The Irreplacable Role of Utopia

Human beings always adapt to their surroundings, if they're not killed immediately. Such adaptations means we could never feel happy if we're always pursuing the future. The Buddha, the Stoics, therefore encourages us to be satisfied with the now, for what we hold, and not crave for more.

Unfortunately, not everyone could do that, though. Many still pursue for better stuffs. What they used to pursue are now seen mundane, ignorant of what they hold they used to pursue. Their expectations raised, such that if asked to revert to a previous version, they'd mourn, for the feeling of loss is so great.

Given this psychological tendency that we're never satisfied, it's best that we live in the current moment of (un)conscious evolution, without ever reaching utopia. For a utopia is perfect, nothing left to be improved. Humans, finding out they could not crave for the better, that they already had the best, that everyone around them have also the best (the same product they're holding), cannot find what distincts them from others, lose their status of having better products than others, and have nothing to look for in the future. The result is unknown, but we could guess decadence, loss of meaning of life, loss the will to live. A peak always ends with a decline, perhaps with no exception. Of course, we already have the answers: Buddha and the stoics gave us the answers. If we're satisfied with what we have, we won't be slaves to greed, status, dignity, reputation, etc.

And if not, perhaps we should never build the utopia, even if we can.

The Awakening of Awareness

How many technologies, after they're invented, aren't put to use? People know about steam power far back into the Roman Empire, and cooking produce steams every day; yet it wasn't until the First Industrial Revolution that put it to pump water out of mines. (See Notes)

Upon the first invention, everyone's mind is opened. It could use to pump water out of mines, why not use it for other stuffs, like the railway carts to pull mines? If it could pull mines, why can't it pull people? The most difficult step is 0 to 1, and we wonder how long it'll take for the 0 to become the 1, and how many technologies today we have are still in the 0 stage, awaiting for its 1.

One thought of this when one saw the toroidal fan blade. Who would have thought you use maths to make such blades? Now that toroidal opened one's mind, one would think, oh, why not use a mobius-stripe shaped blade?

It's a question, how can we shorten this interval between a technology being discovered, and someone putting it to real case usage. One devise the partial gap lies between scientists who discovered it, and inventor who applies it. (One don't think engineers are the one doing the application, in one's opinion, but architect/inventor who care about the 'how' not the 'why'. The difference lies in the latter doing bottom-up evolution-friendly method of discovery, compared to top-down fragile method).

Notes

1. Though, one can't be sure if it's due to not thought about, have the idea but too lazy to implement it, or unable to implement in large scale even if thought about it. For example, steam engine requires fuel to boil, which is a lot of coal. If during the Roman Empire they don't have coal mines, or whatever reasons that they don't appreciate coal, provided they found shallow/surface coal mines, logs aren't sufficient to provide lots of power compared to coal.