so, what?
3. How would work be compensated?
A. Would everyone receive
equal compensation for
hours worked? B. Would
those who do dangerous
or unpleasant work receive
extra compensation or
work fewer hours than
those doing pleasant work?
C. Would access to community
goods and services be
based solely on need or
want, and not connected
to work? a. If so, given
present social conditioning,
how would you prevent
parasitism?
4. How would people determine
what jobs they do?
5. Who would do economic
planning? A. How—what
would be the process?
6. Would your utopia have
sustainable economics
(that is, economic processes
that do not deplete or
destroy unrenewable natural
resources)? A. If so,
how would your sustainable
system differ from the
current system? B. If
so, how would you transition
from the current economic
system to a sustainable
system?
7. Would your utopia be
based on private property?
Common ownership? Or a
combination of the two?
A. If the latter, what
would that combination
be?
8. How many hours per
day would your utopians
work?
9. Would the standard
of living in your utopia
be poverty level (voluntary
simplicity), middle class,
or high on the hog?
10. Would you set aside
time for play and creative
pursuits? A. How important
would such time be in
comparison with work time?
VII.
Sex, Sex Roles, &
Gender Differences
1. Would men and women
live together in your
utopia, or do you envision
a sexually separatist
utopia? A. If so, why?
B. And how would you achieve
it?
2. Would the roles of
women and men vary in
your utopia? A. If so,
how? 3. Would the nuclear
family be retained? A.
If not, what would replace
it?
4. Would marriage be retained?
A. If so, who would conduct
the ceremonies? B. Would
married people have any
rights or obligations
beyond those of single
people or those in alternative
relationships? C. Would
gay marriages be recognized?
5. Would “alternative”
relationships (gay/lesbian,
bi, polyamorous, etc.)
be prohibited, discouraged,
tolerated, or encouraged?
A. If only some forms
of relationships would
be discouraged, tolerated,
or encouraged, which ones
would they be, and why?
6. Would your utopia encourage
sexual freedom?
7. Would women and men
be equally free sexually?
8. Would abortion be available
on demand? A. Would men
have rights in making
this decision? B. If so,
whose decision would be
final? C. If abortion
was not available on demand,
what criteria would be
used in determining eligibility
for abortion? a. And who
would make the final decision?
9. How would your utopia
deal with sexually transmitted
diseases?
10. What would be the
attitude toward youthful
sexual experimentation?
11. Would your utopia
address problems of sexual
jealousy and possessiveness
when they arise? A. If
so, would it do so openly
(publicly)? a. Why would
you choose to do this
publicly? B. Or would
such problems be dealt
with privately? a. Why
would you choose to do
this privately? C. In
either case, what procedure(s)
would be used?
12. Would your utopia
ban, tolerate, or encourage
public nudity? A. If you’d
ban it, why would you
do so? B. If your utopia
would tolerate nudity,
would it be acceptable
in all places and at all
times? a. Why? C. If nudity
would not be acceptable
in all places and at all
times, what restrictions
would you place on it?
a. Why? D. If you’d
encourage public nudity,
why would you do so?
13. Would any kinds of
sexual relations be banned
in your utopia? A. If
so, what kinds? B. Why?
VIII.
Science & Technology
1. Would your utopia encourage
scientific research? A.
If yes, would it be in
all fields? B. If not
in all fields, in which
fields would research
be encouraged and in which
would it be discouraged?
a. Why?
2. Would technological
development be encouraged
in all areas? A. If not,
which technologies would
be encouraged and which
discouraged? a. Why?
3. Would your utopia abandon
any technologies? A. If
so, which ones? B. Why?
4. What would be the energy
sources to drive your
utopia? A. Why would you
use these particular energy
sources?
5. Would any energy sources
be banned? A. If so, which
ones? B. Why?
6. What if any role would
the new reproductive technologies
have? A. Who, if anyone,
would have access to these
technologies? B. Would
genetic manipulation be
permitted in order to
choose the sex of offspring?
C. Would genetic manipulation
be permitted in order
to choose other characteristics?
a. If so, which characteristics?
b. And why?
7. Would cloning be permitted
in your utopia? A. If
so, who would be allowed
to do it? B. And for what
purposes?
8. Would your utopia allow
life-extension techniques?
A. If so, would you attempt
to extend life indefinitely?
a. If so, why? b. If not,
why not? B. If life extension
techniques were available,
who would have access
to them?
9. Would your utopia explore
outer space or confine
itself to the Earth?
10. How would your utopia
deal with the residues
of present society, such
as nuclear and toxic waste?
IX.
Religion
1. Would there be a division
between religion and other
social and political institutions
in your utopia? A. If
so, why? B. If not, why
not?
2. Would your utopia have
a single religion? A.
If so, what would it be?
B. Why?
3. Would your utopia have
no religion? A. Why?
4. Would your utopia have
many religions? A. If
so, would you place any
restrictions on the types
of religion? B. Why? C.
How would you deal with
religious strife?
5. How would you deal
with cults and gurus?
6. Would your utopia have
rituals and celebrations?
A. If so, what would they
be?
7. Would there be religious
ceremonies concerning
birth, death, marriage,
rites of passage, etc.?
8. Would religion be integrated
into daily life? A. If
so, how?
9. What would be the relationship,
if any, between sex and
religion?
10. Would there be a religious
hierarchy? A. If so, how
would religious leaders
be selected?
11. What would be the
relationship of religion
to science?
12. Would psychoactive
substances have any role
in religion in your utopia?
A. If so, which substances?
B. What would be their
role?
X.
The Arts
1. What would be the role
of the arts in your utopia?
2. Would your utopia distinguish
between art and life?
A. If so, how?
3. Would your utopia encourage
participation in the arts?
A. If so, who would be
encouraged? B. And how?
4. Would you distinguish
between “mere entertainment”
and “serious art”?
A. If so, what would be
the purpose of each? B.
How would you distinguish
between them? C. And who
would make the distinction?
5. Would you make a distinction
between amateur and professional
artists? A. If so, why?
B. What would be the ramifications
of this distinction?
6. Would professional
artists (musicians, dancers,
et al.) pursue their creative
efforts full time, with
the rest of the community
supporting them? A. If
so, who would determine
who would receive public
support?
7. Would there be any
censorship of art in your
utopia? A. If so, what
would be censored? B.
And who would do the censoring?
XI.
The Media
1. What types of media
would exist in your utopia?
2. Who would control the
media?
3. Who would own the media?
4. Would there be any
censorship of the media?
A. If so, what would be
censored? B. Why? C. And
who would do the censoring?
5. Would participation
in the media be open to
all? A. If not, why not?
B. If so, how would this
be achieved?
6. Would intellectual
property be recognized
in your utopia? A. If
so, how?
XII.
The Physical
1. What would be the architecture
of your utopia? A. What
materials and techniques
would be used in building
construction? a. What
would be the underlying
philosophical or ecological
reasons for the use of
these materials and techniques?
2. Would your utopia have
high population density
or low population density?
A. Why? 3. Would your
utopia be urban, rural,
or have elements of both?
A. Why? B. If both, what
would their relationship
be?
4. What kind(s) of transportation
would it use?
5. Would any kinds of
transportation be encouraged
or discouraged? A. If
so, which ones? B. How?
C. And why?
6. How would your utopia
deal with sewage and other
waste products?
7. What would be the relationship
between public space and
private space?
8. Would your utopia have
private, self-contained
dwellings (as at present—
detached houses and self-contained
apartments)?
9. Would it have private,
but non-self-contained
individual living spaces
(without kitchens and
laundry facilities, and
perhaps without private
bathrooms or living rooms)?
A. What kind of buildings
would these living spaces
be in?
10. Would your utopia
have private or communal
dining facilities, or
a combination of the two?
A. If a combination, what
would it be?
11. Would it have a closed
or nearly closed ecosystem,
as in Soleri’s arcology?
12. How would your utopia
deal with noise pollution?
XIII.
Food
1. Would your utopia be
vegetarian, omnivorous,
or would food choice be
an individual matter?
A. If your utopia was
small scale and food choice
was an individual matter,
would you prohibit or
allow the preparation
and consumption of meat
in public kitchens/dining
areas?
2. Would agriculture be
the province of factory
farms, as at present,
or would agricultural
production be carried
on by smaller units? A.
If by smaller units, what
types of units? a. Who
would own and control
the smaller units?
3. Would agriculture utilize
pesticides and chemical
fertilizers, or would
agriculture be organic?
XIV.
Animals
1. Would animals be raised
and slaughtered for food?
A. If so, what kinds of
animals? B. If so, would
this production be under
the present factory system?
a. If not, what system
would replace it? C. Would
free-range production
of food animals be allowed?
a. If so, of what animals?
2. Would hunting be allowed
in your utopia? A. If
so, of what animals?
3. Would animals be used
in laboratory testing?
A. If so, what would be
the limits to this testing?
4. Would animals be kept
as pets? A. If so, what
animals?
5. Would any animals be
banned as pets? A. If
so, what animals? a. Why?
XV.
Health & Medicine
1. Would your utopia utilize
allopathic (western) medicine?
2. Would it utilize alternative
(holistic, herbal, natural,
etc.) approaches? A. If
so, which ones? B. Why
these particular ones?
3. What role would preventative
medicine have?
4. Would everyone have
equal access to medical
treatment? A. If not,
who would have preferential
treatment? a. Why?
5. How would your utopia
deal with mental illness?
A. Would psychotherapeutic
approaches be used? a.
If so, which ones? b.
Why?
6. Would psychiatric drugs
be used?
7. Would “death
with dignity” (voluntary
euthanasia) be allowed
in your utopia?
XVI.
Alcohol and Other Drugs
1. Would alcohol be allowed
in your utopia? A. If
so, what if any restrictions
would be placed on its
use?
2. Would tobacco be allowed?
A. If so, what if any
restrictions would be
placed on its use?
3. Would marijuana be
allowed? A. If so, what
if any restrictions would
be placed on its use?
4. Would other drugs be
allowed? A. If so, which
ones? B. What if any restrictions
would be placed on their
use?
XVII.
Antisocial Behavior and
Conflict Resolution
1. How would your utopia
deal with those who harm
others? A. Force them
to undergo psychiatric
treatment? B. Shun them?
C. Banish them? D. Imprison
them? E. Kill them?
2. Would your utopia have
a formalized system for
dealing with criminal
behavior? A. If not, would
it be dealt with by the
community as a whole?
B. Would punishment be
meted out by victim(s),
their families, and friends?
3. How would your utopia
deal with self-destructive
behaviors?
4. How would it deal with
conflicts between individuals?
5. Would there be a means
of private mediation?
6. Would there be a means
of public mediation?
7. Would your utopia ban
guns?
8. Would your utopia ban
other types of weapons?
A. If so, what types?
XVIII.
Military/War
1. Would your utopia abolish
war, or if a small society
would one of its goals
be the abolition of war?
2. Until war is abolished,
would your utopia have
some kind of self-defense
force? A. If so, would
it be a conventional army
with a rank system and
chain of command? B. If
not as a conventional
army, how would your self-defense
force be organized? a.
As a militia? aa. If so,
who would be its members?
b. How would weapons be
controlled? aa. And by
whom?
3. Would any types of
weapons be banned? A.
If so, which ones? B.
Why?
These questions
are not intended to be
definitive; obviously,
a list such as this can
never be complete. If
you’d have any suggestions
for additional questions
or other improvements,
we’d appreciate
hearing from you via e-mail.
We want to put our ideas
into practice, and to
that end we’re including
a summary of our utopian
vision below. Because
providing answers to all
of the above questions
would take up considerably
more space than the questions
themselves, we’ve
included only a summary
here; still, this does
give a reasonable view
of our goals, desires,
and beliefs. We’d
love to hear from those
of you who have similar
visions, so please contact
us if you'd want to discuss
any of the ideas presented
in this pamphlet.
A Small-Scale Utopia
We envision both an intentional community and, eventually, a global utopia. The goal of the intentional community would be to serve as a model which would, we hope, inspire others to emulate it, contributing to a wave of evolutionary change. Its fundamental values and concepts would be a high degree of individual freedom coupled with a high degree of individual responsibility, voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, freedom of association (and freedom to disassociate) democratic decision making, ecological sustainability, feminism, the personal as political, personal development, creative (especially artistic) involvement, dealing openly with emotional and sexual issues, and healing the rift between the sexes. In short, we’d want a community whose dual goals were broad social change and personal transformation (which we see as inextricably tied). Because we believe that a small-scale utopia will (obviously) be much easier to achieve in the short run than a global utopia, we’re first outlining our vision for an intentional community rather than a global utopia.
In the community we envision, we would want to work with only those who share our fundamental goals, values, and commitments. To attempt to be more “inclusive” would lead to loss of focus. So, finding the right people would be our first goal.
In regard to the physical site, we would want to avoid social stratification through having either common ownership, renting, or a land trust, with all those living there contributing to the costs. We do not want a stratified community with owners and renters.
As for children,
we like the ZEGG model,
in which children live
collectively with a few
adult caretakers in a
“children’s
house.” Their parents
interact with them as
much or as little as is
mutually agreeable, which
we believe is healthier
than inescapable, nuclear
family interaction. As
to education, we would
prefer a “free school”
environment, such as those
pioneered by Francisco
Ferrer and Paolo Freire,
rather than forcing children
to endure captivity in
“public” (government)
indoctrination centers,
where they’d learn
skills and attitudes designed
to turn them into interchangeable
parts.
The decision-making/political
structure we envision
is what was once commonly
called “participatory
democracy.” In a
community setting, this
means that there would
be no government (or individual
rulers), but rather that
the entire community would
make major decisions at
open forums, and that
there would be attempts
to reach consensus before
resorting to voting. It
also means that there
would be considerable
delegation of decision
making on minor matters
to work groups, with their
decisions subject to revocation
by the community as a
whole if controversy arose.
The easiest way for an intentional community to operate economically is to have everyone pay an equal amount for the community’s upkeep (food, rent, utilities, etc.). Due to the economies of scale, this usually works out to a substantial savings over the amount one spends in what-passes-for-normal society. Ideally, we would want a community featuring income and wealth sharing, but it’s a mistake to rush into such things. So, at least to start, we would want a community based only on expense sharing.
We do, however, foresee a community with cooperative and individual businesses; but we would not want to make economic activity the focus of the community. Due to the low living expenses and the economies of communitarian living, we’d expect that those involved would work less than people in consumerist society, and would thus have a considerable amount of time to devote to political work, creative activities, relationships, etc.—in sum, setting up and participating in a counter-institution.
One of the primary focuses of the community we envision would be healing the rift between the sexes and building a society based on partnership rather than domination. This has several implications. First, it would mean that there would be no rigid gender roles, and that men and women would have equal rights and responsibilities. Second, sexual freedom would be encouraged, and men and women would be equally free. Third, experimentation in relationships would also be encouraged, with there being no one “right” kind of relationship (as, in consumerist society, with the nuclear family), as long as relationships were between consenting adults. Another focus would be freeing individuals (especially women) from the burdens of child care, through collective child rearing. Finally, problems of sexual jealousy and possessiveness would be, when necessary, publicly (and compassionately) processed rather than, as at present, in both “straight” society and most intentional communities, ignored.
Science would not be a major focus of our community, but it would not be anti-science, anti-rational, or anti-technology; in fact, it would be pro-science and scientifically aware. The primary reason for this is that intentional communities have limited resources, so scientific/technological efforts would necessarily be focused on inexpensive, low-tech approaches, especially in the ecological/environmental area, which is probably the most critical area of research at the present time. This means things such as sewage disposal/recycling, passive and active solar designs, “green” archi-tecture, and organic agriculture projects.
Our community would not have any formal religion. Instead, it would be united through common dedication to the values, goals, and ideals listed above. Our guiding philosophy (“religion,” if you will) would be the desire to transform the world into a free and loving place, coupled with the belief that everything is intimately connected (the personal, political, economics, the arts, sexuality, nature, etc.) and that a holistic approach is needed for transformation. It would emphasize the personal as political, and especially sexuality, emotions, and love, which we consider key areas.
The arts would be a central part of daily life, with all members encouraged to pursue their interests and develop them to their full potential. This would mean that time would be set aside specifically for artistic pursuits and that a high priority would be placed on giving artists (musicians, dancers, writers, etc.) the physical means necessary to pursue their visions.
Another priority would be communications media, because we see our envisioned community as not only being a model, but as actively promoting that model and its ideals. This would mean active participation in any branch of the media members desired, and an emphasis on providing the means and training for community members who wished to work in the media.
Physically, we envision an urban eco-village. This means that environmentally friendly designs and practices would be followed wherever feasible. This would manifest itself in such things as organic gardening, the use of earth-friendly building methods (such as straw bale construction), incorporation of solar heating and cooling features into all buildings, and a pedestrian/ bicycle-friendly design. While economics might dictate acquiring and retrofitting (an) existing building(s) (such as an old hotel, motel, or warehouse) we’d want to make such buildings as ecologically friendly as possible.
Food choice would also be guided by ecological principles, and, at least in common kitchens, would be restricted to vegetarian food. This has the advantages of being cheaper, simpler, and healthier than omnivorous diets. And, most importantly, it’s kinder to animals.
The use of drugs and alcohol would not be a central part of our community, and we’d hope that community members would forego use of the worst drugs, such as tobacco. Because of possible legal (and health and social) problems, we’d want there to be no use of illegal drugs, and we’d want the use of the legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, to be limited. In the case of tobacco, use would be confined to an area set aside for tobacco smoking, well away from living and common areas.
When anti-social behavior arose, we feel that the best way to deal with it would be openly in public processes. If these failed to resolve the problem, the community would have the right to ask disruptive individuals to leave. To avoid abuse of this process, a super-majority vote (consensus minus two or three) of the full community would be necessary before individuals could be expelled.
Finally, one of the primary goals of the community would be to end violence. This goal would manifest itself in the day-to-day life of the community, and we’d hope it would, through emulation, eventually become a wider social reality.
A Global Utopia
Our global utopia would in many ways mirror our community utopia. We would want a world based on individual freedom, voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, democratic decision making, ecological sustainability, equality between the sexes and races, and a fair distribution of the world’s resources— in other words, a world of equals, not haves and have-nots.
All of this means that individuals would have far greater power over their own lives (both at home and at work) than they do at present, and that work of all kinds would be cooperatively organized and coordinated. This would be diametrically opposite to what now exists in both the capitalist and the “communist” countries, where small elites in fixed positions of power order around everyone else at the figurative, and sometimes literal, point of a gun.
We see education as an essential component of this utopia. In it, competition for grades and position would be eliminated. Instead, children would be encouraged to follow their own interests and to develop their critical thinking abilities. Again, this is the exact opposite of what now exists, where children are forced into a type of Pavlovian conditioning featuring bells, whistles, and domination/ submission rituals, and in which they are taught skills useful to others (government, corporations) rather than to follow their own interests.
As for political institutions, we believe that people are capable of organizing along voluntary, cooperative lines to manage the essential institutions of society. This means an end to coercive, hierarchical organization (government, corporations) and an economy managed by those who produce and distribute goods and services. This is not a pipe dream. It came near to fruition during the Spanish Revolution (1936–1939), and likely would have were it not for the intervention of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union. A good description of how such a democratic, egalitarian system would function is found in Michael Albert’s book, Looking Forward.
One of the essential features in our utopia would be equality between the sexes. We’d want a world in which no one was discriminated against because of race, appearance, or sexual orientation.
In regard to individual behavior, we would want tolerance for any and all behavior up to the point where it becomes directly harmful to others or obnoxiously intrusive.
Science and technology would be important features of our utopia. We’d want a world in which basic scientific research was encouraged, and in which development of appropriate technology was a priority. We would, however, want careful study of the likely ecological and social impacts of technologies before they were developed. (This contrasts greatly with the present, in which the focus is almost solely on potential profitability.) We would also want to abandon nuclear power and weapons technologies. And we’d want to re-evaluate a number of technologies which have obvious dangers, such as the automobile, cloning, and genetic engineering. One area in which we’d want technological development to continue, and in fact accelerate, would be space exploration/colonization. A related desire would be use of technology to expand the range of areas in which humans can live (thus reducing pressure on environmentally sensitive areas).
Religion as we know it—institutions, hoary rituals, and “sacred” texts—would fade away. We’d hope that a way of life based on ecological awareness, social consciousness, and a loving concern for our fellow humans and other creatures would replace what up until now has passed for “religion.” As social misery abates, we’d expect a concomitant decline in traditional religions.
The arts and the media would be important in our utopia, but their roles would be very different from what they are now. Instead of being the province of corporations and the “gifted few,” they would be open to participation by all. In fact, everyone would be encouraged to participate in them—the exact opposite of the present situation in which few people participate in the arts (and even fewer are rewarded for doing so), and in which small elites control the communications media, with almost everyone else reduced to being spectators. We want to reverse this situation; we want to eliminate the communications conglomerates and allow everyone with the desire to have an equal opportunity to participate actively in the arts and media.
Physically, our cities would be very different from those at present. Ultimately, we envision high-density living and working spaces surrounded by parks, agricultural areas, and wilderness, along the lines of Paolo Soleri’s “arcologies” (car-free, high-density, ecological cities). As a bridge, there is much that could be done now to create more livable cities (and to eliminate the ongoing destruction of wilderness and farm lands). First, resources should be shifted away from the private automobile and its supporting mechanisms. Instead, resources should be allocated to alternative forms of transportation such as light railed vehicles, trains, buses, and bicycle paths. Cities should also be made much more pedestrian friendly, with parts of them becoming automobile-free zones. As well, any new develop-ment should come within already-developed areas, not in outlying farming or wilderness areas. All of this would eliminate sprawl, reduce pollution (from automobiles), reduce the amount of time spent commuting, and facilitate social interaction.
Agriculture and the treatment of animals would also be very different from the present. Chemical-based corporate factory farming, and especially the mass production of animals for food, would have to go. Factory farming is in the process of destroying our best agricultural lands (and has already done so in many areas, such as parts of California’s central valley), and must be replaced by sustainable, smaller-scale, organic cooperative farming, which among other things would not systematically poison agricultural workers.
The meat industry as we know it would cease to exist. It’s simply too cruel to continue. For example, chickens today are routinely crowded together in tiny cages with their beaks burned off so that they won’t peck each other to death out of frustration. As well, factory-farm production of meat produces vastly degraded lands (via overgrazing), disease-resistant microbes (via misuse of antibiotics), and vast amounts of pollution, especially from hog farms with lagoons filled with millions upon million of gallons of pig excrement. A simpler approach based on local organic agricultural would be healthier for both people and the environment.
Medical care would be a universal right and would be geared toward preventative medicine, through creating a mentally and physically healthy society. Today, in contrast, most people’s lives are so unsatisfying that there are epidemics of preventable health problems such as obesity, addiction to tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, and simple inactivity due to depression, car dependency, etc. In a healthier society, we would expect obesity, addictions, and depression to gradually disappear as the reasons for them disappear.
One of the great problems in making the transition from our present society to a healthier one is the matter of dealing with anti-social individuals. This is a serious problem, and one for which there is no obvious, completely adequate solution. Our present society produces severely antisocial, dangerous people, and has obviously not found an effective way of dealing with these people, who it produces in droves. We’d also note that the present means of dealing with criminal behavior (police, courts, prisons) is not only cruel (especially in the case of those arrested for victimless “crimes”), but it actually produces more criminal behavior than it prevents, as many sociological studies have shown. We would also point out that exclusive reliance on the police/prison system discourages social cohesion/citizen social involvement, which is the best means of discouraging and dealing with antisocial behavior.
In a transitional society, one would expect a variety of means of dealing with the criminals left over from authoritarian, corporate society. One would hope that most disputes could be resolved through mediation; but one would also expect that victims would sometimes retaliate against those who harmed them. Although in some cases this would be undesirable, at least in the absence of the current legal system victims who retaliate would not, as at present, be victimized a second time by the criminal injustice system (while their victimizers often walk free). In extreme cases, one would expect there to be a mechanism for banishment. While this is far from a perfect solution, it is undoubtedly better than the present nightmare of cops, judges, courts, and prisons—a system which has always been a source of atrocious injustice and victimization of the innocent.
In the long run, one would expect that the number of antisocial individuals would decline, because the social conditions that produce them (poverty, artificial scarcity, racism, sexism, sexual repression [and consequent perversion], etc.) would have vanished. Even in the best of circumstances, this will take decades, and in the meantime the problem of antisocial individuals will continue. There is no perfect solution to the problem of antisocial behavior, but this is hardly a reason to perpetuate the society that is producing this problem.
In regard to war, we envision a global utopia bound together not by military force, but by economic, social, and cultural ties. In the absence of nation states, and in the presence of a multitude of ties between different societies and peoples—and in the absence of the profit motive and its stepchild, economic imperialism—it seems certain that war would vanish. This—a nonviolent, free, egalitarian world—would be the end result of moving from a corporate/government-controlled society rooted in fear, to one based on voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and love.