What would John Lennon’s imagined world be like?

Some of what I wrote in my last post got the songĀ  “Imagine” on my brain, and I started thinking of what the world described by Lennon in the song would actually be like, so I thought I’d take a look. Without further ado;

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

I have to agree that this first bit is indeed easy to imagine.

I’m assuming that “above us only sky” refers to there being no heaven above us, rather than no stars/satillites/other planets/other bits of the universe that can’t really count as sky. In this case, we’re simply talking about a state of belief. Some religions believe in various kinds of physical afterlife, others in reincarnation, and many people do believe that there is no life after death. We don’t have evidence for any of these positions, so as far as life on this world goes, the only possible difference that knowing there was no heaven or hell could have would be in people’s attitudes.

I would like to think that this would make no difference, but sadly people’s attitudes can have a large impact on the world. For some, the idea of an afterlife is reassuring and helps to make sense of life. For others, the prospect of eternal damnation serves to modify their behavior – in some cases to be a better person, in others to condemn others for doing things that they believe will send them to hell.

Imagine all the people

Living for today…

Living for today is a different matter. It implies everyone making the most of what can be done now, and not thinking about the future. This could be good – taking more chances, doing exciting things – but it could also mean that people did things without thinking of the consequences to themselves and others. Living for today could certainly include massive burning of fossil fuels to serve whatever energy needs we wish without thinking about the reserves left for tomorrow, or about the effect of the release of CO2 and global warming on the world, or deciding no tto bother spending time planting crops today without thinking about the effect of not having the food grown next year.

Imagine there’s no countries

This could actually work quite well, although would probably eliminate a lot of cultural diversity from the world. If we had some kind of global government that managed to equalise quality of life and access to services and oppertunities across the world, that could certainly be a very nice prospect. We would, however, lose a certain amount of choice in the sort of place we want to live – for example, in the UK I feel safe from certain bits of crime because no one, most of the police included, has a gun, while some people in the US feel safe from bits of crime precisely because many people have guns, and there are many differences between countries in attitudes to personal freedoms vs personal protections, in how different groups of people (women, children, young people, offenders, unemployed people, people with disabilities…) are treated by the law, and in what’s expected to be provided by the government. And this is let alone the cultural differences between different parts of the world, much of which would probably be eroded by a global government that was homogenising provisions rather than adapting them to local expectations.

On the other hand, this would mean a fairer global society, more connections between different sides of the world, greater freedom of movement around the world, and hopefully a sense of global community.

Nothing to kill or die for

This is a surprisingly broad point. People have been willing to kill or die for a lot of things throughout history: religion, their country, their political leader (or someone they wish to be such a leader), a difference of opinion on animal rights, nuclear weapons, abortion…

This line could mean eliminating all those differences, or it could mean eliminating the need for strong feelings to lead to a belief that killing or dying for a cause is necessary. In a way, I’d like the latter – if we were in a position where issues could indeed all be resolved by discussion, it would be a good world to live in. It’s hard to imagine that such resolutions would be accepted in all cases however, and certainly differences of opinion are hard to eliminate as problems unless somehow the entire issue is made irrelevent. If nuclear weapons had never existed, for example, there wouldn’t be massive debates and direct action in the arguement about whether they are necessary or abhorant to have.

And no religion too

It’s hard to talk about this from a state of the world where religions do exist and are a big part of some people’s lives. Forcing people to give up religion would be highly unethical and probably lead to worldwide unrest. However, imagine if religion had never existed as an idea. We would certainly have avoided a large number of conflicts, historical and in the present day, without the very strongly held and rightously thought of differences in opinion caused by differening religious beliefs. We could have avoided a lot of deaths, a lot of hurt, and a lot of discrimination that all continue to the present day. We would have to hope that we had found some other kind of unifying moral force however, preferably a single global one, else community and care for one another may well be unheard of concepts.

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace…

All I can say to this bit is that yeah, peace would be awesome.

Imagine no possessions

With no possessions, it would depend how certain aspects of life then worked. If we assumed that this means that all property is essentially communally owned but each person is provided with “their” house and “their” clothes and “their” furniture etcetera with some degree of ability for personalisation, then this could work.

No need for greed or hunger

No need for greed or hunger would be good. Even better if there actually was no greed or hunger. It doesn’t really follow from the other things, but if it could be arranged I don’t think there would be a way in which it was anything but brilliant.

A brotherhood of man

Assuming what is meant here is some sort of worldwide caring community, then that would be much appreciated I’m sure.

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world…

And the world will live as one

Everyone sharing the world is an attractive concept. It has implications of making sure everyone does get their share of use out of it, acknowledgement that we cannot be selfish and must take care of the world around us, that everyone should care about what happens to all of the world, not just a small part. If everyone had these sorts of attitudes, it would be an interestingly refreshing experience.

The more I think about it, the more of a radical song it seems. Would you want to live in that world?

Advertisements

What if money didn’t exist?

This question idea came entirely from reading this blog post. Sorry for the shameless idea grabbing!

Imagine a world where money was simply not a factor. We could simply go and pick up as much food as we wanted, whatever clothes we wanted, spend our time learning what we wished where we wished, doing what we enjoyed without worrying about making money, living where we wanted…

My brain immediately starts throwing problems at me;

  • How do we define ownership? How can I say that this is my house, my food, my clothes when I just went along and took them? And how can I stop someone else from deciding that they want to take them from me, in the way that someone might buy them from me now?

I suppose a way round this would be to still have “shops” and similar places, with people making “purchases” by, say, swiping an ID card to register a transfer in ownership. No money or anything like that changing hands, but items can clearly be said to belong to someone.

  • How do we stop a small group of people from taking all the resources (food, clothes, houses, entertainment or whatever) and leaving nothing for the majority?

If there isn’t a constraint of “how much can I afford” on how much of something we take/how often we do something, what’s to stop some people taking as much as they can possibly get hold of? Either we allow this, in which case life would be awful or impossible for a lot of people, or we impose some limit in another way. If we could change people’s thought processes, eliminating greed and leaving everyone taking only what they need or a fair share of luxuries, that would be lovely. In the absence of thought control, we’re left with imposing some kind of rationing system, at least for necessities.

  • How do we ensure that things actually get produced? That streets get cleaned, that hospitals are staffed, that food is grown and that houses are built?

Without the need to earn money, what incentives are there for us to do the less interesting or rewarding jobs? I’m sure there are some things that would get done by people who do really love those things, or people who decide that someone needs to and they are willing to do so, but what about the things no one really likes? We could end up in a society where people will teach, or research, or play music or act, and maybe even grow food or practice medicine, but with no one willing to clean, or run shops, or grow enough food, or drive buses, or make clothes. This sounds like it could end badly.

Possibly we could impose rules forcing people to either be learning or working for a certain portion of their time, but how do we enforce this? And how do we ensure a spread of jobs are done – by forcing people into particular things? It’s not like there would be an automatic point of “well, this company can’t employ any more engineers because we haven’t got any more money to pay them” – I imagine that in general they’d be happy to have more people because even if each was only marginally helpful they would be gaining from them.

I’m not really sure how one could actually deal with most of these issues. It’s seeming to me like, unless money not existing just meant we were using some very complicated barter system, we’d have to go a fair way into communism in order to have a decent society without it. Not that there’s anything wrong with communism as an ideal, but no one has yet actually managed to live up to it, and it does lend itself to exploitation.

The only way without the controls mentioned would be if everyone was, in fact, genuinely altruistic and prepared to do whataver needed to be done to help everyone lived in a better world, with no reward beyond seeing what the impact is. And that would still need a certain level of organisation to ensure that we had all areas being focussed on by people with the necessary skills, rather than everyone dealing with a small number of problems.

Would it be better to live under a benevolent dictatorship or the current UK democracy?

The automatic response is, of course, to shy away from any thought of dictatorships.

In fact, if we are taking into account the response of the rest of the world (this is assuming either the UK sticking with what we’ve got or switching to a benevolent dictator) we’re probably better with what we’ve got just for this – because with a dictator we’d probably get invaded, or bombed, or at the very least lose a lot of contact and good links with other countries that are necessary for our survival.

If, however, we assumed that there wouldn’t be backlash from other countries to consider, here are just a few advantages of a benevolent dictator;

  1. More efficiency in governance – if something needs to happen, it need not be constrained by parliamentary debates and going back and forth for approval.
  2. If a dictator was indeed benevolent, they would ensure that everyone had enough to eat, a place to live, easy access to the best possible healthcare and all the basic necessities for a reasonable quality of life. Under the current democracy (and I’m not just talking about the current coalition government, but all recent governments in this system) this is certainly not happening.
  3. Assuming this dictator takes control of various bits of infrastructure, we could expect better transport, better emergency services, a better education system, and no “postcode lottery” when it comes to access to services.
  4. More equal society, with equal access to oppertunities for everyone based on ability/need.
  5. More long term planning – since we wouldn’t have politicians needing to do what sounds popular right now, our benevolent dictator could base policy on the longer term implications rather than media hype, thinking through the issues in a way that the general public, and hence often elected politicians, do not.

I have to say, that sounds rather good.

There are, of course, some snags. To what extent should people have a right to choose their government, even if the choice leads to not getting the overall “best” outcomes? How exactly do we make sure that a dictator is benevolent, and on what scale do we measure this benevolence anyway?

To the first question, well that is a matter of opinion. There is always a balance between personal freedoms and protection from harm – the law limits people’s freedom to, say, go around attacking people with knives to protect people from being injured or killed by people with knives… In general, it is accepted that we do not have the right to directly harm other people by our actions. If we view choosing a government that will allow there to be people who cannot access the basic necessities for life as doing harm to people, why should we be allowed to do so? I cannot justify “people must have choice” as more important than the lives and wellbeing of thousands or millions of people.

On what scale do we measure benevolence? This is a difficult one. There are clear factual indicators that could be used – measuring if they manage to get everyone to certain standards of living, although this is admitedly hard to do until they’ve had a decent go at it. There could also be more abstract considerations: how happy are people, do people feel better off than they were before – but these are impossible to properly measure, and again rely on being after the fact. A main point of benevolence seems to be having genuinely good intentions towards everyone – which, sadly, is impossible to ascertain independently. So measuring benevolence doesn’t really work.

How do we make sure a dictator is benevolent? Well, we can check how well they’re doing by looking at the outcomes, given a bit of time for changes to actually get implemented and make a difference. But we don’t know how much of the public’s response is due to the actual effects of the dictator’s policies and how much is due to our own feelings or rebellion. I think that a major thing such a dictator would need to change would be the attitudes of people towards each other, somehow spreading the feelings of care and acceptance towards others, which would sadly take a rather long time.

It would seem to defeat the point if the dictator could be easily deposed, so there couldn’t really be controls that way. Perhaps a system where members of the public could challenge the dictators decisions, causing a discussion of the reasoning and evidence on which they are based – with changes made if this causes the decision to be seen to be clearly more flawed than any alternatives.

Or we programme a robot that is incapable of not being benevolent….perhaps not.

That said, the problems with current systems of democracy are too numerous to list. Based on outcomes, it’s clearly failing by almost every account given the numbers living without access to basic shelter and enough food. Let alone its flaws as a democracy – given the election system it is certainly not representative, and even if we had proportional representation would still leave many views unheard for those whose ideas don’t go along party lines, or who aren’t in the demographics politicians are aiming at.

If we truly could get a benevolent dictator, I would happily live under them. Sadly, I think any dictator sells themselves as benevolent and rarely is – and benevolence is nigh impossible to ensure. I’d rather take my chances with very-flawed-democracy than a bad dictator.