The Utopian Warfare Mindset and Today

I think that today we share some aspects with the Utopians in our own modern interpretation of war, military structure (not typically drafts), and escalation of conflict (war as a last resort). I'm not a warfare expert nor a history expert, but I feel as though war today benefits more from the Utopian mindset of war than it would benefit the societies of the 16th century. By that, I mean that war is a much bigger risk today with the likes of nuclear weapons and has the potential to affect the entire world. We exist in a globalized society. That's not to say that we are as benevolent as the Utopians and their ideas of an unbreakable truce are; the US specifically has stacked up plenty of war crimes. However, I can see a connection in the notion that the Utopians would regard war with "utter loathing" (98). It speaks to their wisdom and experiences when dealing with war, if not aided by their inherently peaceful nature. With supranational organizations like the United Nations watching over potential warmongering, we have now established  Utopian-like preventative measures against war. We have policies in place like sanctions in attempt to keep peace. An all-out war today could result in the complete obliteration of all human life, and it's sad it's taken us until that point to be so hesitant to engage in war. Also, ahead of their time in regards to human rights, "If victory rests with the Utopians, they do not revenge themselves with blood" (103). I'd like to believe that we have become less brutal of a society; we no longer behead people over ideological differences like Henry VIII did to Thomas More. The Utopians were recognize the value of humanity. With the recent suspension of the INF (nuclear) Treaty between the US and Russia and the beginning a new arms race, the world's leaders could look to the Utopians as a reminder of the physical and emotional costs of war.

How much is too much?

Thomas More's Utopia is spectacularly detailed. The level of micromanagement in the conception of Utopian social, economic, political, and military life seems to border on the obsessive, down to specific tactics used in warfare. That is certainly a bonus, given our working definition for Utopian fiction, but such in-depth descriptions are tedious to read. A audience that becomes bored or irritated by a story is likely to put the book down or turn off the movie, rather than paying attention to the message. At what point should intricate world-building give way for the sake of holding the audience's attention?

Es muy complicado mi amigo.

Hola mis amigos. Aquí hay una lista de cosas que me resultan complicadas.

1. Spanish. I just dropped Spanish 202. That shits hard, and i'm gonna have to give it another run next semester.

2. Fishing scams at Hood College. How are there so many? And are we just gonna ignore the fact that the man trying to defend us from these scams is named Bing Crosby?! A true unsung hero.

3.The System of Local Government in today's portion of More's "Utopia".

I'm not saying I find chapter 3 good or bad... just that I thought it was a little confusing. It might have just been all the Greek names?

I liked parts. The whole postponement of senate debates thing was funny. More saying he doesn't appreciate when people blurt of the first thing on their mind and then try to defend it. (pg. 64). Kinda sounds like a lot of modern politicians today. I lol'd a little.