Dystopia Is What Results from the Attempt to Create Utopia

Now, imagine you haven't read the article, somebody comments, "This guy said the earth is flat!" and you ctrl+f into the article and they did, in fact, write that. Should you be encouraged to read the article? They have some secular studies and ideas.

I would look at America over the last 40-50 years, instead of asking about Trump specifically.

This is one question asked in the article, and I think that the author does a massive disservice here, while simultaneously writing an article that suggests that any Utopia is also a Dystopia, but never asks the question: is there a subset of Americans that would consider America today to be Utopic. I would argue that yes, that is the case: Those who hold massive quantities of capital. They collect massive amounts from the economy, and pay relatively little in taxes, all by design, since Reagan. More speak against them today, but it is relatively new to see the arguments against their economic value, or whether such concentrated power is dangerous, at least for me.

I could go one step further and look at oil production and usage in this country, and probably be able to formulate utopia/dystopia from it.

However, neither of these are specific to "Trump's" America, and instead discuss an America that has existed and been going in this direction for some time. I consider inability to see dystopia and utopia in this system to be lack of creativity.

For example, we're the fattest people on the planet, at all income levels, due to ridiculous overabundance of food. People throw away 40% of their food!

The only crisis in America is a crisis of whiners, which has reached epic proportions.

One's long life indeed benefits from a controlled environment able to consistently provide food, water, air or protection from potential dangers.

But why would society's survival works like my own? The dinosaurs didn't last but life itself did. Abilities to evolve and adapt to change or the multiplicity of methods to keep going proved themselves as some of the reliable skills to survive.

Anyway, I'm eagerly awaiting any future story of a society able to provide each one with a promising and somewhat reliable environment while managing as a whole to evolve and overcome any new challenges the universe constantly throws at us :)

If you eradicate violence then those who love violence will suffer. You can't please everyone. This is not a normative claim, it's a fact of individuality. If your Utopian society is free of violence, then you must exclude people who love violence. How you accomplish this without committing violence is another matter.

you must admit the fundamental contrast to something like Moore's Utopia

I don't, actually. More was every bit a critic of his contemporary society as Marx was of his. The difference between More and Marx is that More was one of the most brilliant rhetoricians of all time. Taking the form of a Socratic dialogue, Utopia employs a pair of interlocutors, one of whom is the author himself, in order to present a critique of enclosure and the excesses of nobility that flew right over most nobles' heads. To call it "primarily concerned with describing the order of its hypothetical ideal" is to completely miss the author's point. I suggest you read it again.