The Steemitopia Fallacy - the real meaning of utopia

in writing •  7 years ago 

It's not that I don't believe in the potential of Steemit and how it has already changed the lives of many people that has embraced its core values of sharing and rewarding high quality content, but the defintion of utopia means exactly that: an 'imagined' place where everything is perfect.

Let's take the premise of a social media platform where creators of high quality content are rewarded for their efforts - sounds perfect right? But let's think about why there are starving artists out there in the first place. The simple reason why there is an unequal distribution of wealth in the fiat currency world is exactly the reason why there will also be an unequal distribution of wealth in the cryptocurrency world. How will the poor artists earn rewards for themselves without the money that comes from the investments of the people that have accumulated the wealth to put into the platform? And what do you think the investors will want in return for providing those artists with the 'privilege' of being able to make an honest living from their art? I don't think Steemit addresses this fundamental problem so I don't expect a wealth sharing economy where everyone is rewarded for their efforts alone.

Let's take the premise of a decentralized platform where no one single entity controls all the wealth and power - sounds perfect right? It is human nature to fight over control for wealth and power, and removing a dictator or tyrant leaves the warlords to fighting over control, and inevitably the winner is installed as the next 'benevolent' leader. Even if the means with which control has been gained justifies the end, it doesn't mean that it will be the end of the application of those means - rather, it simply provides a justification for applying those means. I don't think Steemit addresses this fundamental problem so I don't expect a system where everyone is treated as equals.

What can an imaginary place provide other than fallacies and false promises? I guess it can give hope to people that have been unable to find the compassion or assistance that they should be receiving in the real world. It gives people a chance to fight against the odds, to triumph in their own way and make a difference where it counts - not in the bank balance or their digital wallet but in the hearts and minds of people who believe that real wealth and power cannot be measured in monetary units.

In reality, everyone has their own vision for a perfect place or paradise, but when you put all of those visions together the last thing you expect to find is the utopia that will satisfy everyone's desires. Even for the people who have spent all their time and energy chasing the money on Steemit will find that cryptocurrency has about as much value as fiat currency when your time on this planet is up. It is unfortunate that so much of the incredible work produced by the talented people on this platform doesn't get the attention it deserves, because it is being overshadowed by the problems that I have been hearing about and experienced ever since I joined the community. In a way this fits into the exact definition of a utopia because it is something that can be imagined but not achieved.

As much as we think that new ideas and technology will change the world for the better, somehow I am not convinced that this can happen without the people also changing in their attitudes and beliefs. We are definitely not there yet, but we can also hope and fight for the change that needs to happen.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

It seems that here steem power is the control factor :( Decentralized or not, as long as there is a concept that reflects/promotes inequality, there's no true wealth sharing.

I guess inequality is inevitably since it is impossible to define what a 'quality' post is. But more imporantly I don't think the balance of power between investors and creators is at a point where the community can grow in a sustainable or scalable manner, nor is the balance between authoring and curating equitable ( @therneau has written about self-voting and how it affects curation). However I think it is dangerous to aim for a 'perfect' community that we will never reach...

'Perfect' is in the eye of the beholder, and perfect is probably boring...
I hope we can aim for constant improvements that decrease the inequality and allow new-comers to be discovered and rewarded fairly for their contributions. (Reward doesn't have to be monetary: getting exposure and views is a reward upon itself). Currently when I look at the "trending" and "hot" lists, I mainly see the ones with power appear there, but when I look at my own feed, the people I follow like you, I see equally well-written posts that don't get the exposure they deserve.