An Encyclopaedia Britannica article defined Utopia as "An ideal commonwealth whose inhabitants exist under seemingly perfect conditions" – these 'perfect' conditions comprise of financial, political, humanitarian and ethical aspects. Note the use of the word 'seemingly' implying that in fact, a utopia is not possible – by
dictionary definition 'it cannot exist and can only be inspired to.' So professional academic resources appear to state as a fact that a Utopia is
technically not possible. I find that this theory ought to be only an opinion, as there is
insufficient technical data to back it up. However I do in fact agree that a utopia is not
possible, as an equilibrium is required which is logically impossible to sustain... If
everyone is created perfectly, then will no satisfaction be gained due to competition? If
people are assigned jobs in society (depending on their social type in BNW) then will
they never seek the satisfaction of being an individual with freedom?
It is difficult to answer what exactly would be a Utopian situation regarding
each of the diverse factors mentioned above, and many arguments may appear
contradictory. For example, one may consider that in a perfect society, all beings will
have the greatest intelligence potential. However, as Mustapha Mond explains to the
Savage, a society complying solely of A++ beings would be anarchic and not possible
as humans with such a level of intelligence will be greatly unfulfilled with the
'screwdriver jobs'. So in Brave New World they consider it a Utopian factor to have
humans in 5 different social groups for various levels of work, leading to optimum
economic efficiency. However, I find such an idea not to be a Utopian one, as it is
certainly dehumanising to the lower castes, Huxley mocking the fact that the Delta
Mirror consisted solely of one-syllable words and the Epsilon that could only say
If you asked som...