| It is certainly a question that provokes some nice imagery and sentiments but the complication is that once "perfect" is considered then all manner of issues like subjectivity, relativeness and the like come into play. You yourself note the possibility for conflict.
Bearing this in mind then I will contribute what I think would be the perfect, or at least reasonable, "direction" in which to proceed toward the perfect world.
First, there would have to be a massive assessment by society as to what genuinely constitutes such perfection in their terms. Many will immediately regard such a venture as highly unlikely because even discounting individual stubbornness there is the element of time and with it a continually changing demographic. I underline the 'terms' part because it would localize certain parameters and thus avoid speculations which verge on wild fancies. Nothing wrong with the fancifully wild but when we're dealing with the measure of a world and meaning the occupants thereof then a certain context has to be minded. Remember that in this assessment the two most vocal constituencies are going to be those of the skeptics and the believers and both of them will have to deal with many compromises on the table. May I add that the usage of those designations are meant in general and not in the specifics of areas like theistic discourse. Of course, that type of discourse would come into consideration at one point or another in the planning stage of the perfect world and there again the conflicts would be plentiful. If in fact there could be an accord from both as to a novel operating context then I think there would be some gains with respect to the distance which has to be traversed. Again, I know that some will probably sink a little deeper into the armchair, sip on the brew and hum "Fool on the Hill" while regarding this.
On a more overarching scale what we have is the individual/collective complex. One is part of the other but still a tremendous chasm is shadowed between the two. There will have to be a more substantial connection between the two than the present frayed and shaky rope-bridges. For the individual it is the usual sense of insignificance, of being swamped on all sides by demands that while they seem reasonable for the stability of large numbers they do very little when it comes to personal equations. The collective on the other hand encompasses all of these equations for the sake of a major one and lest we forget there is the element of governance involved and along with that the entrustment of particular individuals to carry out the calculations to the benefit of all. History has shown that many of our "guides" have been quite lousy at math but awfully good at self-serving algebra. No need for me to belabor that the standards in the mathematics department would have to rise considerably even if just for the hope that if calculators are necessary then at least we can expect something better than an all-thumbs capability. I would enjoy citing present examples but we're considering a perfect world here and with such some things are best forgotten.
As 'Pooeypants' pointed out in his humorous self-revelation of Roddenberry affectation the economic aspect of it all is assuredly crucial. We are talking some major overhauling here on a concept whose gaskets make sanitary tissue seem like tree bark. Consumerism no doubt would be also be a part of the perfect world but in a decidedly different regard. The part that money plays and works in our lives would have to be extensively stripped down from what it is now and refashioned to an effective mechanism for the utilization of all. As it stands now it is a mechanism which directs the flow into too many cul-de-sacs with the consequence of ever-growing and drying-up tributaries which in the long run bode well for no one. With money being practically the chief material catalyst of activity in our society its misuse has made for an obvious imbalance between ideas with their varying applications and qualities and the material and its characteristics. These two have to be in concert, the channel wherein they mingle at the present would have to be dredged of obstructions. Nowadays one does not have to look far to see the discrepancies and regardless how much spin is put on it, the numbers don't lie and no amount of creative accounting can escape reality, the reality which demands balance sooner or later and here too history has many examples. In a way, the economic structure of a perfect world compared to the one at the present is like comparing the ocean to a river system; differing contexts.
These are just samplings of the many elements that would have to be addressed in such a venture. Take just about anything that causes complications in our world and it will become apparent how much work would be needed to achieve even a relatively better level than what now prevails. It may also be that the speed and effectiveness in progress that we have now is what is proper for our position. Even trying to make a better world is problematic enough so it's no surprise that some will regard a perfect world as wishful thinking or a very remote actuality. Lastly, there's the matter if what we consider perfection is in fact true perfection at all. For all we know , cosmological perfection may not even include humans. But that’s another area altogether.
Personally, I'm hoping that by perfecting my own perception I may get to live some perfect moments here and there. Now, an entire world with all its inhabitants living in the perfection which our highest mind ponders. . . that would be something.
[color=blueviolet]Spaces[/color] |