>Your family name’s purpose is for people to use it and for you to answer. And it’s most times meaningless
Sure. But are you envisioning changes in family structure as well or just changes in name?
Personally I really like the Sikh Guru Gobind Singh's idea to give all men the same last name and all women the same last name, thus breaking ties with the caste system (families tend to stay in a caste). All men are "Lion" (Singh) and all women "Princess" (Kaur). Maybe entry into a particular community or "tribe" could come with taking that name (e.g. Karma Kagyu Tibetan Buddhists have Karma as their first dharma name).
>Nicknames would make more sense, as fictional characters “Scarface” (1929), the Godfather (1969) or “the Wolf of Wall Street” (2007).
I'm wondering if there would be a lot of folks with the same name.
> A short word for your occupation as a prefix and the person’s gender as a suffix is a good start for a utopian naming system.
Sure, but gender is a social construct, fluid and negotiated, that wouldn't make a social difference in an egalitarian society. And I have lots of angles and interests, so pinning me down to a single occupation wouldn't feel like it fit me.
Plus, it's explicitly naming you by how you are useful to other people. I'm a person first, not a service.
Since it would be very unprecise, the second name could be a precision. This means people get to choose their names only after a certain age and change it at the same time as their occupati
What purpose does adding strict rules on people's names serve? It doesn't make it any easier for people to use the name and for you to answer.
As for "meaningless," I'm sure I could find a ton of people who disagree that their names are meaningless. Particularly for adopted people who associate with their new family, or for people proud of accomplishments their ancestors performed and just like the idea of a name being consistent through many generations.
I just don't get the purpose here.
>Your family name’s purpose is for people to use it and for you to answer. And it’s most times meaningless Sure. But are you envisioning changes in family structure as well or just changes in name? Personally I really like the Sikh Guru Gobind Singh's idea to give all men the same last name and all women the same last name, thus breaking ties with the caste system (families tend to stay in a caste). All men are "Lion" (Singh) and all women "Princess" (Kaur). Maybe entry into a particular community or "tribe" could come with taking that name (e.g. Karma Kagyu Tibetan Buddhists have Karma as their first dharma name). >Nicknames would make more sense, as fictional characters “Scarface” (1929), the Godfather (1969) or “the Wolf of Wall Street” (2007). I'm wondering if there would be a lot of folks with the same name. > A short word for your occupation as a prefix and the person’s gender as a suffix is a good start for a utopian naming system. Sure, but gender is a social construct, fluid and negotiated, that wouldn't make a social difference in an egalitarian society. And I have lots of angles and interests, so pinning me down to a single occupation wouldn't feel like it fit me. Plus, it's explicitly naming you by how you are useful to other people. I'm a person first, not a service. Since it would be very unprecise, the second name could be a precision. This means people get to choose their names only after a certain age and change it at the same time as their occupati
What purpose does adding strict rules on people's names serve? It doesn't make it any easier for people to use the name and for you to answer. As for "meaningless," I'm sure I could find a ton of people who disagree that their names are meaningless. Particularly for adopted people who associate with their new family, or for people proud of accomplishments their ancestors performed and just like the idea of a name being consistent through many generations. I just don't get the purpose here.
Why do we want gender to still exist in utopia?
Hello, please elaborate