As we turn on our TVs or open our social media apps, we constantly hear about how the world is ending or society is becoming terrible, and how we as a species are heading towards a dystopian world. The fear of a dystopian future has been around for a long time; I’m sure everybody knows the books “1984,” “Brave New World,” and “Fahrenheit 451.” Those who have read them or are at least aware of their content are left paranoid about the potential state of civilization. While we constantly scrutinize the decisions our governments make to ensure our livelihood is being treated with good intentions, we hardly focus on what could be done to reach the opposite of a dystopian world—potentially a Utopia. Although Utopias are generally thought of as worlds that can only exist in fiction, even if that is the case, what is the closest we can get to reaching this mythical place, and how do we get there? Well, considering that a dystopian world is typically one where a tyrannical government restricts freedoms, oppresses its citizens, and punishes those who dare to push back against the party in charge, does this mean that the opposite of this environment is a utopia? A society that gives its citizens absolute freedom and not only does not punish those who speak up against the current government but even considers them? Well, this world already does or at least did exist during its prime; I’m, of course, talking about the United States of America. Now, is the USA considered a utopia? No. Some may argue that the core values of the United States have the ingredients of a utopian world, but somewhere along its way, those who were supposed to run it for the good of the people were corrupted, and as a result, the great USA that we once knew is on the brink of falling. Maybe, but many people worldwide see many flaws in the logic of the founding fathers. Although many disagree, a world that only satisfies one side is not a utopia.

Alex made a few interesting points, however one area that really caught my attention was his take on education.

Alex stated:

“When it comes to education, I truly believe it’s all about evolution rather than revolution. Our world is changing at an incredible pace, and our education system needs to catch up. It’s not just about what we teach but how we teach it. For example, integrating life skills, digital fluency, and an understanding of environmental stewardship alongside traditional academics could create a more rounded, relevant curriculum. Imagine classrooms where kids learn to code, but also where they learn the importance of kindness and community.

The essence of critical thinking, empathy, and lifelong learning is preparing our children for the uncertainties of the future. By encouraging critical thinking, we’re not just teaching them to solve problems but to question the problems they’re solving. Empathy is about understanding and valuing different perspectives, a skill that’s increasingly important in our global society. And lifelong learning? That’s about keeping the spark of curiosity alive, always being open to new ideas and challenges.”

The part of Alex’s paragraph that really stood out to me (aside from that the fact that his writing is a lot better than mine) was “It’s not just about what we teach but how we teach it”

A teacher’s job is not to teach the subject but to make the student want to learn the subject or as Einstein said “I never teach my pupils; I only provide the conditions in which they can learn.” The point being that perhaps new methods of teaching should be encouraged or even as far as going putting teachers through a “teacher training” program. Rather than focusing on the quality of students, perhaps we should be focusing on the quality of teachers.

Alex continued: “On empathy education, it’s tricky. We live in a world of diverse beliefs and values, and it’s not about finding a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, it’s about teaching our kids to navigate this complexity with respect and understanding. By exploring a wide range of cultures, histories, and philosophies, we can help them appreciate the richness of human experience and learn to engage constructively with people who see the world differently.”

This is a very interesting perspective from Alex. The reason being, typically when someone mentions teaching empathy, they categorize it into what they believe is morally right or what is morally wrong. That could be the reason why the world is so polarized today, and why every subject is turning into a “right vs wrong” issue because people forget the meaning of empathy. As Alex mentioned, empathy is understanding one another and the perspectives we share. This is why I don’t like debates because the problem with debates is that the participants’ objective is to win rather than to find solutions. Solutions are discovered through discussions, not debates. Debates only prove who’s better at debating. Teaching empathy in terms of understanding one another creates teamwork; teaching what is morally right or wrong creates animosity. If society wants to go in the direction of being a utopia in the future, then updating our education for the ones who will provide that future should be a priority, and I believe he came up with some interesting ideas.

The other participant who shared their perspective on this topic was Jake Thibault, JD/PhD, Professor of Philosophy at St. Joseph’s College in Maine. Jake had quite a bit of input that was refreshing, considering it was very detailed and not that of the general public. The area that Jake emphasized the most was religion and the role it can play in society. Religion is probably the most controversial topic worldwide and has been at the basis of many divisive topics. However, reading Jake’s perspective can at least help any proud atheist understand or even change their minds about religion’s involvement in our world today.

Jake stated: “I would stress the central role of religion and tradition in shaping the moral fabric of society. They would argue that a utopian society cannot be divorced from its religious and cultural heritage and that a return to traditional values and practices is necessary for societal renewal and flourishing.”

I do believe that having a strong belief in a higher power through religion is an important foundation to build a society on. Today, a lack of meaning is prevalent, hence the rise of depression and suicide. I believe that humans have an innate need to worship something, and when religion is not available, they tend to worship something else that is less meaningful (politics, news, social media, etc.). To me, this leads to a life without meaning, community, or structure, which eventually leads to chaos of the worst kind. Not to mention, if you look throughout history, civilizations that have fallen usually rebuild themselves on the basis of religion.

Jake then covered the importance of authority and localism: “I would emphasize the importance of hierarchy and authority in maintaining social order and stability. They would argue that a utopian society requires clear lines of authority and respect for legitimate authority figures, whether they be religious, political, or social leaders.

“I would support the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that decisions should be made at the most local level possible. They would advocate for decentralized governance structures that empower local communities and institutions to address their own needs and concerns.”

Although I agreed with Jake that authority should be respected, I was curious to see his take on how a system could prevent those in authoritarian positions from abusing their power.

.Jake replied: “In contemplating authoritarianism, I find myself drawn to a mildly Hobbesian perspective. While the notions of hierarchy and authority may provoke apprehension in many Americans, it is worthwhile to reflect on scenarios such as the current situation in Haiti, where we must ponder whether life under the governance of Jovenel Moise is preferable to the tumult of a state of nature. Under President Moise’s rule, the streets of Port-au-Prince were not haunted by the grim spectacle of dogs feasting on the corpses of innocent children. Hobbes confronted analogous dilemmas during England’s transition of power following the execution of King James I. He vividly depicted life after the monarch’s demise as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Likewise, the reign of terror during the French Revolution inflicted greater suffering upon the common French citizen than the rule of King Louis XVI, prompting the French people to restore monarchy four years later. Was life significantly improved under the Bolsheviks compared to Czar Nicholas II’s reign? While political systems can undergo transformations, perpetual revolution proves intolerable. Hierarchy and authority provide essential continuity and delineate boundaries. While my stance may entail a period of excessive deference to an unfit leader, it remains preferable to the alternative.” 

We concluded that the best course of action would be to to prevent the possibility of a tyrannical government before it even becomes a possibility.  We contemplated perhaps a constitution similar to that of the United States, one that prevents a tyrannical government while also maintaining respect for those in power.