The Instigator
robin.murphy1999
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

utopia is not only attainable if we loose individuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 242 times Debate No: 92791
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

robin.murphy1999

Pro

we can all become a hive mind, attaining a Utopian society with the differences of individuals still intact by simply ignoring selfish desires and focusing our existence for the good of the society and thus as humanity being the most dominant species on earth, the good of the world.
SJM

Con

Before my counter arguments I would ask my opponent in his own words to define a hive mind.

My first counter argument is against the point that we can attain a utopian society just by not being selfish and focusing on our existence. Even if we focus on our existence, cures wouldn't necessarily come for things like cancer, and people will still mourn the deaths of people close to them. And if there is still illnesses in the world, then it's not utopian/perfect.

And going with what the resolution says, it says we can attain a utopia without losing individuality, but what if selfishness is the only thing that makes a person unique, and if you took that away, you would be taking his whole individuality.

Also, what if for someone, a perfect world is one with a god. This isn't really selfish, but a belief. And I don't know how someone would make god possible because I think by definition you can't.
Debate Round No. 1
robin.murphy1999

Pro

robin.murphy1999 forfeited this round.
SJM

Con

Extend everything.
Debate Round No. 2
robin.murphy1999

Pro

robin.murphy1999 forfeited this round.
SJM

Con

Extend everything. I don't want to give my opponent too much to respond to.
Debate Round No. 3
robin.murphy1999

Pro

robin.murphy1999 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
robin.murphy1999

Pro

hi there

before I begin. I'm terribly sorry for not posting a response in any of the previous 4 rounds for this debate. it must make me seem like a bum who cant finish the fights I start. but I will try an involve all my opinions and knowledge in this last round to try and persuade you to think of and see this topic the way I do, I would like to start by clarifying what I mean by a hive mind: "a notional entity consisting of a large number of people who share their knowledge or opinions with one another, regarded as producing either uncritical conformity or collective intelligence." (Oxford dictionaries, 2016)

However I would like my opponent to understand that I do not limit the definition of a hive mind to only knowledge, opinions, or intelligence because these things are changeable. The uncritical conformity I refer to is a connection between individuals that surpasses vocal or visual methods of communication. The limitations of these forms of communication are hat they are inefficient in transferring information that define our being. I can identify the color red and know how I interpret it however I cannot describe to you the color red through words or actions. This is where communication is inefficient as it is limited to only tangible topics, I can try to explain how sad I am if I say I feel as though I"m dying, but this is something you have never felt but may have come close to feeling and so you will associate how I feel to be equal to how you felt the saddest in your life. I can describe Beethoven"s first symphony to a man born deaf through sign language but he won"t experience it for what it is. In an ideal society, everyone understands and sympathizes with the pain each person feels consequently ensuring the lack of motivation for conflict and thus, selfish desires would needn"t exist, the devotion or caring for only ones self by ignoring the needs or wants of others would not exist.

If everyone was connected you seem to think selfishness would be all that separates individuals. That devotion to or caring for only you is what defines your being. What is it that separates you from me, is it your selfishness or is there more that makes up who you are. There is a clear distinction between a hive mind and a single conscience, this line is drawn by the point of sentience, a single celled organism has no sense of self yet it is considered a being, your body is made up of billions of cells and contains billions of micro organisms and bacteria yet you presume to say that you are an individual, why? Because you have a sense of self. A gold fish would look in a mirror and swim away in fear trying to escape from the other gold fish seemingly copying her movements, but this is not all that determines sentience, you also need a sense of mind, to identify and understand that other beings have a mind as well, this is where we surpass our distant cousins the chimps as they do not see others as cognizant entities that learn and become more aware. A recent study showed that chimp"s apes have the mental capacity as an infant human in which their sense on mind has not fully emerged.

If everyone were to achieve such a state communication, the common good for the species would be to rectify the damage that has already been caused to our species and our host planet such as global warming, pollution, deforestation etc. The earth is not dying this is a common misconception, we are just making it harder for humans to exist on this planet, global warming won"t bring an end to life on earth, true our current path may render the planet inhabitable for humans and animals, however nature will adapt, as it always has to change the inhospitable environment to bread new life. We can halt this process before it becomes irrevocable by eliminating the source of this Terra formation. Human greed is born from selfishness, selfishness is born from the fear of pain and submission to others. Eliminate this fear, replace it with understanding and greed will die out. Greed spawns inequity and inequity spawns hate and hate spawns war. True hate may not be the only reason for war however given human history it is a major contributor to it. War requires military funding and according to Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai, 8 days worth of military sending in all countries around the world could fund a years" worth of education for every child on the planet.

If a perfect world is one created by a god then that is all that there needs to be said about that. You can believe that a divine being created this planet and all that is on it and just sit around all day watching t.v and going to your tedious job to return home praying for the benevolent mercy of your god for the sins you have committed on that day and beg that your god brings you good fortune for the next day and that all the conflicts in your family, society, country and life will be resolved the next week, repeating this routine everyday till you become a bed ridden old person, lying on your deathbed repeating the same prayers to this god. Or you can put this brain your god gave you that is capable of attaining these demands you plead god to shower upon you. I myself am a believer that god did create this earth, but he also created my mind to figure out how to maintain it, and all those so called believers who do nothing but pray for their desires to be fulfilled without lifting a finger will continue living in this world they only pray could be utopia. Make a god possible you ask? By definition possible means a probable outcome and it is entirely possible that god exists no matter how minuscule the probability.
SJM

Con

My opponent"s first assertion that I will attack, is that in an ideal society, everyone understands each other, therefore people wouldn"t have a motivation for selfish desires because they sympathize with other people. But my opponent seems to neglect that selfish desires do not only come from people who don"t understand others. Selfish desire may exist even if someone understands someone completely. For a society to be utopian, individuality would be impossible because people will have different beliefs. Some may think bad is good, and the other good is bad. This isn"t them not being able to understand someone, but that their beliefs make it so that their sympathy doesn"t dictate their actions. Now unless my opponent is arguing that in a hive mind everyone has the same thoughts, then it"s obvious how they lose individuality. My opponent also claims that people in a utopian society will be able to have sympathy. But wouldn"t the existence of sympathy make a utopian society not possible since sympathy means something is not perfect. Therefore people will not have sympathy in a utopian society. And what if being sympathetic is the only thing that sets this one person apart, since sympathy can"t exist in utopia, this person would lose individuality.

My opponent"s next point seems to be just a misunderstanding of what I said. All I said was that if hypothetically one person"s only characteristic that set him apart was that he was selfish, and by my opponent"s logic, there will be no such thing as selfishness, so wouldn"t he lose his individuality? My opponent then goes on to make the point, if I understand it correctly, that people have individuality if they have sense that they exist, but if everyone else has that sense of self, is that person"s quality unique? Shared knowledge doesn't necessarily means someone has to think a certain way, but that they have the ability to think as others think due to the fact that they have the knowledge other people have. And because of that, people will act in different ways, don"t forget people will not be able to sympathize with each other, so in the end we either have to lose individuality, or be able to do the impossible by making sympathy exist in a utopian society.

Next my opponent goes on to say that the common good of a utopian society would be to rectify the damages that have been caused. But if a utopia were to exist, then there would be no damages to rectify because that would mean labor, which would not be a perfect world. Unless my opponent disagrees with labor being bad, then we would have to argue about whether a utopia can have such things as labor. Then pro goes on to list things which we are doing to damage the earth and how we can stop it. But the point is that the fact that any type of suffering exists, makes it impossible for a perfect world to exist. In a perfect world there are no damages to fix. My opponent tries to make the point that a utopian society is achievable through us focusing on our existence, but the things is if everyone today started doing that, immortality and diseases won"t be cured instantly, therefore it will not happen directly because of people focusing. The status quo is that some things are impossible, and focusing isn"t going to change that. Thus things will still exist which contradict the utopian society even though we do what pro proposes.

Lastly, my opponent"s whole last paragraph is completely irrelevant to what I"m saying. Whether god exists or not doesn"t matter in my point, my point was that perfect is subjective, some people may think that a "perfect" world in one that is created by god, for someone like christopher hitchens, it would be one not created by god, therefore the utopia can"t exist without one losing their individuality and this is not due to selfish desires, but because of a belief system. And what I meant by make god possible, is not the existence of god being possible, but someone being able to create god possible.

Thanks to my opponent and voters.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.