Does Utopia require a change in our system, or a change in humans? If Utopia requires a fundamental change in humans, is it really our Utopia? Much of my sociological ramblings has been looking for a system that lets humans thrive as humans; a system that embraces our nature and creates virtue out of what we are by nature. In the right system, our evil greed becomes virtuous striving and lifts everyone. Or so I hope. Otherwise we are cursed with Original Sin, and that presumes a sadism in the Universe that I have long rejected.
Nature is slow and patient in making corrections, and she often corrects us more harshly than we’d like to experience, so we should look for ways to temper ourselves so that we do not need her corrections very often. Nature tells us that you cannot consume more than is produced, so we should conserve. But Nature also has built-in selfishness into every thinking creature on the planet. Clearly selfishness cannot in itself be evil unless we believe that Nature is evil. So we look for systems that recognize selfishness as a natural (and good) part of humans, and bound it so that it does not require Nature’s correction if it goes too far. Nature has also given us a desire and nature for communal interdependence, so I think Ayn Rand goes too far in her individualism.
Nature has given us a hunger for food. Glutony will hurt us, but hunger is part of being human. And satisfying our hunger requires the killing of other things (except for perhaps the most careful and devoted of Fruitarians. If we think hunger is evil, then Nature has created us without hope of redemption, a cruelty I hope is not true. But if such a violent desire as hunger is not evil, how similar must be our other desires? They are given to us by Nature, and we should devise our society to embrace them and guide them, not reject them.