Futurism is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.
How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.
How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.
To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.Show less
Imagine, without any sense of obligation to conjure up vague banalities such as world peace or immortality, what your perfect life would be? A happy family, ten million dollars, a holiday home on the beach, a getaway home in Nice, a white, glistening smile, harmonious relationships with everyone in time for Christmas Dinner, a wide circle of charismatic friends, a smaller circle of the close and loyal, sunshine, ski-trips, good food, a gorgeous partner. Most people are inherently liberal-fantasizers in this way. Sure, universal healthcare would be nice, but so would buying a yacht. We cycle through each day stimulating our neurons into powerhouses for capitalist perpetuation, both personally and societally. Make money, feel good; buy something to eat, worth the cash; donate to charity, what a good guy I am. Like it or not, we all experience and fuel a liberal society. But what exactly makes it so? The answer is blatant, but unappreciated: a comparative existence, or in other words, hierarchy.
This is best analyzed through a hypothetical antithesis to a liberally structured world. Imagine an entirely agrarian society in which the only function of a human is to eat, and subsequently produce more food to then be eaten at a later date. With each day the same, each person with the same functionality–could identity be eliminated? That’s a scary thought, having no identity, but what does it mean for society? First of all, in a world where there is no need for identity, it may not be present. It is arguable that you need a sense of identity to have sex, in order to differentiate desirable from less desirable features, but if all humans have the same societal functionality, indiscriminate breeding with the person on your right may be absorbed into the systematic behavior. After all, breeding is essential, but discrimination isn’t necessarily–in that capacity, natural selection may operate itself. Having an existence rooted in this hypothetical, agrarian cycle may produce a somewhat atomistic society. Atomism, at its zenith, could declare comparison and differentiation as entirely redundant concepts. Those existing so purely for routine survival in this world could be without the ability to observe and process the capacity to be less or more than what they are, unable to weigh qualities they possess and, consequently, form an identity. That is in saying that identity is relative. You being tall, someone else being short, a happy person, a sad person: all comparative observations, and the foundations for a socially nurtured identity. Society would exist as if it were a nebulous drift of dust in the window light–peace would not exist, as there would be no alternative. There would be only life. However, this is in a perfect world. In a perfect world, identity cannot exist. In this way, we are blessed with imperfection. We have the ability to love, to be proud, to be angry, to be kind. As humans, whether inherently or not, we have been gifted with existentialism. Part of you may wonder whether your appreciation for your own identity is natural, or simply the conditioning of a capitalist agenda. It is difficult to discern if identity or comparative processing is inherent. We naturally compare ourselves to animals, in our speed, in our intelligence, but to a lesser extent to the natural elements. If we can only compare ourselves to things that are easily anthropomorphized, then could our comparative existence be something of a social development? People fear atomism as they believe it is a catalyst for crime and anarchy, but conversely it could entirely extinguish anti-social behavior. Where is the crime if there is no incentive? The issue of consent is undoubtedly brought to mind with this issue, being the most primitively encouraged crime that is prolific and surviving to the modern day. In a world with no sense of comparative existence, thus there being no concept of any doings that are more or less moral than the next, is a violation of another human for breeding purposes wrong? To say it is wrong defeats the hypothetical point of the ‘perfect society’ entirely, but then natural pedophiles would conduct themselves to their wishes, based on a desire for intercourse rather than a desire to continue the race. In that way a paradox is created from which it is inescapable – the natural phenomenon of attraction, a man being able to differentiate another man from a woman, inherently suggests a comparative process. As said earlier, it is essential to breed, and whilst the selection of certain qualities isn’t crucial to existence, breeding is. In this way, a ‘perfect’ world would contain random, egoless intercourse with any other human, regardless of sex, gender, or age, thus being an antithetical society to that of a properly and efficiently surviving species. Perhaps when science reaches the point when human reproduction no longer requires sex, celibate and more ‘perfect’ societies could form, but currently it looks like we’re stuck with ourselves, whatever eclectic phenomenon that may entail.