The Impossibilities of Utopia.

In Issac Asimov's Lecture on Humanity, he makes many predictions on life in the 21st century; many predictions which I believe will come true (and already have), but many that seem far too extreme to be possible. Not to discredit him, but I think the predictions that he gave which seem to be accurate are based on changes in society that have been long forthcoming, and others seem to be far too outlandish to be true.

For example, he gives the anecdote about women and their increasing role in the workforce: “…in order to keep the birth rate down, we’re going to have to give women interesting things to do that’ll make them glad to stay out of the nursery… I mean we’re going to have women help in running the government, and science, and industry.” (Asimov 7) Though he ties this example to lower the birthrate, and then later to old age, the concept of employed women has been around since before Asimov’s time, growing, some would say, since in the mid-1800s; but definitely by prohibition time, the eighteenth amendment, and the progressive era. It is for this reason that I wouldn’t really call this a prediction…just an inevitable truth that he claims a prediction by relating it to other examples.

In contrary to this, Asimov gives examples of things that I cannot foresee as ever being true. On page 10, he talks about a world without war. He says that today, “we are already in a world without war” which to me, makes little to no sense. Above he describes small bombings as not a true war, a nuclear war as emotionally ineffective, and a traditional war as impractical “because nobody’s got the gasoline for it.” And though this all seems true, a world without war seems like a total 70s, hippie movement take on life. However, Asimov also says “the greatest gift mankind has is its vast gene pool.” (10). These two statements, though only half a page apart, seem to completely contradict themselves. So long as the population has a “vast gene pool”, there will be disagreements, which, in turn, will probably lead to fighting. When disagreements are so huge, time, pride, and gasoline do not matter; the drive for conquest takes over. I think that humans can be barbaric and for this reason, no matter what the cost, wars will always be inevitable.

Asimov ends his speech more realistically by stating all good things must come to an end: "I hope you see a world in which mankind has decided to be sane. But I must say in all honesty that I figure the changes are against it." All the same, he presents an argument for the betterment of humanity (no war, no racism, no sexism, peace, responsibility) and then draws on multiple examples and anecdotes to prove his point. Though I cannot say I agree with his argument, I respect his semi-synoptic approach to the solution.

A New Perspective Leads to a New Society

"If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded--or even suspects--that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."

--Irving Kristol


Irving Kirstol is completely correct when she says that "no community can survive if it is persuaded...that its members are leading meaningless lives...". Imagine what would happen if the American people found out that the United States Government was making deals solely in order to benefits those in the government, completely ignoring the demands of its people. Not only would that be completely unconstitutional but it would cause for extreme riots from the American people. No one wants to think that the things they accomplish or the request they make are meaningless, no matter how small or big the accomplishments or requests may be.

To relate this back to Plato's Apology, the townsfolk was afraid that Socrates was going to persuaded the youth to believe that the wise, or those in charge, had no position to be in charge, for their wisdom was really just a facade. But thinking about the situation from those who were considered "wise" point of view, their fear was legitimate. If Socrates had been successful in convincing the youth of this, according to Kirstol, the community would not have been able to "survive". Socrates had only appealed to a small number of the people in the community, but the "wise" people were afraid the snowball effect would happen: whether or not what Socrates spoke was truth, he would tell someone, then that person would tell someone, and then that person would tell someone still.... the supposed blasphemy that Socrates spoke of would have ruined society as they knew it.

For this reason, it seemed the acts that the wise took against Socrates was beneficial. With Socrates dead, a precedent would be set for any future people who desired to be as blasphemous as Socrates would be killed just the same. However, killing Socrates did just the opposite: it made Socrates appear to be a martyr; a man willing to die for what he believed in. And what he believed in was what he shared with those he talked to. What I believe Kirstol is saying when she states the society will not be able to survive, I think she is inferring that the society leading meaning lives will end, and in its place a new society will form. We see this in Apology or perhaps with the readings following it. Socrates is dead, but his words and messages continue to spread - those considered wise are dubbed unwise - being afraid to question is now a thing of the past. At the end of the last paragraph I wrote, "would have ruined society as they knew it." The 'as they knew it' part is important because it reminds us that life will continue no matter what, but perhaps just in a different way.