I know there is a forum for discussion of books, but this is really about more than the book.

Anyhow. Thanks to the recommendation of a friend, I just got finished reading The Giver. Most of you have probably read it in school. After reading it, it made me wonder what it'd be like to live in a utopian society like that. These people in The Giver had everything in their lives controlled-- their families, what they wore, their jobs, everything. They were brainwashed to not really feel love. They couldn't make choices. They didn't even have marriage or sex! You would simply be matched up with a mate and if you wanted children, you'd have to apply for them. You were only allowed to have two children-- one of each gender-- and they were born from the childbearers in the society. Once the children grew up, you never saw your children or your mate again.
Yet, these people were happy this way. Why? Well, one, they were living in oblivion. They knew no other way. But also, they lived without death, war, jealousy, envy, disease, hunger, natural disasters, and so on. Everybody was nice to everybody, nobody was rude, everybody was equal. They had many rules, but the people happily followed them because it kept their society orderly and perfect.
So, I guess my question to you is, would you rather our world be perfect like that or would you rather keep it full of death, disease, and murder just so you could make your own choices?
Now, I know what you're going to say-- "Oh, but I can't live without love and my choices...blah blah blah.." These people don't know what they're missing. If you were living that way, you wouldn't know either. Put aside all thoughts of you and what'd you want right now. Just think. How the world would be so much better. Right now, we're no sooner to solving world hunger, to bringing peace to our world, or to stopping the murders and rapes occuring all over the world. And you know what? It'll only be 100 times worse in the future! All problems we're faced with would be gone.

Yet. The other argument we're faced with is, we'd all be a bunch of human clones. What would be the purpose of life?

So, what say you?

Well, that's precisely one of the points of The Giver.

Right, that is the point, so you can't really expect Utopia not to become Dystopia

no need to be perfect...

I'm just saying, how can there be a real utopian society if nothing is ever perfect?

Utopia is a purely theoretical construct; it's not expected that such a society will ever come about.

But you're saying that if I call it an utopian society is wrong, because, technically, it isn't. So, does that mean any society ever called utopian is incorrect?
Hmm.

This is fun. =]

But this entire subject of utopia is theoretical, so it's only theoretically impossible as well

No, utopia is a literary construct used to describe a theoretically perfect society. It's theoretical, but most people could at least agree on the basics of such a society (absence of war, poverty, violence, hate, etc.).

But people have tried creating utopian societies in the past and have even labeled it as Utopian. Take Amos Bronson Alcott, for example. He and Charles Lane (and some others, I believe) created a Utopian society. It certainly didn't last very long, but it is still called a Utopian society, whether it truly was or wasn't.

this reminds me of this movie i had watch...where something happens to this perfect place and things started to change...im unsure of the movie title tho.

Well, when we discuss "real-world utopias" we're starting to move out of the realm of the literary construct, such as the one used in The Giver. There have been communities set up in the attempt to create a "perfect" society that have been referred to (incorrectly) as utopias, but the idea of actually creating a community is a slightly different discussion than utopias used in the literary sense.

But if it was able to fall apart that quickly, was it truly utopian? If that's the case, couldn't another society be perfect, if only for a moment? And if that's the case, could it count? Does perfection matter if it doesn't last long enough to really take effect?

Are we discussing "real-word utopias" or literary utopias? As for literary utopias, I think they are generally used as long-lasting societies, not ones that exist for a moment in time and then collapse.

One could also argue that something that can't last isn't truly perfect.

I understand your point, Mipadi. However, the point of this topic really isn't about the book itself. It's about whether the world would be better as a "real-world" utopia. Although the society in The Giver proved that utopias are far from perfect, it'd still be a lot closer to perfection than our world currently is.
What do you say?

I'd rather live in the world of The Giver, under one condition: I would have no memory of living in this world thus far. If I would suddenly be able to go into that society, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to stand it.

However, if I had no recollection of the real world, I'd be blissfully ignorant and content.

*claps hands together*
By God, you got the point of this topic!

No, it would be terrible. Obviously, you've read The Giver. I didn't really like that book but I'm interested in reading more about uptopias/distopias.

woot!
but no seriously..who wouldn't want to be blissfully ignorant and happy than live in this world as it is now with murder, disease, and disaster? "oh but we can't have sex, we can't love blah blah" but it wouldn't be a loss because you wouldn't know how it felt in the first place!

Je like french, I declare you my new best friend.

Lilliannn, [go here].

i've never read the Giver and i wouldnt like a utopia.. I rather live in japan.. closest to perfect there is.. lol.

i LOVED the giver! i read it back in 7th grade. I thought it was very interesting even though I'd never want to live in a world like that.

right! It's a bit like smoking- it's perfectly easy to live without it if you don't try them to begin with. My curiosity is perfectly sated, because I know it's better to stay ignorant to it.

Mmmmm. Yes. I think I've lost track of my point again.

The world would be great as a utopia, if it actually ran as a utopia, and you could get it to be like that in the first place. To convert the world into a utopia would take some serious brainwashing or a lot of violence, and then everyone would have to have their memories wiped, because it's human nature to want choices, but if you don't know the choices exist, you'd be perfectly happy.

Ignorance is bliss.

So, is the point of this thread to discuss whether we'd want to live in the "utopia" of The Giver, or an actual utopia? Because, again, the utopia of The Giver is not a utopia at all, which is the basis of the book. So do you mean that utopia, or a real utopia? Because, clearly, by definition, there'd be nothing bad about living in a real utopia--it would, by definition, be perfect.

You got me there, Mipadi.

I suppose I meant a society nearly identical to the one created in the book.