Talk:A Modern Utopia

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial comment[edit]

Sounds like Platos Republic.

-G

Fiction?[edit]

Is this fiction or non-fiction? Someone should clarify the article. Allixpeeke 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utopian Economy[edit]

Well's did indeed begin his economic discussions with the idea of the gold 'Lion' coin, but moved on later in that chapter to dismiss physical currency as an ineffective classical means towards a livable climate. He instead introduced the idea of 'trade-able' energy as seeming to be the more ideal and modern alternative to a Utopian currency; being that the produced kinetic energy of the State would in fact be the more stable and reliable base on which a modern Utopia's economy might rest. He says this:

"It has been suggested by an ingenious thinker that it is possible to use as a standard of monetary value no substance whatever, but instead, force, and that value might be measured in units of energy. An excellent development this, in theory, at any rate, of the general idea of the modern State as kinetic and not static; it throws the old idea of the social order and the new into the sharpest antithesis." - 'Chapter the Third: Utopian Economics', and might be found on page 56 (at least in my copy). SpaceBaskets (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ What? Wells describes the electric currency working in parallel with the coinage. Indeed to my recollection the narrator and the botanist only ever use coins as money in Utopia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.32.188 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article also lacks...encyclopaedism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceBaskets (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messy mess[edit]

This "article" is an unacceptable bloody mess! Somebody save it and make it worth being in Wikipedia! Would Wells see this, he'd surely turn over in his grave. -- Howdoesitflee (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]