
Through having some discussions with friends over a catholic article, the topic of utopia was reached.
The reason for this was a proposal that perhaps utopia is the atheist alternative to heaven, entirely human in it’s construct, a place of luxury, and no work.
This is an interesting perspective, for the specific reason of it’s “unspecificity”. No matter how many times we discuss utopia, we fail to define it. It is as elusive. Many want it, but are unable to express what it is.
Which does beg a question: why is it so prominent in our culture? What does it’s concept signify about the self?
It’s prominence comes from a daily slog, constant battles, and draining integration. At least for many of us. I think people are seeking peace. But there is confusion over how this should manifest, hence the entry of utopia over heaven. God is exacting. He wishes for us to conquer sin and self. Utopia, with its lack of definition, exacts nothing, existing as an ephemeral better. “With AI, we will achieve Utopia”.
It seems, observing, that perhaps what is happening here is as simple as an aversion to work. People do not like working, which can be translated as do not like doing what I don’t want. And here it is that I think we have partially come to the definition of utopia. “A place where I can do what I want, all the time”.
Essentially, it is partially where the individual can run rampant. I say partially, because in the vast majority of cases, people also want a little more from utopia, and that is the presence of others to spend utopia with. This, then, is quite the spanner in the works, because to co-exist, we need some form of compromise over what we do…
To position this slightly differently, if our utopias existed within a computer simulation, where we lived in our utopia, complete with our rules, regulations, and behaviours, and also, we were surrounded by AI Persons (or NPCS), which, crucially, the software masked in order to make it seem like they are real people to us, would we be happy with an existence where our every dream and desire was met? A world of yes men and women? A little thinking surely arrives at the conclusion, that no, this is not utopia, but indeed a sickly, deeply solipsist nightmare. We need other individuals, complete with their own thoughts, behaviours, and opinions. In order to socialise with such persons,we need to work, work towards and with the other in order to understand, and perhaps even enjoy the perspectives gleaned from shared existence.
And how can this sharing of existence occur? How can there be two, three, 100 truths, all equal ways of observing and living life? Surely this in itself points to an infinite source of everything…God. But this definition does not include the incorrect pathways taken in life. That of death, hatred, an aversion to the other. If we can infinitely find ways to love, through God, we must also consider the opposite, a frightful and lonely spiral into the desolation of the singular, the “utopia” which has only the self, and no other.
So, in finishing, we should remember that those who promise utopia have not defined it, because it exists strictly as an individualistic fantasy which paradoxically fails to consider the other, who we wish to spend utopia or immortality with. To exist with someone means the necessity of friction, and thus work to understand that person’s position. Work is what God wishes of us in order to reach that state worthy of heaven. So, we should stop dreaming of an undefined and unreachable “utopia”, and instead work hard for heaven.
This article is written by a Catholic, but does not necessarily represent Catholic perspectives or revealed truth. I am happy to be corrected with inaccuracies.