The final message is one of the most powerful you can give to a person: you don't need to be a hero to make a difference, you only need to be a little better than you were yesterday. And if everyone did this, today's invisible 1% would become tomorrow's extraordinary world. Not an unattainable utopia, but a livable protopia. And this, perhaps, is the only future worth imagining and building.
My new favorite word. I can’t read this without thinking of Christopher Nolan’s movie “the Odyssey“. In his version, the Trojan war initiates the beginning of the dark ages. Also, 1% growth is not good enough for Wall Street or boardrooms, and politicians can’t get elected on one percent growth promise. Do these mindsets deter civilization’s progress? And so I wonder if protopia is like Moore’s Law: it is not a goal but the general result of human endeavors. Many years ago, I was in charge of a suggestion system in a factory. One thing I learned after 10 years of thousands of suggestions was that the big one, suggestion, was actually result of the accretion of many small suggestions.
I used it euphemistically: “the big suggestion”. The one suggestion that made the big, overall improvement… Or at least it appeared to. With my exposure to the all of these suggestions submitted to the system, I realized that the BIG one would have never happened without the tiny ones before it. So your thoughts on the 1% resonates with me for many reasons. And to add, it is the author of the BIG suggestion who garners all the accolades. Thank god for those who realize they are standing on the shoulder of 1% giants.
This is so beautifully and so realistically optimistic-- thank you! The sky is the limit for humanity if we all just keep trying to iterate in the right direction.
I don't disagree with anything you said in theory—just the way the word utopia is being used.
Literarily, the word utopia has always been used as an impossible world worth working toward. It is the perfect future that will always be just past the horizon. The word has been used that way ever since Thomas More coined it as a contraction between "no place" and "good place."
In this way, the idea is *not* that we can eliminate the problems of life. No one thinks we can do that. It is that we can eliminate one at a time in pursuit of an ideal we will never reach. The moving goal post is inherent to utopia.
And second, you say to aim for prototopia. But that's not really a destination—utopia is! Sure we will make life better incrementally, exactly as you imagine. But we still need to have a vision for where we are going. America would never have become a democracy if Thomas Paine didn't first paint a utopian vision of a country without the British Monarchy. If the colonies had instead aimed for a more incremental version they would have just tried harder to lessen taxes under the monarchy.
The grand visions, the impossible utopias, are the necessary destination we need to reach toward with our incremental progress. Even while knowing that we will never get there and that we might learn along the way that there are better utopias to reach for.
I think the way you use the word utopia is what I mean by protopia; while the way most people use utopia is not the way you use it. Rather than try to retrain people to use utopia in a more refined way, as you are, I think it is better to use a different word. I understand you think "utopia" is beautiful as it is, and would like to redeem it, but I think it is better to make the distinction and leave less chance for confusion with a new word.
As a recently new reader, I would like to thank you for this & your many well-considered, well-presented thoughts.
You state that “Dystopia leans into problems; utopia leans into progress; protopia leans into problems and progress in unison.”
While i do not disagree with your analysis, it troubles me that there are those today who would gladly take us back to, say, the 7th century.
Consider, therefore, that there are some who might imagine that we are sliding concurrently both towards utopia & dystopia, and therefore protopia & contopia.
The final message is one of the most powerful you can give to a person: you don't need to be a hero to make a difference, you only need to be a little better than you were yesterday. And if everyone did this, today's invisible 1% would become tomorrow's extraordinary world. Not an unattainable utopia, but a livable protopia. And this, perhaps, is the only future worth imagining and building.
My new favorite word. I can’t read this without thinking of Christopher Nolan’s movie “the Odyssey“. In his version, the Trojan war initiates the beginning of the dark ages. Also, 1% growth is not good enough for Wall Street or boardrooms, and politicians can’t get elected on one percent growth promise. Do these mindsets deter civilization’s progress? And so I wonder if protopia is like Moore’s Law: it is not a goal but the general result of human endeavors. Many years ago, I was in charge of a suggestion system in a factory. One thing I learned after 10 years of thousands of suggestions was that the big one, suggestion, was actually result of the accretion of many small suggestions.
Sam, could you say more about the "big suggestion"? what was the big suggestion?
I used it euphemistically: “the big suggestion”. The one suggestion that made the big, overall improvement… Or at least it appeared to. With my exposure to the all of these suggestions submitted to the system, I realized that the BIG one would have never happened without the tiny ones before it. So your thoughts on the 1% resonates with me for many reasons. And to add, it is the author of the BIG suggestion who garners all the accolades. Thank god for those who realize they are standing on the shoulder of 1% giants.
This is so beautifully and so realistically optimistic-- thank you! The sky is the limit for humanity if we all just keep trying to iterate in the right direction.
I don't disagree with anything you said in theory—just the way the word utopia is being used.
Literarily, the word utopia has always been used as an impossible world worth working toward. It is the perfect future that will always be just past the horizon. The word has been used that way ever since Thomas More coined it as a contraction between "no place" and "good place."
In this way, the idea is *not* that we can eliminate the problems of life. No one thinks we can do that. It is that we can eliminate one at a time in pursuit of an ideal we will never reach. The moving goal post is inherent to utopia.
And second, you say to aim for prototopia. But that's not really a destination—utopia is! Sure we will make life better incrementally, exactly as you imagine. But we still need to have a vision for where we are going. America would never have become a democracy if Thomas Paine didn't first paint a utopian vision of a country without the British Monarchy. If the colonies had instead aimed for a more incremental version they would have just tried harder to lessen taxes under the monarchy.
The grand visions, the impossible utopias, are the necessary destination we need to reach toward with our incremental progress. Even while knowing that we will never get there and that we might learn along the way that there are better utopias to reach for.
But then, you know this about me 🤓
I think the way you use the word utopia is what I mean by protopia; while the way most people use utopia is not the way you use it. Rather than try to retrain people to use utopia in a more refined way, as you are, I think it is better to use a different word. I understand you think "utopia" is beautiful as it is, and would like to redeem it, but I think it is better to make the distinction and leave less chance for confusion with a new word.
Thanks for mentioning animal welfare. The scale and severity of the suffering really casts a pall on human progress....
Thanks Kevin. Do you have any favorite protopian books or movies?
As a recently new reader, I would like to thank you for this & your many well-considered, well-presented thoughts.
You state that “Dystopia leans into problems; utopia leans into progress; protopia leans into problems and progress in unison.”
While i do not disagree with your analysis, it troubles me that there are those today who would gladly take us back to, say, the 7th century.
Consider, therefore, that there are some who might imagine that we are sliding concurrently both towards utopia & dystopia, and therefore protopia & contopia.
With kind regards
H Glesby