MUSINGS ON "IMPOSSIBLE" DREAMS


Today, it is perfectly clear to most of us that it is impossible to create a utopia which suits everyone. Your utopia might be my dystopia and vice versa. The visionary man's Utopia is all too often the common man's Dystopia. Or as the Swedish science fiction author and connoisseur Sam J. Lundwall puts it: A dystopia is a utopia forced on you by a maniac. 

This notion is true in many respects, especially in the light of the allegedly utopian projects in the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Nineteen Eighty-four has taught us that every utopian movement can be hijacked, Brave New World that every paradise-engineering effort can fail; almost every dystopian depiction teach us that technology is no guarantee for progress. Futuristic fiction equals dystopian fiction today, be it a novel, movie, comic book or computer game. We have lost faith in the future, and perhaps for good reasons.

Nevertheless, to say that every utopia is a crypto-dystopia is a simplification. I would even go so far as saying that it is an expression of ignorance. Without hesitation, I would label myself a friend of Utopia. 

I am not in favour of the realisation of Utopia, but I am certainly in favour of the striving for Utopia. We must not forget that there have been many examples in human history of how utopian concepts have accelerated progress. In fact, they may be an important prerequisite for progress.

In the Middle Ages, democracy was regarded as a utopian dream: the establishment honestly believed that people's rule would result in anarchy. On a similar note, equality between the sexes was regarded as a utopian dream as late as in the early 20th century: the establishment honestly believed that women were less able in every respect. Today, we know better. Nevertheless, quite a few political visions are almost automatically being dismissed as utopian dreams today. The question begs to be asked: Will they know better in the future?

For instance, is the capitalistic system of today really a "necessity"? Perhaps the history books of the future will say something like this: 

In the 20th and 21st centuries, a kind of pseudo-democratic system was utilised in most parts of the world. The common people were more or less forced to make their living in non-democratic economic entities, called companies and corporations; these entities were even allowed to interfer in politics. The most destructive effect of this world order was the, possibly deliberate, permanence of poverty; roughly, 20 % of Earth's population used 80 % of Earth's resources. 

This may seem odd today, especially in the light of the increased understanding of human rights and the rapid technological evolution that characterised the period. However, one must remember that most people embraced the illusion that the monetary incitement was the only effective incitement. It should be noted that mankind already possessed an abundance of resources and that there existed numerous examples of idealistically motivated innovation, though.

Furthermore, is global peace really "impossible"? Perhaps the history books of the future will say something like this:

The 20th and 21st centuries were characterised by wars. It is no exaggeration to say that the primitive principle of the right of might was still very much alive. The devastating conflicts in the first half of the 20th century, most notably the so-called World War I and World War II, were possibly unavoidable — mankind had not yet experienced the horrors of industrialised war. However, in the second half of the 20th century, the first global peace organisation was created, the United Nations.

Nevertheless, the number of wars was dramatically increased. The main reason for this unfortunate development was that two so-called superpowers, the USA and the USSR, both characterised by pseudo-democracy, nationalism, militarism and wealth gaps, manipulated and weakened the United Nations. Not until after the fall of these superpowers, USSR in the late 20th century and USA in the late 21st century, global unity became possible and the number of wars was decreased. It should be noted that the rapid evolution of global communications networks, which began already in the late 20th century, also was an important factor, as it promoted cultural understanding and prevented war propaganda.

In the worst case scenario, the 20th and 21st centuries will be regarded as a dark age, possibly darker than the Middle Ages. After all, approximately 200 million people have died

as an effect of political decisions in our age (World War I 10 millions, World War II 40 millions, Stalin's terror 20 millions, CIA operations 6 millions and so on and so forth). After all, 20 % of the world population uses 80 % of the world's resources, and at least 24,000 people die of starvation each day. We could do better. 

The very least we could do is to show mankind of tomorrow that not all of us were so imbecille as to consider our current world order to be perfect and ever-lasting. We should not give them the pleasure of summarising our era in one patronising sentence: "They simply didn't know better."

I find it reasonable to assume, that in the far future, mankind will hold a completely different perspective on Utopia. The disintegration of the nation, both as a concept and as an entity, the implementation of true globalisation, i.e. the right to travel and live everywhere, and the 

improvement of communications, both for information and men, will undoubtedly change the world as we know it. As man becomes more flexible, society can probably be constructively diversified. If one may speculate, it might be possible to realise a spectrum of non-conflicting political systems; a smorgasbord of utopias, so to speak. 

If one travels even further into the future, this potential diversity may be almost indefinite. Sooner or later, mankind will conquer space. With a multitude of off-world habitats, possibly even terraformed planets in distant star systems, it will perhaps be possible to choose between a multitude of different utopian worlds. But then again, maybe not...

In any case, we must remember one thing: Utopian fiction tells us how we COULD shape society, dystopian fiction only how we SHOULDN'T shape it. In many respects, Dystopia is merely a complement to Utopia, albeit an indispensable complement. To lose faith in the future is to lose faith in mankind and civilisation. See you in Cloud City!