Hey Tony

I had a look into some Utopian visions as part of my masters studies on community development. In my view they are all unsustainable, mainly because they put the vision of Utopia over the people as opposed to the people working together to make a difference in their own lives and the broader community. Check out the wikipedia article on Base Ecclesial Communities. I'm not holding them up as the only model however they bought significant social change.

We may not get to the end goal, but any movement towards ending homelessness, tackling the divide between the haves and haves not, creating communities that see and value their members as well as create a sense of belonging and the safety to move towards actualisation, in my view is a step in the right direction.

imajulianutter hits on an excellent point which I believe needs to be expanded upon.
It has little to do with these "Drivers" and more to do with the systematic weeding out of masculine characteristics from society, and the encouragement of a feminized view of the world.
Masculinized characters are more willing to see suffering and other problems as inherent in life, and as obstacles to be welcomed and overcome. The fact is that life is hard, life is painful, life is full of challenges; the difference is how these phenomenon is interpreted. A feminist or socialist will interpret all problems, all suffering as further evidence that life is terrible, as evidence we should be more meek, more caring, more safe.
What is required is to breed a more thorough "toughness" in man, not a delicate flower that takes offence at smallest of issues.

>>I had a look into some Utopian visions as part of my masters studies on community development. In my view they are all unsustainable, mainly because they put the vision of Utopia over the people as opposed to the people working together to make a difference in their own lives and the broader community.<<

Well there's your problem: far too much time spent examining other peoples midriff-inspired visions and not enough spent on Ancient Greek. That's where the word utopia comes from. It means 'no place': a place that does not really exist. Except in our imagination. You asked:

>>what would a just society or an abundant community look like?<<

Utopia: no place. I don't think man has ever created a perfect 'utopian' society: I don't think we ever will. Sometimes it's the trying that counts.

>>Check out the wikipedia article on Base Ecclesial Communities. I'm not holding them up as the only model however they bought significant social change.<<

Ouch. Dear gods...

I think I'll continue to save the acronym BEC for Bose-Einstein Condensate: particle physics makes my head hurt less than Catholic propaganda.

>>"Sophia Think Tank. The Bible Society Australia's national think tank on values, priorities, and behaviour in Australian Society."

All is now clear. Would I be over-prescient to suggest that the answer that emerges from Project 217, is going to be Jesus?

The same as the previous 216 projects, I suspect.<<

This post was one of the highlights of my day: thanks Pericles. I giggled for a good five minutes. But now that I discover how earnest alwaysalearner is in his belief that Jesus is the Answer - for the 217th time no less - my mirth turns to melancholy.

Cheers,

Tony

Hey Tony
The thought that I'm the cause of your melancholy is not a good one! Whilst I take your point about the origins of the word Utopia, I believe you oversimplify my position. I am not pushing an evangelical line as you suggest, instead my intention was to point out that effective social change that leads to an increase in overall community wellbeing is possible. I'm not sure that we've seen many examples in a western context, however I see that for a just society or an abundant community we need to take the principles of what has worked in other places and seek to contextualise and apply them.

David Wilson is well-intentioned, but the moment he comes under the bad influence of Eckersley, he is led astray.

I will point to three of Eckersley's assertions that are sufficient to drive us to hell:

1) That utter nonsense as if the [only] reasons to live are cultural. What an insolence to try telling us that what we live for must be what Mr. Eckersley lives for.

2) Eckersley has no clue of spirituality. His definition of "connectedness to the world" is almost the total opposite - materialism, while spirituality is about detachment from the world, not being OF it.

3) The mentioning in one breath of "materialism and individualism", stupidly blaming the evils of materialism on individualism.

The most extreme individualist in history was Diogenes - which was also one of the most extreme non-materialists. All he asked, materially, while he could ask for half the kingdom, is for the king to stop blocking the sun.

In a materialistic society, it is only the individualist who can break the habit, who can resist commercialism and ignore the media, who does not follow the herd when they all rush towards the edge of a cliff, whose well-being does not depend upon any of the stated "drivers".

I hereby grant Eckersley the title of the Chief Royal Tall-Poppy Executioner.

Hmmmm. Some interesting responses to my article. Thanks to everyone who took the time to have their say. I have been accused of having a simplistic ‘Jesus is the answer’ approach to life and its challenges. Nothing could be farther from the truth actually, but let me play along for a minute. It could be said that there are many simplistic answers to life’s problems, and a few of them popped up in the blogs. According to some, answers to the brokenness of the social environment include voting, risk taking, and masculinity to name just three. Simplistic to say the least, perhaps even worse than a Sunday School ‘Jesus’ in answer to all questions raised.
Oversimplification is dangerous. It takes a whole of community approach to address social issues. The blogs to this article , along with voting, risk taking, and masculinity have included ethical and spiritual investment, aspects of socialism, a transformed media, and equality as contributing to the possibility of social repair. By themselves these won’t go very far, but taken together we may get somewhere. This is a community development approach that ‘alwaysalearner’ addressed and it’s what is being emphasized in the research being conducted this year by Sophia Think Tank. Stay tuned….
David Wilson