I didn't have much to say about your perspective besides my opinions, and since you didn't address me, I felt it may be inappropriate to intrude. I apologize for not engaging sooner. Here are my thoughts.
- How would you describe your utopian society in terms of religious, political, and social ideology; add a description of how society would be run and structured?
Religious
Secular as fuck but Islamoskeptic. Muslims inherently are dogmatic if you let their influence grow, they literally will turn a place Sharia. Beyond that, very neutral on religion just against cults, especially groomer incest cults as at the very least they should be given a chance (the minors) to get educated and have a chance at freedom.
Circumcision totally outlawed, arranged marriages allowed if consent is present.
Political
Social Democrat / Progressive
Social Ideology
How is this separate or different to the Politics and Religion combined?
Add a description of how society would be run and structured?
That is coming in what you ask next anyway.
Think of Progressive nations' sharing, caring and innovation meeting Right Wing redpill tough, intelligent guy / sexy, healthy and adept girl ethos.
I agree that not allowing destructive religions within a utopian society would be important. Do you believe there would be division within the nation because of the equal respect towards all religions rather than having a national religion? To me this is evident within America where there are many different churches and religious groups that either do not interact or dislike one another.
I don't understand why circumcision needs to be totally outlawed. If someone wants to get a piercing or a tattoo that is completely fine if they consent, so why shouldn't that be a person's personal judgement? I agree arranged marriages should be allowed if they consent. It would seem to me the same as any other marriage that is based on consent. I view arranged as preset or unalterable, which seems to be against what an arranged marriage stands for. In other words, if it's a consent-based marriage, I don't believe it's arranged but I do agree that marriages should be based on consent in a utopian society.
Can you briefly explain how you view the social-democratic/progressive political ideology and why you have chosen this as the utopian political structure?
Suppose an individual decided that religion should not be a part of society. I left social ideology as an alternative way for them to express their ideal structure.
- How would individuals maintain a part of that society and be involved in its affairs?
Depends on the part... wth?
People need to be involved with society in order to feel meaningful and feel as though they are a part of it. If you were in a group but you don't feel like you're part of it, then you don't feel as though you're really part of the group. If you don't feel like you're really a part of the group, you don't feel like your part is meaningful or much of a contribution and therefore you won't put much effort into supporting that group. Alternatively, if you feel as though you are a meaningful part of the group you will, assuming you enjoy being a part of the group, will present your best effort and contribution towards the betterment of the group. For example, in America during World War 1 and 2 there was a saying, "America needs you," and it was on a poster board with Uncle Sam as the face of America. If you're familiar with the book 1984, it's similar to Big Brother. People have a hard time addressing emotion or feelings towards an abstract idea, but once that personification is reduced into a human form it is more easily associable. This is why just like in the book America reduced the abstract concept of itself down to one person which represented America and when that one person which was easily relatable to the average citizen said that they need you they personally understood the affection that America needed them and felt a deep meaning towards their contribution and part of America which is why so many people were motivated to recycle metals and do their part towards winning the war.
My question is, how would people find meaning with being associated with the group and what would their part be that makes them feel engaged.
- How would individuals feel unified within that society? What are the benefits and challenges of creating and sustaining such a society?
They'd not be very unified, it would be pretty individualistic but in such a way that all individuals are compelled to care and help others with being a ruthless, totaly narcissistic prick being shamed, ridiculed etc.
It wouldn't be much of a group if everyone was independent. Perhaps people could be unified towards their mutual value towards individual sovereignty as was previously explained to me. However, I believe that a stronger unification can be by more common similarity between the individuals than just their value towards individual sovereignty. A person only has a friend who they resonate with, the less they are in common the less likely they will be friends and a person who has no commonalities is not a person's friend. The more commonalities and historical experience you have with another person the more memory and past you can share with a person and the more commonalities you feel with that person which builds to a stronger friendship. If you are in a nation and you feel like the nation is one with you and you are friend of the nation or a part of the group that makes you feel as though your friend of the nation you will have a much stronger relationship and motivation to support your nation than if you feel like you have a mild association with a person who values one thing that you do.
Ultimately, I believe that having a stronger connection than just the value of individual sovereignty is important towards building a strong unified utopian society.
- What are the sources of inspiration or influence for your utopian society?
Plato's Republic partly, mostly just modern day Western Europe plus Scandinavia. You could really include Japan in this and Australia plus NZ. Canada used to be an inspiration but it's going too whackjob left-wing rather than smart left-wing as of late and there is a dangerous right-wing movement in it and biker gangs etc that are armed with firearms even.
I have also heard many things about Canada that have not changed for the better in my opinion. I do agree that Japan has been an influence towards my society as Japan has a strong collectivist mentality and a strong pride towards their nationalism and honor which creates unification and builds bonds between individuals of the society. I believe it's important that a society is not entirely founded upon individual sovereignty or national sovereignty. If it is founded entirely upon individual sovereignty, then the nation will not be protected, and unification will be minimal. If it is founded entirely upon national sovereignty, the individuals will not feel respected or valued as important members of society. I believe that there is a balance that is necessary to create the utopian society and that it would be closely related with a collectivist mentality or a national sovereignty foundation, but also has human rights and shows Its value and importance to the citizens more than a purely nationalistic country.
- Would there be a code of conduct and commonly held values and what would their purpose be?
Yes.
Love and nurture one another, be true to who you are but realise that someone else being true to who they are may conflict with that and at such times value security and progress above any other thing.
I want a safe population that is then using that safety to progress and push boundaries, new movie subgenres, new musical shit, new science discoveries and all that jazz. I want more knowledge of BDSM and kinky sex, porn shouldn't be taboo but frequently being a slut/thot should be somewhat discouraged within reason (men can be sluts and thots too under my definition, it should be discouraged for both). I'd much rather teenagers learn to be masturbating virgins, focused on school and shit, urges out their system, no shame doing it or enjoying stimulating material for it, rather than it all being taboo and a tonne of goddamn pregnancies and STIs to deal with (not to mention broken hearts, being cheated on stings worse if they had sex, let's be realistic).
I get some people have this stigma and pride attached where they don't want to be branded 'virgin loser' but seriously is it that hard to wait for your first relationship or at least until 20 to do so? I don't get it, maybe never will to the day I die.
Intelligence should also be valued but creativity and progress held above that as well as security. I want everyone trained to a medium level in striking martial arts, no mercy if someone is a threat to someone, you hear a scream nearby go in, swords wielded. I think of it like a new age samurai culture of sorts (not the corrupt Shogun stuff, just Samurai ethos), knife crime solved by making everyone extremely capable at it but ofc the police force and military most so and they will have firearms and tasers too, nobody else will.
I agree that many things that have been made taboo were done for religious reasons and being in the past religion was the unification of the country things that destroyed belief towards the religion such as not valuing oneself or the law of the religion such as sex was detrimental to the belief in the religion and therefore to the country's unification. In other words, disrespecting religion led to destruction of the country's point of national association. This is why merely making religious controversies legal would be devastating for a country that is unified based upon religion. However, I agree that things such as you describe should not be made illegal and that it should be up to the individuals. In order to accomplish this without the incredible impact of destabilizing the unification of the country, we must first find a new point to unify the nation that these illegal acts would not harm. Perhaps, once the nation has found a new philosophical framework that is not religious in the traditional sense so that things such as you described would not decrease faith in the moral code, then it could be allowed and not harmed the nation.
Why do you believe security should be the greatest value followed by creativity and progress and least of all intelligence? Personally, I would value contribution to the country over anything else. For instance, if an individual creates a component to a new assembly line product, they have taken part in a fraction of everything that has been derived from that, and their contribution would be the sum of their fraction of contribution to each of the appliances. Though, I am not sure how society would measure contribution in terms of either of our metrics.
