Opinion from the Internet about building a perfect, “utopian” Human society based on Nature’s perfect template:
“On a theoretical stance I fully agree with such an idea. However there is a problem.
Everybody has different perceptions of an utopian/perfect society and sometimes they clash. I view a perfect world from a different perspective than anyone else because I find normality in my own self.
It is just like a mad person. They believe that the way they think is the right way and everbody else’s way is flawed. From their point of view they are right. From our point of view they are wrong. From an arbitrary point of view, we can not tell who thinks the ‘right way' since both ways are valid given different hypotheses.
Since every single person has a different opinion, culture, background there is no realistic ‘common and generaly true' utopian society.
We view nature as being perfect, but someone else might not, which brings me to raise a question.
Isn’t the world as it is an already perfect society? Indeed it does have it’s imperfections, but shouldn’t there be a rule of compensation in nature? Shoudn’t an actual perfect world have it’s imperfections since if it were perfect in the way that perfect is commonly defined be boring since we would not be able to credit anything good that happened because only ‘good’ can happen?
We wouldn’t know happiness without sadness, sanity without madness, creation without destruction, and lastly perfection without imperfection.
And again this raises another question. The nature itself because of creating humanity, is self destructing. Isn’t it actually normal? Isn’t it the normal cycle of life: creation, destruction, then create something from the ashes fallen from the previous destruction?”
At this point in time we reach the question that concludes everything. Is an utopian world actually distopic because of our own right but at the same time wrong way of perceiving things? What if creation was meant to self-destruct in order to create something else and what if perfection is actually meant to be imperfect, but perfect to the eye that sees that the current way thing are working represent perfection in it’s actual true sense?
You raised many very important points I fully agree with.
At this stage we all perceive reality in a completely egocentric, subjective way, thus we all live in our own personal realities, where perfection, Nature, utopia are also completely personal.
We don’t have any chance of building the perfect society without at least a certain “critical mass” of people acquires - in a purposeful, methodical, scientific way - an unprecedented, selfless, objective viewpoint.
Then these people become the transition, connectors helping the rest of the people to adapt themselves to Nature’s absolute laws of integration they will be able to view, research and attain through their selfless, objective point of view.
So if Nature is perfect, why did it produce an imperfect Humanity that needs self-correction? Exactly out of perfection in a purposeful way!
If we were born “perfect”, instinctively integrated into Nature like all other levels, parts, elements of the system including all other animals, we would be in that state without awareness, simply flowing with Nature’s “circle of life” automatically.
By the ability to first recognize our incompatibility in Nature, then consciously, proactively changing, adapting ourselves - starting with acquiring the above mentioned unique selfless, objective viewpoint - we use our unparalleled free choice.
And even after adapting, integrating we will retain an independent viewpoint between the original egocentric, subjective one and the acquired selfless, objective one.
This means Humans being the crowns of evolution, being the only conscious, fully aware observers of Nature’s perfection “from within”.
This way nothing needs to be destroyed - while if we fail to change ourselves and continue blindly, instinctively we will self-destruct - but we build the new consciousness, perception and new Human society on top of the present one. And that fulfills your important remark about the need for contrast for proper, true perception, research.
This is all achievable to anybody interested through a very practical educational, scientific method. Thus it is not theory or philosophy but reality.
Moreover it is determined by Nature’s evolution so it is not devised, invented by Human mind. (Which we can also verify after acquiring that selfless, objective viewpoint).