Conclusion Of A Utopia

What is a Utopian Society? Many people are for Utopian Societies they believe that they are a good thing. Here are some reasons why Utopian societies are wrong, fail, and how I feel about them. It is important to know everything about them in order to understand what the big problem is, if you were just to hear the word Utopian Society and equal you would agree with it and think that it sounded nice but the truth is they aren't all that great they are very unfair and they try to hard to be perfect.

The word utopia originates from Sir Thomas More’s novel of the same name, Utopia. Sir Thomas More created the term as an intentional homophone of the word “eutopia”, which is a Greek word meaning “good place”. (Sterling, 2015) “Utopia”, on the other hand, means “no place”, which implies either an impossibility of existence or the results of attempting to bring about such existence. The reasons why a utopia is so destructive to societies are that each person has their own vision of perfection and it is impossible to make everyone agree; if everyone made their own utopias there would be conflict between their objectives. Also, human nature is flawed and cannot accommodate perfection.

Utopia is said to be a place where a good society is created, where one can live a good life and where power is not abused. But throughout George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the reader learns that a utopian society is in fact impossible. The reader learns this when Old Major tells of a dream he has where everything is perfect and no humans are involved, however when the revolution occurs and the humans are chased off the farm, the pigs become in charge and start to manipulate their power and the other animals, proving that no matter how hard the animals try, they will never have the good life that they want. Furthermore, in Peter Weir’s the Truman Show, we see that your own utopia can not be shaped by another being, because although being in power, Christof makes everything as perfect as he can for Truman, Christof can never give Truman the good life he actually wants which then leaves Truman finding his life unsatisfactory. The good life is determined by freedom and to be able to go where you want and do what you want to do, thus proving that a utopian society can not actually be made because if everyone could do what they want, there’s no guarantee that people would do the right thing which is why we have people in power.

A utopia is what everyone is aiming for, but is that really what they are getting? With the hopes of a perfect society, we the people are rushing for a drastic change in the way things work without giving too much care in which direction things are changing, and that can and will cause definite issues. In the hopes to rush into a perfect world, too many people are treating government like a roulette wheel and hoping for the best, even though all odds are against them. In doing so, they are setting themselves up for a more controlled tomorrow.

A utopian society would be classified as perfect and just for all. This society has been conceived numerous times throughout history along with numerous ideologies. Although these ideologies have solved specific problems, none of them can be considered perfect due to numerous perceptions, which in turn would prevent perfection. In 1984, the Party made a totalitarian government. Like other oppressive governments throughout history, the ideology designed by the Party was not capable of creating a society that could support all people. Currently democracy provides the best society, but can still create oppositions of views. Even though some ideologies may present themselves as ideal, when applied to reality, they fail due to uncontrollable factors. This means an “ideal” society is impossible for mankind to accomplish as proposed by the totalitarian government in 1984 and from historical events.

Throughout history, philosophers have tried to uncover the reasons behind people’s actions. Although many philosophers believe in human nature, which is the basic state of humans, there are some philosophers who believe that human nature simply does not exist. There are ideas about why people act the way they do, including assumptions based upon human nature, but the reality is that humans will do what they please based upon free will. Thomas More, a philosopher, envisioned a society and customs, which were outlined in his novel Utopia. In life, people will do what they please, but nothing can ever be completely perfect due to the nature of life and self-interests, which goes against Thomas More’s whole idea of his society.

In our lives today, we take advantage of all the luxuries that are presented daily. Freedom alone is one of the greatest luxuries we possess as an American nation. In Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs and Utopia by Thomas Moore, we are presented two life styles, which some might consider very similar in various ways. Both authors focus on a peaceful living lifestyle, to better the people of the nation. Although some of their specific details are different, I believe that Jacobs would definitely approve of the features that More develops in Utopia.

     Sir Thomas More writes, in his book Utopia, about a society that is perfect in practically ever sense. The people all work an equal amount and everything they need for survival is provided. Most importantly is that everyone living in this perfect society is happy and content with their everyday lives. In this society everybody supports everyone. The community is only as strong as its weakest link. For society to progress everyone must work together. Opponents of the Utopian system, however, feel that the strong should not have to look after the weak. Progress would be maximized if all the resources are spent on the people most qualified to help society. A Utopian society, as perfect as the one

It is the new decade after the end of world war two and modernism is a well-established

The prospect of utopia, that is, an unchanging static society, has little appeal compared to the prospect of trying to reach such an exalted existence. And it's this idea of progress that we often associate with the idea of utopia. Appealing as it may seem, an utopia is a double edged sword. It is both the end result of our desires and an end to those desires. Because ending our desire goes against our human nature, the notion of utopia can no longer exist to the human mind. Therefore, neither the Garden of Eden nor the island of the Houyhnhnms is an utopia because both societies are unchanging. In them, both progress and desire is forbidden.

Imagine a city where no green space can be found. Where concrete and steel buildings rise up and block the sun. Where streets are chaotic and gridlocked and citizens are stuffed in cramped, dirty and unsanitary apartments. This was the world of 19th-century cities where human health and happiness were disregarded for economic gain. These horrid conditions shaped the lives and ideas of three very influential men: Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier, and Frank Lloyd Wright. They took their own experiences and redesigned the sprawling metropolis to improve the lives of the residents. Each man created urban utopias that included green spaces, farms, and parks to improve air quality and the livelihoods of the people. Despite theses similar views, each design differed from the others. Howard, Le Corbusier, and Wright all completely reimagined the urban city in differing ways based on scale, distribution of land and technology. Their design concepts have been adapted across the globe and implemented into modern urban planning everywhere.

“The best that can be said of the conception is that it did afford a chance to experiment with some physical and social planning theories which did not pan out. “ This quote reflects Jane Jacob’s philosophical ideas in an attempt to criticize the social housing’s design approach and its associated urban planning in modern era. “The physical and social theories” outlines the urban planning idea of social housing (Utopian idea) and according to Jane’s statement, such experiment of these theories were deem to be unsuccessful. It is inevitably certain to some extent that a provocative statement towards modern era social housing approaches would hold true due to the minimal success the plans brought to the city, such as solving the working class commendations temporarily. Nevertheless, it is a failure to deliver long-standing social improvements corresponded with the increasing suspicion of modernism, one cannot simply attribute ill fate to its “innovative physical features” (As Jane said, the Utopian and Utopia), but should rather considered a range of other elements in the larger aspect of society: factors such as difficulty of racial integration, problems of financing and management, lack of bridging between architecture and planning, as well as the increasing preference of suburban lifestyle from the rising mid class. These problems reflected evidently in some stereotypes of social housing communities built in the modern era such as Pruitt-Igoe, sunny side Gardens, Paul

His first comprehensive city plan was La Ville Contemporaine (the Contemporary City) a project to house three million inhabitants designed in 1922. This was Le Corbusier’s first attempt to reconcile man, nature and machine (Fishman, 189). The city starts at the center with a transportation hub for busses, trains, cars and planes. Surrounding this hub there will be an organized cluster of 24 60-story skyscrapers. These glass and steel skyscrapers are cross-shaped. Each individual skyscraper is to be set within a large rectangular green space. The skyscrapers house the “brain” of the city. The city is beautifully geometric and symmetrical. Placing the skyscrapers in the city center reinforces the emphasis on capital as a means of creating a successful city. Because of the shape and mass of each skyscraper, they have more usable space than an entire neighborhood but also relieves density and congestion because of the organization (Frampton, 46).

Utopia is a brilliant novel written by Thomas More. The idea of a utopia seems impossible, how can anyone live in a perfect place when perfection is in the eyes of the beholder? The Utopia in this novel is nothing more than abundant of already established ideas therefore it can’t not truly be a Utopia.

The goal of the utopia is to provide for the community, thus keeping it sustainable. Everyone works not out of personal benefit, but out of benefit for the community which will strengthen