As always in politics, the problem is divergent interests. For example I disagree with the notion that the image depicts an utopia. It's a dystopia in my view.

1. people are traveling by planes (a flying car is just that), which must be very, very loud and inefficient. Where do they travel to? Why don't they get their goods by underground parcel mini-rail?

2. no flowers in this picture. What about biodiversity? What are people eating? Soylent green?

3. the only animal depicted is a domesticated one (judging from the size, a dog or a large rat).

4. it's all metal and glass. Can I have wood and stone instead please?

I want to live in a society that has extremely high living standards, but lives with nature, not against it. And today's problems have more to do with unequal access to basic needs and luxury, luxury being defined as things only few people can realistically enjoy at the same time and general drive to produce goods no-one needs instead of distributing work equally, getting rid of redundant office jobs and all the other inefficiencies capitalism brings.