Utopian Design

To design something we must first know what it is we are trying to achieve. In order to design a utopia we must first be able to define one, which is easier said than done. A general description of a utopia is a perfect society yet such a definition requires two further definitions for both ‘perfect’ and ‘society’. The latter is very context dependant and contains many nuances dependant on its different uses and will be the subject of an essay in it’s own right but for the purposes of this one it is assumed we are able to appreciate the specific context in  which society is used. The word ‘perfect’ is subjective in that each person may deem a different set of conditions to constitute perfection. A utopia is then a subjective description of the authors ideas of perfection imposed on a society.

Most utopian authors will design their society around a principle they deem to encompass virtues. They will then seek to design ways of maximising the effect of that principle. Fourier and Rousseau constructed their ideas over a framework of freedom. Marx and Bellamy preferred the principle of equality while the utopian giant Plato founded his on the idea of justice. While each of these principles is both virtuous and desirable to some degree it is also the case than any one of these in isolation, with no consideration to other virtuous principles, would give rise to a severely lacking society. The complex and variable nature of societies requires that they should provide at least some degree of all noble principles.

By basing a utopian design on a single premise alone, the various omissions that inevitably results in will cause many to find the suggestions abhorrent. To frame this in an example we can consider the Cold War and describe the conflict in very simple terms. We can say capitalism and democracy stand for the principle of freedom where as communism stands for the principle of equality. The concerns of those living in the democratic capitalist societies regarding communism were not so much a dislike of equality as a principle, but more the loss of freedom required in a communism to obtain that level of equality.

When designing societies it is therefore wise to consider a mix of all desirable conditions of state. Disregarding any desirable principle is failing from the outset. These are harsh words that appear to condemn many great utopian works from many beautiful minds. My intent is not to criticise the visions of past utopians who have had many a positive effect on the progression of society. Plato was all to aware of the inevitable collapse of his utopia were it ever to come to fruition. Utopian works serve to illustrate issues within the social systems of the time and pose a selection of solutions to those problems. Many solutions have been taken from these utopian works and incorporated into the medley of existing social systems. Examples of ideas taken by society from utopian works range from the naming of Bovril to the rise of communist regimes and the education of the masses.

I have encountered no utopian works that were designed to be a complete and functioning social system with practicable means of getting to that state. This does not mean I have only found utopian works that were useless, far from it, I only wish to state that if your aim is to describe a theoretical society which could work in its entirety you must base it on multiple principles. This is however not the only consideration one must make if aiming at a holistic utopia as I shall endeavour to explain.

We can now extend our definition of utopia to be; a description of a society based on the maximisation of a number of virtuous and noble principles. With this new definition we notice a new problem in that some principles are entirely subjective just like the idea of perfection. Justice and happiness are both desirable principles to have as a basis for society however neither of them is satisfactorily definable. I can use words to describe freedom or equality in terms that allow them to be applied to all circumstances and situations. This is not achievable for justice or happiness, I can describe situations that would make me happy or where I would consider justice to have been done but these cannot readily be applied to all possible circumstances, nor would anyone necessarily agree with my personal conclusions.

I can therefore only describe a society based on my idea of justice if I am available to dispense this justice case by case, where as I can describe a society based on my ideas about equality and then play no further part in the running of that society.  The Declaration of Independence realised this problem perfectly and rather than disingenuously offering happiness to each subject it offers them the freedom to pursue happiness instead - an achievable end. The second requirement for practicable social design is to only use fundamental principles, that are themselves definable, as the basis for the society.

The third element of social design is more of a recommendation than a requirement and is contrary to the first point. Each new principle upon which your society is based will add greater complexity to the design than the previous principle as each one must work harmoniously with the rest. Each new addition creates an exponential increase in the interaction and conflict of your principles and makes aligning them and including them in all systems far trickier. For this reason you should have as many principles as you need but not one more, which is a good way to say nothing useful at all!

What other methods are available to us in which we may reduce the number of fundamental principles other than considering whether or not the principle is definable? There are three further methods of removing possible principles, the easiest being the removal of synonyms. Liberty is a synonym of freedom, fairness is a synonym of equality etc. There is no benefit to basing a society on both liberty and freedom, you may as well choose your preferred term, define it and then continue to use that term throughout. Basing a society on two or more synonyms will not increase the complexity of your society by much as the definitions should be the same however it will make an overall description of your society more confusing to interpret.

Another method of removing principles is by considering whether or not any of your potential principles are made redundant by any of your others. Efficiency is definable and also both a worthy and noble principle however if you also wish for your society to be sustainable you no longer need to stipulate efficiency as a principle. Assuming you achieve complete sustainability within your society there is no longer a need of efficiency, you will however need to be efficient in order to achieve a sustainable society. Although efficiency and sustainability are not synonyms we can see that the former is a prerequisite of the latter and the latter encompasses the former. You may not wish for a sustainable society, only an efficient one, but this then begs the questions as to what end your efficiency is aiming at. The more encompassing principles tend to have an implicit goal compared to the more general prerequisite principles. The prerequisite principles are rather more akin to a description of how one may choose to act in any given situation, they do not provide a motive for those actions.

The final method that may be used to remove excess principles from out fundamental basis for our utopian society is that of reducibility. The Declaration of Independence infers happiness from freedom, it assumes that by providing one the other will follow. As happiness cannot be defined we can only make this assumption and are not able to prove it but as we do not need to remove principles we cannot define this assumption is not a concern. There are also situations where a definable principle may be reduced in to another definable principle and this does allow us to remove a potential fundamental principle.

An example of this is the reduction of truth into freedom. A detailed explanation of this shall be offered in my upcoming essay on freedom but I shall provide a quick overview here. To be free one must be able to make choices. Choices depend on the information available that relate to the various options. Should someone be unaware of a choice or misinformed about information relating to that choice then they will lose a degree of freedom. To maximise freedom a society must also maximise the truth in information. We can therefore infer certain elements of truth required in society simply by having freedom as a fundamental principle.

That concludes the considerations that ought be given to the selection of fundamental principles but it does not conclude all the initial considerations one should make in social engineering. Many utopian works describe the actions of the utopian populous and how these people are generally more conscientious, kinder and happier. Often this allows them to operate within the described society, however were we to place today’s people into the described society it often seems as if it would tear apart at the seems. If you assume people to always act in their own best interest rather than societies best interest then it is much harder to create a system where people are conscientious, kind and happy.

“Good design becomes meaningless tautology if we consider that man will be reshaped to fit whatever environment he creates. The long range question is not much what sort of an environment we want but what sort of man we want” - Sommer.

We must create conditions where we can justify the mechanisms behind positive human behaviours rather than assume positive behaviour and base a society upon those assumptions. It is rather clear that if everyone was happy, kind and conscientious we would already live in utopia and would have no need of further social engineering.

The rule to achieve these positive behavioural mechanisms is simple to describe but harder to implement. In game theory we measure the goodness of an outcome in ‘utils’. Each player in game theory has a selection of possible outcomes in terms of the number of utils they may obtain from the various ways in which they play. There is also an overall number of utils as a combination of each individuals gain in utils. Generally players will aim to maximise their personal gain in utils regardless of the overall outcome in utils. This often results in a lower number of overall gain in utils. The aim of society on the other hand is simply to maximise the total number of utils for all players. The simple solution therefore is to always create conditions whereby whatever option an individual may choose that offers them the greatest return in utils also coincides with the option that also provides the greatest number of utils overall. This allows people to be simultaneously selfish and altruistic, the choices they make are in their own best interests while also being in the best interests of society.

I will use three fundamental principles in describing my utopia and these are freedom, equality and sustainability. These have been selected using the methods described in this essay and I will define each in separate essays to follow this one. I will then go on to describe the various aspects of my utopia including politics, economics, education, and so forth, relating back to my three fundamentals at all times while ensuring my populous will act in accordance with these aims of society by using game theory to set appropriate conditions.