Is a Utopia worth it? [on hold]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












In a far away future, when/where technology has erased scarcity, competition and poverty, what purpose does civilisation still have?



Suppose a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any object in any quantity forever, have automated robot workforce to fill in any remaining menial tasks available (run by limited virtual intelligence so as to avoid a matrix or terminator apocalypse), and have the ability to heal any wound or illness through nanotechnology or cloning.



A true, honest-to-God utopia.



a true, honest to god utopia.



Does civilisation hold any meaning any more? Do people have any purpose left? Is society as a whole left with any meaning?



(Assuming for the purpose of this query that we don't turn into some form of religious zealots.)



Also, besides it being a better alternative to a dystopian future, do we actually want to evolve into a utopia?






society far-future dystopia utopia







share|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by GrandmasterB, JBH, Frostfyre, ShadoCat, Renan 17 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question does not appear to be about worldbuilding, within the scope defined in the help center." – GrandmasterB, JBH, Frostfyre, ShadoCat
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 9




    In the '60es we went to the Moon. 50 years later there are people claiming the Earth is flat and the landing on the Moon is a hoax. Don't take civilization for granted.
    – L.Dutch♦
    19 hours ago






  • 9




    Sounds like a question more for philosophy.stackexchange.com
    – Qami
    19 hours ago






  • 3




    I don't vote OT:NAW very often, but I must this time. Whether your world is utopic or dystopic (or anything in between the extremes of everything-is-perfect and everything-is-broken) is storybuilding. Whether or not it was worth it to be whatever choice you, the author, made is storybuilding. How will you justify the best answer to this question when every answer for can be argued con and vice-versa? It's all about the point you want to make as an author.
    – JBH
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    Based on the picture, arches = utopia. So just keep building!
    – Punintended
    18 hours ago







  • 1




    @Punintended not to the person whose home used to sit at the base of one of those arches and didn't want to move. For them, this government is corrupt. Can't be a utopia for everyone.
    – Mr.Mindor
    18 hours ago














up vote
3
down vote

favorite












In a far away future, when/where technology has erased scarcity, competition and poverty, what purpose does civilisation still have?



Suppose a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any object in any quantity forever, have automated robot workforce to fill in any remaining menial tasks available (run by limited virtual intelligence so as to avoid a matrix or terminator apocalypse), and have the ability to heal any wound or illness through nanotechnology or cloning.



A true, honest-to-God utopia.



a true, honest to god utopia.



Does civilisation hold any meaning any more? Do people have any purpose left? Is society as a whole left with any meaning?



(Assuming for the purpose of this query that we don't turn into some form of religious zealots.)



Also, besides it being a better alternative to a dystopian future, do we actually want to evolve into a utopia?






society far-future dystopia utopia







share|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by GrandmasterB, JBH, Frostfyre, ShadoCat, Renan 17 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question does not appear to be about worldbuilding, within the scope defined in the help center." – GrandmasterB, JBH, Frostfyre, ShadoCat
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 9




    In the '60es we went to the Moon. 50 years later there are people claiming the Earth is flat and the landing on the Moon is a hoax. Don't take civilization for granted.
    – L.Dutch♦
    19 hours ago






  • 9




    Sounds like a question more for philosophy.stackexchange.com
    – Qami
    19 hours ago






  • 3




    I don't vote OT:NAW very often, but I must this time. Whether your world is utopic or dystopic (or anything in between the extremes of everything-is-perfect and everything-is-broken) is storybuilding. Whether or not it was worth it to be whatever choice you, the author, made is storybuilding. How will you justify the best answer to this question when every answer for can be argued con and vice-versa? It's all about the point you want to make as an author.
    – JBH
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    Based on the picture, arches = utopia. So just keep building!
    – Punintended
    18 hours ago







  • 1




    @Punintended not to the person whose home used to sit at the base of one of those arches and didn't want to move. For them, this government is corrupt. Can't be a utopia for everyone.
    – Mr.Mindor
    18 hours ago












up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











In a far away future, when/where technology has erased scarcity, competition and poverty, what purpose does civilisation still have?



Suppose a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any object in any quantity forever, have automated robot workforce to fill in any remaining menial tasks available (run by limited virtual intelligence so as to avoid a matrix or terminator apocalypse), and have the ability to heal any wound or illness through nanotechnology or cloning.



A true, honest-to-God utopia.



a true, honest to god utopia.



Does civilisation hold any meaning any more? Do people have any purpose left? Is society as a whole left with any meaning?



(Assuming for the purpose of this query that we don't turn into some form of religious zealots.)



Also, besides it being a better alternative to a dystopian future, do we actually want to evolve into a utopia?






society far-future dystopia utopia







share|improve this question















In a far away future, when/where technology has erased scarcity, competition and poverty, what purpose does civilisation still have?



Suppose a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any object in any quantity forever, have automated robot workforce to fill in any remaining menial tasks available (run by limited virtual intelligence so as to avoid a matrix or terminator apocalypse), and have the ability to heal any wound or illness through nanotechnology or cloning.



A true, honest-to-God utopia.



a true, honest to god utopia.



Does civilisation hold any meaning any more? Do people have any purpose left? Is society as a whole left with any meaning?



(Assuming for the purpose of this query that we don't turn into some form of religious zealots.)



Also, besides it being a better alternative to a dystopian future, do we actually want to evolve into a utopia?






society far-future dystopia utopia




society far-future dystopia utopia






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 19 hours ago









Frostfyre

17.4k962123




17.4k962123










asked 20 hours ago









Peter Pan

1034




1034




put on hold as off-topic by GrandmasterB, JBH, Frostfyre, ShadoCat, Renan 17 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question does not appear to be about worldbuilding, within the scope defined in the help center." – GrandmasterB, JBH, Frostfyre, ShadoCat
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




put on hold as off-topic by GrandmasterB, JBH, Frostfyre, ShadoCat, Renan 17 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question does not appear to be about worldbuilding, within the scope defined in the help center." – GrandmasterB, JBH, Frostfyre, ShadoCat
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







  • 9




    In the '60es we went to the Moon. 50 years later there are people claiming the Earth is flat and the landing on the Moon is a hoax. Don't take civilization for granted.
    – L.Dutch♦
    19 hours ago






  • 9




    Sounds like a question more for philosophy.stackexchange.com
    – Qami
    19 hours ago






  • 3




    I don't vote OT:NAW very often, but I must this time. Whether your world is utopic or dystopic (or anything in between the extremes of everything-is-perfect and everything-is-broken) is storybuilding. Whether or not it was worth it to be whatever choice you, the author, made is storybuilding. How will you justify the best answer to this question when every answer for can be argued con and vice-versa? It's all about the point you want to make as an author.
    – JBH
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    Based on the picture, arches = utopia. So just keep building!
    – Punintended
    18 hours ago







  • 1




    @Punintended not to the person whose home used to sit at the base of one of those arches and didn't want to move. For them, this government is corrupt. Can't be a utopia for everyone.
    – Mr.Mindor
    18 hours ago












  • 9




    In the '60es we went to the Moon. 50 years later there are people claiming the Earth is flat and the landing on the Moon is a hoax. Don't take civilization for granted.
    – L.Dutch♦
    19 hours ago






  • 9




    Sounds like a question more for philosophy.stackexchange.com
    – Qami
    19 hours ago






  • 3




    I don't vote OT:NAW very often, but I must this time. Whether your world is utopic or dystopic (or anything in between the extremes of everything-is-perfect and everything-is-broken) is storybuilding. Whether or not it was worth it to be whatever choice you, the author, made is storybuilding. How will you justify the best answer to this question when every answer for can be argued con and vice-versa? It's all about the point you want to make as an author.
    – JBH
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    Based on the picture, arches = utopia. So just keep building!
    – Punintended
    18 hours ago







  • 1




    @Punintended not to the person whose home used to sit at the base of one of those arches and didn't want to move. For them, this government is corrupt. Can't be a utopia for everyone.
    – Mr.Mindor
    18 hours ago







9




9




In the '60es we went to the Moon. 50 years later there are people claiming the Earth is flat and the landing on the Moon is a hoax. Don't take civilization for granted.
– L.Dutch♦
19 hours ago




In the '60es we went to the Moon. 50 years later there are people claiming the Earth is flat and the landing on the Moon is a hoax. Don't take civilization for granted.
– L.Dutch♦
19 hours ago




9




9




Sounds like a question more for philosophy.stackexchange.com
– Qami
19 hours ago




Sounds like a question more for philosophy.stackexchange.com
– Qami
19 hours ago




3




3




I don't vote OT:NAW very often, but I must this time. Whether your world is utopic or dystopic (or anything in between the extremes of everything-is-perfect and everything-is-broken) is storybuilding. Whether or not it was worth it to be whatever choice you, the author, made is storybuilding. How will you justify the best answer to this question when every answer for can be argued con and vice-versa? It's all about the point you want to make as an author.
– JBH
19 hours ago




I don't vote OT:NAW very often, but I must this time. Whether your world is utopic or dystopic (or anything in between the extremes of everything-is-perfect and everything-is-broken) is storybuilding. Whether or not it was worth it to be whatever choice you, the author, made is storybuilding. How will you justify the best answer to this question when every answer for can be argued con and vice-versa? It's all about the point you want to make as an author.
– JBH
19 hours ago




1




1




Based on the picture, arches = utopia. So just keep building!
– Punintended
18 hours ago





Based on the picture, arches = utopia. So just keep building!
– Punintended
18 hours ago





1




1




@Punintended not to the person whose home used to sit at the base of one of those arches and didn't want to move. For them, this government is corrupt. Can't be a utopia for everyone.
– Mr.Mindor
18 hours ago




@Punintended not to the person whose home used to sit at the base of one of those arches and didn't want to move. For them, this government is corrupt. Can't be a utopia for everyone.
– Mr.Mindor
18 hours ago










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
11
down vote













It's time for your civilization to be asking The Last Question.



Because...




If a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy
to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any
object in any quantity forever, ...




It's not "forever". Our sun, and indeed the universe itself, is like a spring-powered clock which is slowly winding down. The laws of thermodynamics, as we currently understand them, preclude the possibility of a truly perpetual, life-sustaining physical existence.



So, the search for a solution/workaround to the problem of entropy becomes the main project of civilization, and supporting projects would include finding ways to prolong our long-term existence while we try to solve that problem.



This answer was brought to you by Isaav Asimov's short story, The Last Question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question






share|improve this answer


















  • 4




    INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
    – Joe Bloggs
    19 hours ago










  • @JoeBloggs Indeed! I'll take that as a reference to the story, as opposed to a critique of my response. ;)
    – Qami
    18 hours ago











  • @Quami: That is as I intended it. You’ve got my +1. Hyper advanced civilisations trying to stave off the heat death of the universe is the theme of a fair few blooming good sci fi books. A personal favourite of mine is the Time Odyssey series, where a society with this goal deems it better in the long run to lob a planet into our sun and kill off the entire human race (while simultaneously running a pocket dimension as a memorial of sorts) than to allow an inefficient, wasteful race like ours to exist. Naturally we don’t all die, and the resulting war probably hastens the end, but hey!
    – Joe Bloggs
    18 hours ago

















up vote
5
down vote













The Greek Ideal



Your society haven't eliminated all work, only the manual work. You have robots and AI's doing the most mudanes tasks, allowing the humans to focus on the arts, the science, philosophy, and basically anything they desire.



A regular citizen will be a true renaissance man, studied in several different art and scientific school, they will create the most beautiful sculptures and write melodic poems while machines keep the sewers clean and farm for food.



Without having to worry about budget limits and constant inquiry from a board of directors, people will be able to pursue scientific knowledge with ease, free to explore the more arcane areas of the sciences without having to worry about profits.



Sports will always be popular, with the possibility of cloning even death sports becomes a possibility. For those in search of a bigger challenge, they could even clone strange and mutated animals for sport hunting.



Finally, there will be the exploration of space, ships being sent towards distant systems, and even if no alien life is found out there, then it just means that it's time for these humans to start themselves seeding the universe with life.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    +1 Ah Sasha! Now I don't get to answer! Very well done.
    – Amadeus
    18 hours ago

















up vote
3
down vote













A perfect Utopia is impossible



At least with humans (as they are). There will always be greed, envy, hate. A certain percentage of people are born psychopaths. Whilst they benefit a population in crisis, they are a burden in peaceful times.



It is a natural human drive to strive for more. To distinguish themselves from others through status or status symbols. You will never a a perfect human society.






share|improve this answer




















  • There is a strong possibility that psychopathy has a biological developmental component, there are indications of that in their brains. In a true utopia, healthcare, genetic testing and other elements should prevent any psychopaths from being conceived or brought to term; the fetus would be aborted as soon as genetics indicated it was at risk for ANY brain abnormality. In fact, in my utopia, people would be genetically tested for compatibility to prevent malformations altogether. That way you can have a society without psychopaths. We can get by without them just fine in a crisis.
    – Amadeus
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    @Mr.Mindor Does that mean you consider it part of "utopia" for people to have severely disabled children, mentally or physically, perhaps missing limbs, or with genetic diseases that will end their life early, like cystic-fibrosis? Or so mentally disabled they will need care for life? Or highly likely to suffer from breast cancer? That is not my idea of "Utopia". It is the advantage of science for us to NOT be afflicted by random acts of nature. And to not give birth to children incapable of ever falling in love or having any sympathy at all for the pain of another human being.
    – Amadeus
    17 hours ago






  • 1




    @Amadeus to me, Utopia level medical science would provide the means to improve peoples lives regardless of infliction, even in utero. but to cull anyone that isn't perfect? Nope, never.
    – Mr.Mindor
    17 hours ago






  • 1




    @Amadeus I really don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but when you start flipping the switches that control how the brain works, you mess not just with what we are (a human with a missing limb) but who we are: how we think, how we feel, how we create. When you have the state deciding who you can't be, that can't be utopia. That's evil. As for mental retardation... can the person be happy (by their own standards not yours)? If I asked those that I know or have known: 'Would you rather be who you are, or have never existed?' what do you suppose they would say?
    – Mr.Mindor
    24 mins ago






  • 1




    Further people/society are never satisfied we will always be judging what must be done by what the current situation. Today you may have:'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of being psychotic we should prevent that.' (already over the line if you ask me) Tomorrow it will be 'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of depression/anxiety/epilepsy/ADHD we should prevent that.' The day after 'People with this gene combination are typically less less intelligent...'
    – Mr.Mindor
    16 mins ago

















up vote
3
down vote













An interesting take on this question (the substance of it, if not the exact technological detail) can be seen in EM Forster's The Machine Stops.



Within three generations, humanity would no longer have the capacity to manage even trivial failures in the overall system. If this utopia was achieved, it would likely crash as soon as the automated maintenance systems encountered a situation for which they were not designed. A problem-solving autonomous AI might get around that limit, but you specified that your setup doesn't have that due to "Terminator Risk".



Edited to add:



It strikes me that I didn't describe the mechanism by which humanity would lose the ability to maintain the system over a three-generation span. Essentially, think of your utopia as an office with custom software that runs everything. Now eliminate everyone who knows how that software was written, and even everyone who knows what software is. Now wait 100 years.



Unless you intend to keep the founding generation alive forever, and enslave them to all subsequent generations. And even then...good luck keeping up the level of expertise you'll need after the first 1000 years of total idleness on the part of even that founding generation. I can't remember everything about the code I wrote a year ago.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    As others have mentioned, you can't erase scarcity and competition. What you're proposing is displacing scarcity from resource and wealth scarcity to some other aspect, like ability. We can both 3D-print any sculpture we imagine, but I'm better than you at imagining sculptures. This creates a competition, where I want to stay on top and you want to become better than me. For this reason we have local sports tournaments played by non-professionals who don't aspire to become professionals players. This could easily (with the resources you propose) be escalated to a global level, where many, many disciplines are recognized and everyone is ranked in the disciplines they pursue. Something like the olympic games but with a couple of orders of magnitude more disciplines (including all arts and all videogames) and almost the whole population participating. Those who don't participate are too busy inventing new disciplines!



    Also, while you propose eliminating scarcity of resources, there is still the matter of scarcity of energy (our sun produces a limited amount of energy, which presumably could be converted to a limited amount of whatever-you-want), and the scarcity of available space (unless you can 3D-print a real TARDIS, bigger on the inside).






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      You cannot erase scarcity and competition. People will always want more. Better food, prettier clothes, cooler gadgets, bigger house, etc. B/c for humans, "enough" means "more than average".



      If you look at quality of life that people had 100 years ago, you can easily get achieve and exceed it by living on welfare (at least in Europe). Yet most people want more, and are willing to work and compete for it.



      If enough people are convinced that they cannot improve their lives, then you will indeed have end of progress and stagnation. I believe this was the case throughout most of ancient history and middle ages. Some would argue that this mindset affects the able-bodied people who stay on welfare for years and years.






      share|improve this answer






















      • You certainly CAN erase scarcity; and competition can be channeled into sports and other contests, be they mental or physical pursuits, they don't have to be about money and wanting "more". They can be about, for example, social fame, being an excellent actor, singer, musician, fiction writer, sports star, etc. A society that seeks social fame by, for example, designing a prettier dress, and publishing the plan on the Net so anybody can wear it, gets their "reward" as fame points because lots of people wear it. Consumers got it free (even the energy and robots to make it was free).
        – Amadeus
        17 hours ago

















      up vote
      0
      down vote













      It depends on your philosophical axioms.



      If your concept of "purpose" is set up in a way that satisfaction of sentient beings is the ultimate purpose then the answer is yes, the Utopia is definitely worth it. The ultimately evolved civilization serves its individuals by providing them with pain-free, stress-free life, while simultaneously quenching intellectual thirst. Everybody can relax and enjoy infinite possibilities without fear of any harm falling upon them.



      If, on the other hand, every sentient individual has to fulfill a purpose (but towards what or who?), then maybe not. For some strange reasons I can't quite fathom, this philosophical opinion seems to be more popular among the general population of people who think about the concept of purpose.






      share|improve this answer



























        7 Answers
        7






        active

        oldest

        votes








        7 Answers
        7






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        11
        down vote













        It's time for your civilization to be asking The Last Question.



        Because...




        If a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy
        to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any
        object in any quantity forever, ...




        It's not "forever". Our sun, and indeed the universe itself, is like a spring-powered clock which is slowly winding down. The laws of thermodynamics, as we currently understand them, preclude the possibility of a truly perpetual, life-sustaining physical existence.



        So, the search for a solution/workaround to the problem of entropy becomes the main project of civilization, and supporting projects would include finding ways to prolong our long-term existence while we try to solve that problem.



        This answer was brought to you by Isaav Asimov's short story, The Last Question.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question






        share|improve this answer


















        • 4




          INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
          – Joe Bloggs
          19 hours ago










        • @JoeBloggs Indeed! I'll take that as a reference to the story, as opposed to a critique of my response. ;)
          – Qami
          18 hours ago











        • @Quami: That is as I intended it. You’ve got my +1. Hyper advanced civilisations trying to stave off the heat death of the universe is the theme of a fair few blooming good sci fi books. A personal favourite of mine is the Time Odyssey series, where a society with this goal deems it better in the long run to lob a planet into our sun and kill off the entire human race (while simultaneously running a pocket dimension as a memorial of sorts) than to allow an inefficient, wasteful race like ours to exist. Naturally we don’t all die, and the resulting war probably hastens the end, but hey!
          – Joe Bloggs
          18 hours ago














        up vote
        11
        down vote













        It's time for your civilization to be asking The Last Question.



        Because...




        If a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy
        to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any
        object in any quantity forever, ...




        It's not "forever". Our sun, and indeed the universe itself, is like a spring-powered clock which is slowly winding down. The laws of thermodynamics, as we currently understand them, preclude the possibility of a truly perpetual, life-sustaining physical existence.



        So, the search for a solution/workaround to the problem of entropy becomes the main project of civilization, and supporting projects would include finding ways to prolong our long-term existence while we try to solve that problem.



        This answer was brought to you by Isaav Asimov's short story, The Last Question.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question






        share|improve this answer


















        • 4




          INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
          – Joe Bloggs
          19 hours ago










        • @JoeBloggs Indeed! I'll take that as a reference to the story, as opposed to a critique of my response. ;)
          – Qami
          18 hours ago











        • @Quami: That is as I intended it. You’ve got my +1. Hyper advanced civilisations trying to stave off the heat death of the universe is the theme of a fair few blooming good sci fi books. A personal favourite of mine is the Time Odyssey series, where a society with this goal deems it better in the long run to lob a planet into our sun and kill off the entire human race (while simultaneously running a pocket dimension as a memorial of sorts) than to allow an inefficient, wasteful race like ours to exist. Naturally we don’t all die, and the resulting war probably hastens the end, but hey!
          – Joe Bloggs
          18 hours ago












        up vote
        11
        down vote










        up vote
        11
        down vote









        It's time for your civilization to be asking The Last Question.



        Because...




        If a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy
        to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any
        object in any quantity forever, ...




        It's not "forever". Our sun, and indeed the universe itself, is like a spring-powered clock which is slowly winding down. The laws of thermodynamics, as we currently understand them, preclude the possibility of a truly perpetual, life-sustaining physical existence.



        So, the search for a solution/workaround to the problem of entropy becomes the main project of civilization, and supporting projects would include finding ways to prolong our long-term existence while we try to solve that problem.



        This answer was brought to you by Isaav Asimov's short story, The Last Question.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question






        share|improve this answer














        It's time for your civilization to be asking The Last Question.



        Because...




        If a civilisation reaches a level at which it can harvest solar energy
        to fuel energy matter constructors and use these devices to create any
        object in any quantity forever, ...




        It's not "forever". Our sun, and indeed the universe itself, is like a spring-powered clock which is slowly winding down. The laws of thermodynamics, as we currently understand them, preclude the possibility of a truly perpetual, life-sustaining physical existence.



        So, the search for a solution/workaround to the problem of entropy becomes the main project of civilization, and supporting projects would include finding ways to prolong our long-term existence while we try to solve that problem.



        This answer was brought to you by Isaav Asimov's short story, The Last Question.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 17 hours ago

























        answered 19 hours ago









        Qami

        984111




        984111







        • 4




          INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
          – Joe Bloggs
          19 hours ago










        • @JoeBloggs Indeed! I'll take that as a reference to the story, as opposed to a critique of my response. ;)
          – Qami
          18 hours ago











        • @Quami: That is as I intended it. You’ve got my +1. Hyper advanced civilisations trying to stave off the heat death of the universe is the theme of a fair few blooming good sci fi books. A personal favourite of mine is the Time Odyssey series, where a society with this goal deems it better in the long run to lob a planet into our sun and kill off the entire human race (while simultaneously running a pocket dimension as a memorial of sorts) than to allow an inefficient, wasteful race like ours to exist. Naturally we don’t all die, and the resulting war probably hastens the end, but hey!
          – Joe Bloggs
          18 hours ago












        • 4




          INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
          – Joe Bloggs
          19 hours ago










        • @JoeBloggs Indeed! I'll take that as a reference to the story, as opposed to a critique of my response. ;)
          – Qami
          18 hours ago











        • @Quami: That is as I intended it. You’ve got my +1. Hyper advanced civilisations trying to stave off the heat death of the universe is the theme of a fair few blooming good sci fi books. A personal favourite of mine is the Time Odyssey series, where a society with this goal deems it better in the long run to lob a planet into our sun and kill off the entire human race (while simultaneously running a pocket dimension as a memorial of sorts) than to allow an inefficient, wasteful race like ours to exist. Naturally we don’t all die, and the resulting war probably hastens the end, but hey!
          – Joe Bloggs
          18 hours ago







        4




        4




        INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
        – Joe Bloggs
        19 hours ago




        INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
        – Joe Bloggs
        19 hours ago












        @JoeBloggs Indeed! I'll take that as a reference to the story, as opposed to a critique of my response. ;)
        – Qami
        18 hours ago





        @JoeBloggs Indeed! I'll take that as a reference to the story, as opposed to a critique of my response. ;)
        – Qami
        18 hours ago













        @Quami: That is as I intended it. You’ve got my +1. Hyper advanced civilisations trying to stave off the heat death of the universe is the theme of a fair few blooming good sci fi books. A personal favourite of mine is the Time Odyssey series, where a society with this goal deems it better in the long run to lob a planet into our sun and kill off the entire human race (while simultaneously running a pocket dimension as a memorial of sorts) than to allow an inefficient, wasteful race like ours to exist. Naturally we don’t all die, and the resulting war probably hastens the end, but hey!
        – Joe Bloggs
        18 hours ago




        @Quami: That is as I intended it. You’ve got my +1. Hyper advanced civilisations trying to stave off the heat death of the universe is the theme of a fair few blooming good sci fi books. A personal favourite of mine is the Time Odyssey series, where a society with this goal deems it better in the long run to lob a planet into our sun and kill off the entire human race (while simultaneously running a pocket dimension as a memorial of sorts) than to allow an inefficient, wasteful race like ours to exist. Naturally we don’t all die, and the resulting war probably hastens the end, but hey!
        – Joe Bloggs
        18 hours ago










        up vote
        5
        down vote













        The Greek Ideal



        Your society haven't eliminated all work, only the manual work. You have robots and AI's doing the most mudanes tasks, allowing the humans to focus on the arts, the science, philosophy, and basically anything they desire.



        A regular citizen will be a true renaissance man, studied in several different art and scientific school, they will create the most beautiful sculptures and write melodic poems while machines keep the sewers clean and farm for food.



        Without having to worry about budget limits and constant inquiry from a board of directors, people will be able to pursue scientific knowledge with ease, free to explore the more arcane areas of the sciences without having to worry about profits.



        Sports will always be popular, with the possibility of cloning even death sports becomes a possibility. For those in search of a bigger challenge, they could even clone strange and mutated animals for sport hunting.



        Finally, there will be the exploration of space, ships being sent towards distant systems, and even if no alien life is found out there, then it just means that it's time for these humans to start themselves seeding the universe with life.






        share|improve this answer
















        • 1




          +1 Ah Sasha! Now I don't get to answer! Very well done.
          – Amadeus
          18 hours ago














        up vote
        5
        down vote













        The Greek Ideal



        Your society haven't eliminated all work, only the manual work. You have robots and AI's doing the most mudanes tasks, allowing the humans to focus on the arts, the science, philosophy, and basically anything they desire.



        A regular citizen will be a true renaissance man, studied in several different art and scientific school, they will create the most beautiful sculptures and write melodic poems while machines keep the sewers clean and farm for food.



        Without having to worry about budget limits and constant inquiry from a board of directors, people will be able to pursue scientific knowledge with ease, free to explore the more arcane areas of the sciences without having to worry about profits.



        Sports will always be popular, with the possibility of cloning even death sports becomes a possibility. For those in search of a bigger challenge, they could even clone strange and mutated animals for sport hunting.



        Finally, there will be the exploration of space, ships being sent towards distant systems, and even if no alien life is found out there, then it just means that it's time for these humans to start themselves seeding the universe with life.






        share|improve this answer
















        • 1




          +1 Ah Sasha! Now I don't get to answer! Very well done.
          – Amadeus
          18 hours ago












        up vote
        5
        down vote










        up vote
        5
        down vote









        The Greek Ideal



        Your society haven't eliminated all work, only the manual work. You have robots and AI's doing the most mudanes tasks, allowing the humans to focus on the arts, the science, philosophy, and basically anything they desire.



        A regular citizen will be a true renaissance man, studied in several different art and scientific school, they will create the most beautiful sculptures and write melodic poems while machines keep the sewers clean and farm for food.



        Without having to worry about budget limits and constant inquiry from a board of directors, people will be able to pursue scientific knowledge with ease, free to explore the more arcane areas of the sciences without having to worry about profits.



        Sports will always be popular, with the possibility of cloning even death sports becomes a possibility. For those in search of a bigger challenge, they could even clone strange and mutated animals for sport hunting.



        Finally, there will be the exploration of space, ships being sent towards distant systems, and even if no alien life is found out there, then it just means that it's time for these humans to start themselves seeding the universe with life.






        share|improve this answer












        The Greek Ideal



        Your society haven't eliminated all work, only the manual work. You have robots and AI's doing the most mudanes tasks, allowing the humans to focus on the arts, the science, philosophy, and basically anything they desire.



        A regular citizen will be a true renaissance man, studied in several different art and scientific school, they will create the most beautiful sculptures and write melodic poems while machines keep the sewers clean and farm for food.



        Without having to worry about budget limits and constant inquiry from a board of directors, people will be able to pursue scientific knowledge with ease, free to explore the more arcane areas of the sciences without having to worry about profits.



        Sports will always be popular, with the possibility of cloning even death sports becomes a possibility. For those in search of a bigger challenge, they could even clone strange and mutated animals for sport hunting.



        Finally, there will be the exploration of space, ships being sent towards distant systems, and even if no alien life is found out there, then it just means that it's time for these humans to start themselves seeding the universe with life.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 19 hours ago









        Sasha

        3,973934




        3,973934







        • 1




          +1 Ah Sasha! Now I don't get to answer! Very well done.
          – Amadeus
          18 hours ago












        • 1




          +1 Ah Sasha! Now I don't get to answer! Very well done.
          – Amadeus
          18 hours ago







        1




        1




        +1 Ah Sasha! Now I don't get to answer! Very well done.
        – Amadeus
        18 hours ago




        +1 Ah Sasha! Now I don't get to answer! Very well done.
        – Amadeus
        18 hours ago










        up vote
        3
        down vote













        A perfect Utopia is impossible



        At least with humans (as they are). There will always be greed, envy, hate. A certain percentage of people are born psychopaths. Whilst they benefit a population in crisis, they are a burden in peaceful times.



        It is a natural human drive to strive for more. To distinguish themselves from others through status or status symbols. You will never a a perfect human society.






        share|improve this answer




















        • There is a strong possibility that psychopathy has a biological developmental component, there are indications of that in their brains. In a true utopia, healthcare, genetic testing and other elements should prevent any psychopaths from being conceived or brought to term; the fetus would be aborted as soon as genetics indicated it was at risk for ANY brain abnormality. In fact, in my utopia, people would be genetically tested for compatibility to prevent malformations altogether. That way you can have a society without psychopaths. We can get by without them just fine in a crisis.
          – Amadeus
          18 hours ago






        • 1




          @Mr.Mindor Does that mean you consider it part of "utopia" for people to have severely disabled children, mentally or physically, perhaps missing limbs, or with genetic diseases that will end their life early, like cystic-fibrosis? Or so mentally disabled they will need care for life? Or highly likely to suffer from breast cancer? That is not my idea of "Utopia". It is the advantage of science for us to NOT be afflicted by random acts of nature. And to not give birth to children incapable of ever falling in love or having any sympathy at all for the pain of another human being.
          – Amadeus
          17 hours ago






        • 1




          @Amadeus to me, Utopia level medical science would provide the means to improve peoples lives regardless of infliction, even in utero. but to cull anyone that isn't perfect? Nope, never.
          – Mr.Mindor
          17 hours ago






        • 1




          @Amadeus I really don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but when you start flipping the switches that control how the brain works, you mess not just with what we are (a human with a missing limb) but who we are: how we think, how we feel, how we create. When you have the state deciding who you can't be, that can't be utopia. That's evil. As for mental retardation... can the person be happy (by their own standards not yours)? If I asked those that I know or have known: 'Would you rather be who you are, or have never existed?' what do you suppose they would say?
          – Mr.Mindor
          24 mins ago






        • 1




          Further people/society are never satisfied we will always be judging what must be done by what the current situation. Today you may have:'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of being psychotic we should prevent that.' (already over the line if you ask me) Tomorrow it will be 'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of depression/anxiety/epilepsy/ADHD we should prevent that.' The day after 'People with this gene combination are typically less less intelligent...'
          – Mr.Mindor
          16 mins ago














        up vote
        3
        down vote













        A perfect Utopia is impossible



        At least with humans (as they are). There will always be greed, envy, hate. A certain percentage of people are born psychopaths. Whilst they benefit a population in crisis, they are a burden in peaceful times.



        It is a natural human drive to strive for more. To distinguish themselves from others through status or status symbols. You will never a a perfect human society.






        share|improve this answer




















        • There is a strong possibility that psychopathy has a biological developmental component, there are indications of that in their brains. In a true utopia, healthcare, genetic testing and other elements should prevent any psychopaths from being conceived or brought to term; the fetus would be aborted as soon as genetics indicated it was at risk for ANY brain abnormality. In fact, in my utopia, people would be genetically tested for compatibility to prevent malformations altogether. That way you can have a society without psychopaths. We can get by without them just fine in a crisis.
          – Amadeus
          18 hours ago






        • 1




          @Mr.Mindor Does that mean you consider it part of "utopia" for people to have severely disabled children, mentally or physically, perhaps missing limbs, or with genetic diseases that will end their life early, like cystic-fibrosis? Or so mentally disabled they will need care for life? Or highly likely to suffer from breast cancer? That is not my idea of "Utopia". It is the advantage of science for us to NOT be afflicted by random acts of nature. And to not give birth to children incapable of ever falling in love or having any sympathy at all for the pain of another human being.
          – Amadeus
          17 hours ago






        • 1




          @Amadeus to me, Utopia level medical science would provide the means to improve peoples lives regardless of infliction, even in utero. but to cull anyone that isn't perfect? Nope, never.
          – Mr.Mindor
          17 hours ago






        • 1




          @Amadeus I really don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but when you start flipping the switches that control how the brain works, you mess not just with what we are (a human with a missing limb) but who we are: how we think, how we feel, how we create. When you have the state deciding who you can't be, that can't be utopia. That's evil. As for mental retardation... can the person be happy (by their own standards not yours)? If I asked those that I know or have known: 'Would you rather be who you are, or have never existed?' what do you suppose they would say?
          – Mr.Mindor
          24 mins ago






        • 1




          Further people/society are never satisfied we will always be judging what must be done by what the current situation. Today you may have:'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of being psychotic we should prevent that.' (already over the line if you ask me) Tomorrow it will be 'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of depression/anxiety/epilepsy/ADHD we should prevent that.' The day after 'People with this gene combination are typically less less intelligent...'
          – Mr.Mindor
          16 mins ago












        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote









        A perfect Utopia is impossible



        At least with humans (as they are). There will always be greed, envy, hate. A certain percentage of people are born psychopaths. Whilst they benefit a population in crisis, they are a burden in peaceful times.



        It is a natural human drive to strive for more. To distinguish themselves from others through status or status symbols. You will never a a perfect human society.






        share|improve this answer












        A perfect Utopia is impossible



        At least with humans (as they are). There will always be greed, envy, hate. A certain percentage of people are born psychopaths. Whilst they benefit a population in crisis, they are a burden in peaceful times.



        It is a natural human drive to strive for more. To distinguish themselves from others through status or status symbols. You will never a a perfect human society.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 19 hours ago









        ArtificialSoul

        4,6481339




        4,6481339











        • There is a strong possibility that psychopathy has a biological developmental component, there are indications of that in their brains. In a true utopia, healthcare, genetic testing and other elements should prevent any psychopaths from being conceived or brought to term; the fetus would be aborted as soon as genetics indicated it was at risk for ANY brain abnormality. In fact, in my utopia, people would be genetically tested for compatibility to prevent malformations altogether. That way you can have a society without psychopaths. We can get by without them just fine in a crisis.
          – Amadeus
          18 hours ago






        • 1




          @Mr.Mindor Does that mean you consider it part of "utopia" for people to have severely disabled children, mentally or physically, perhaps missing limbs, or with genetic diseases that will end their life early, like cystic-fibrosis? Or so mentally disabled they will need care for life? Or highly likely to suffer from breast cancer? That is not my idea of "Utopia". It is the advantage of science for us to NOT be afflicted by random acts of nature. And to not give birth to children incapable of ever falling in love or having any sympathy at all for the pain of another human being.
          – Amadeus
          17 hours ago






        • 1




          @Amadeus to me, Utopia level medical science would provide the means to improve peoples lives regardless of infliction, even in utero. but to cull anyone that isn't perfect? Nope, never.
          – Mr.Mindor
          17 hours ago






        • 1




          @Amadeus I really don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but when you start flipping the switches that control how the brain works, you mess not just with what we are (a human with a missing limb) but who we are: how we think, how we feel, how we create. When you have the state deciding who you can't be, that can't be utopia. That's evil. As for mental retardation... can the person be happy (by their own standards not yours)? If I asked those that I know or have known: 'Would you rather be who you are, or have never existed?' what do you suppose they would say?
          – Mr.Mindor
          24 mins ago






        • 1




          Further people/society are never satisfied we will always be judging what must be done by what the current situation. Today you may have:'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of being psychotic we should prevent that.' (already over the line if you ask me) Tomorrow it will be 'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of depression/anxiety/epilepsy/ADHD we should prevent that.' The day after 'People with this gene combination are typically less less intelligent...'
          – Mr.Mindor
          16 mins ago
















        • There is a strong possibility that psychopathy has a biological developmental component, there are indications of that in their brains. In a true utopia, healthcare, genetic testing and other elements should prevent any psychopaths from being conceived or brought to term; the fetus would be aborted as soon as genetics indicated it was at risk for ANY brain abnormality. In fact, in my utopia, people would be genetically tested for compatibility to prevent malformations altogether. That way you can have a society without psychopaths. We can get by without them just fine in a crisis.
          – Amadeus
          18 hours ago






        • 1




          @Mr.Mindor Does that mean you consider it part of "utopia" for people to have severely disabled children, mentally or physically, perhaps missing limbs, or with genetic diseases that will end their life early, like cystic-fibrosis? Or so mentally disabled they will need care for life? Or highly likely to suffer from breast cancer? That is not my idea of "Utopia". It is the advantage of science for us to NOT be afflicted by random acts of nature. And to not give birth to children incapable of ever falling in love or having any sympathy at all for the pain of another human being.
          – Amadeus
          17 hours ago






        • 1




          @Amadeus to me, Utopia level medical science would provide the means to improve peoples lives regardless of infliction, even in utero. but to cull anyone that isn't perfect? Nope, never.
          – Mr.Mindor
          17 hours ago






        • 1




          @Amadeus I really don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but when you start flipping the switches that control how the brain works, you mess not just with what we are (a human with a missing limb) but who we are: how we think, how we feel, how we create. When you have the state deciding who you can't be, that can't be utopia. That's evil. As for mental retardation... can the person be happy (by their own standards not yours)? If I asked those that I know or have known: 'Would you rather be who you are, or have never existed?' what do you suppose they would say?
          – Mr.Mindor
          24 mins ago






        • 1




          Further people/society are never satisfied we will always be judging what must be done by what the current situation. Today you may have:'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of being psychotic we should prevent that.' (already over the line if you ask me) Tomorrow it will be 'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of depression/anxiety/epilepsy/ADHD we should prevent that.' The day after 'People with this gene combination are typically less less intelligent...'
          – Mr.Mindor
          16 mins ago















        There is a strong possibility that psychopathy has a biological developmental component, there are indications of that in their brains. In a true utopia, healthcare, genetic testing and other elements should prevent any psychopaths from being conceived or brought to term; the fetus would be aborted as soon as genetics indicated it was at risk for ANY brain abnormality. In fact, in my utopia, people would be genetically tested for compatibility to prevent malformations altogether. That way you can have a society without psychopaths. We can get by without them just fine in a crisis.
        – Amadeus
        18 hours ago




        There is a strong possibility that psychopathy has a biological developmental component, there are indications of that in their brains. In a true utopia, healthcare, genetic testing and other elements should prevent any psychopaths from being conceived or brought to term; the fetus would be aborted as soon as genetics indicated it was at risk for ANY brain abnormality. In fact, in my utopia, people would be genetically tested for compatibility to prevent malformations altogether. That way you can have a society without psychopaths. We can get by without them just fine in a crisis.
        – Amadeus
        18 hours ago




        1




        1




        @Mr.Mindor Does that mean you consider it part of "utopia" for people to have severely disabled children, mentally or physically, perhaps missing limbs, or with genetic diseases that will end their life early, like cystic-fibrosis? Or so mentally disabled they will need care for life? Or highly likely to suffer from breast cancer? That is not my idea of "Utopia". It is the advantage of science for us to NOT be afflicted by random acts of nature. And to not give birth to children incapable of ever falling in love or having any sympathy at all for the pain of another human being.
        – Amadeus
        17 hours ago




        @Mr.Mindor Does that mean you consider it part of "utopia" for people to have severely disabled children, mentally or physically, perhaps missing limbs, or with genetic diseases that will end their life early, like cystic-fibrosis? Or so mentally disabled they will need care for life? Or highly likely to suffer from breast cancer? That is not my idea of "Utopia". It is the advantage of science for us to NOT be afflicted by random acts of nature. And to not give birth to children incapable of ever falling in love or having any sympathy at all for the pain of another human being.
        – Amadeus
        17 hours ago




        1




        1




        @Amadeus to me, Utopia level medical science would provide the means to improve peoples lives regardless of infliction, even in utero. but to cull anyone that isn't perfect? Nope, never.
        – Mr.Mindor
        17 hours ago




        @Amadeus to me, Utopia level medical science would provide the means to improve peoples lives regardless of infliction, even in utero. but to cull anyone that isn't perfect? Nope, never.
        – Mr.Mindor
        17 hours ago




        1




        1




        @Amadeus I really don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but when you start flipping the switches that control how the brain works, you mess not just with what we are (a human with a missing limb) but who we are: how we think, how we feel, how we create. When you have the state deciding who you can't be, that can't be utopia. That's evil. As for mental retardation... can the person be happy (by their own standards not yours)? If I asked those that I know or have known: 'Would you rather be who you are, or have never existed?' what do you suppose they would say?
        – Mr.Mindor
        24 mins ago




        @Amadeus I really don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but when you start flipping the switches that control how the brain works, you mess not just with what we are (a human with a missing limb) but who we are: how we think, how we feel, how we create. When you have the state deciding who you can't be, that can't be utopia. That's evil. As for mental retardation... can the person be happy (by their own standards not yours)? If I asked those that I know or have known: 'Would you rather be who you are, or have never existed?' what do you suppose they would say?
        – Mr.Mindor
        24 mins ago




        1




        1




        Further people/society are never satisfied we will always be judging what must be done by what the current situation. Today you may have:'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of being psychotic we should prevent that.' (already over the line if you ask me) Tomorrow it will be 'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of depression/anxiety/epilepsy/ADHD we should prevent that.' The day after 'People with this gene combination are typically less less intelligent...'
        – Mr.Mindor
        16 mins ago




        Further people/society are never satisfied we will always be judging what must be done by what the current situation. Today you may have:'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of being psychotic we should prevent that.' (already over the line if you ask me) Tomorrow it will be 'People with this gene combination are at higher risk of depression/anxiety/epilepsy/ADHD we should prevent that.' The day after 'People with this gene combination are typically less less intelligent...'
        – Mr.Mindor
        16 mins ago










        up vote
        3
        down vote













        An interesting take on this question (the substance of it, if not the exact technological detail) can be seen in EM Forster's The Machine Stops.



        Within three generations, humanity would no longer have the capacity to manage even trivial failures in the overall system. If this utopia was achieved, it would likely crash as soon as the automated maintenance systems encountered a situation for which they were not designed. A problem-solving autonomous AI might get around that limit, but you specified that your setup doesn't have that due to "Terminator Risk".



        Edited to add:



        It strikes me that I didn't describe the mechanism by which humanity would lose the ability to maintain the system over a three-generation span. Essentially, think of your utopia as an office with custom software that runs everything. Now eliminate everyone who knows how that software was written, and even everyone who knows what software is. Now wait 100 years.



        Unless you intend to keep the founding generation alive forever, and enslave them to all subsequent generations. And even then...good luck keeping up the level of expertise you'll need after the first 1000 years of total idleness on the part of even that founding generation. I can't remember everything about the code I wrote a year ago.






        share|improve this answer
























          up vote
          3
          down vote













          An interesting take on this question (the substance of it, if not the exact technological detail) can be seen in EM Forster's The Machine Stops.



          Within three generations, humanity would no longer have the capacity to manage even trivial failures in the overall system. If this utopia was achieved, it would likely crash as soon as the automated maintenance systems encountered a situation for which they were not designed. A problem-solving autonomous AI might get around that limit, but you specified that your setup doesn't have that due to "Terminator Risk".



          Edited to add:



          It strikes me that I didn't describe the mechanism by which humanity would lose the ability to maintain the system over a three-generation span. Essentially, think of your utopia as an office with custom software that runs everything. Now eliminate everyone who knows how that software was written, and even everyone who knows what software is. Now wait 100 years.



          Unless you intend to keep the founding generation alive forever, and enslave them to all subsequent generations. And even then...good luck keeping up the level of expertise you'll need after the first 1000 years of total idleness on the part of even that founding generation. I can't remember everything about the code I wrote a year ago.






          share|improve this answer






















            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            An interesting take on this question (the substance of it, if not the exact technological detail) can be seen in EM Forster's The Machine Stops.



            Within three generations, humanity would no longer have the capacity to manage even trivial failures in the overall system. If this utopia was achieved, it would likely crash as soon as the automated maintenance systems encountered a situation for which they were not designed. A problem-solving autonomous AI might get around that limit, but you specified that your setup doesn't have that due to "Terminator Risk".



            Edited to add:



            It strikes me that I didn't describe the mechanism by which humanity would lose the ability to maintain the system over a three-generation span. Essentially, think of your utopia as an office with custom software that runs everything. Now eliminate everyone who knows how that software was written, and even everyone who knows what software is. Now wait 100 years.



            Unless you intend to keep the founding generation alive forever, and enslave them to all subsequent generations. And even then...good luck keeping up the level of expertise you'll need after the first 1000 years of total idleness on the part of even that founding generation. I can't remember everything about the code I wrote a year ago.






            share|improve this answer












            An interesting take on this question (the substance of it, if not the exact technological detail) can be seen in EM Forster's The Machine Stops.



            Within three generations, humanity would no longer have the capacity to manage even trivial failures in the overall system. If this utopia was achieved, it would likely crash as soon as the automated maintenance systems encountered a situation for which they were not designed. A problem-solving autonomous AI might get around that limit, but you specified that your setup doesn't have that due to "Terminator Risk".



            Edited to add:



            It strikes me that I didn't describe the mechanism by which humanity would lose the ability to maintain the system over a three-generation span. Essentially, think of your utopia as an office with custom software that runs everything. Now eliminate everyone who knows how that software was written, and even everyone who knows what software is. Now wait 100 years.



            Unless you intend to keep the founding generation alive forever, and enslave them to all subsequent generations. And even then...good luck keeping up the level of expertise you'll need after the first 1000 years of total idleness on the part of even that founding generation. I can't remember everything about the code I wrote a year ago.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 19 hours ago









            tbrookside

            91926




            91926




















                up vote
                2
                down vote













                As others have mentioned, you can't erase scarcity and competition. What you're proposing is displacing scarcity from resource and wealth scarcity to some other aspect, like ability. We can both 3D-print any sculpture we imagine, but I'm better than you at imagining sculptures. This creates a competition, where I want to stay on top and you want to become better than me. For this reason we have local sports tournaments played by non-professionals who don't aspire to become professionals players. This could easily (with the resources you propose) be escalated to a global level, where many, many disciplines are recognized and everyone is ranked in the disciplines they pursue. Something like the olympic games but with a couple of orders of magnitude more disciplines (including all arts and all videogames) and almost the whole population participating. Those who don't participate are too busy inventing new disciplines!



                Also, while you propose eliminating scarcity of resources, there is still the matter of scarcity of energy (our sun produces a limited amount of energy, which presumably could be converted to a limited amount of whatever-you-want), and the scarcity of available space (unless you can 3D-print a real TARDIS, bigger on the inside).






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote













                  As others have mentioned, you can't erase scarcity and competition. What you're proposing is displacing scarcity from resource and wealth scarcity to some other aspect, like ability. We can both 3D-print any sculpture we imagine, but I'm better than you at imagining sculptures. This creates a competition, where I want to stay on top and you want to become better than me. For this reason we have local sports tournaments played by non-professionals who don't aspire to become professionals players. This could easily (with the resources you propose) be escalated to a global level, where many, many disciplines are recognized and everyone is ranked in the disciplines they pursue. Something like the olympic games but with a couple of orders of magnitude more disciplines (including all arts and all videogames) and almost the whole population participating. Those who don't participate are too busy inventing new disciplines!



                  Also, while you propose eliminating scarcity of resources, there is still the matter of scarcity of energy (our sun produces a limited amount of energy, which presumably could be converted to a limited amount of whatever-you-want), and the scarcity of available space (unless you can 3D-print a real TARDIS, bigger on the inside).






                  share|improve this answer






















                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote









                    As others have mentioned, you can't erase scarcity and competition. What you're proposing is displacing scarcity from resource and wealth scarcity to some other aspect, like ability. We can both 3D-print any sculpture we imagine, but I'm better than you at imagining sculptures. This creates a competition, where I want to stay on top and you want to become better than me. For this reason we have local sports tournaments played by non-professionals who don't aspire to become professionals players. This could easily (with the resources you propose) be escalated to a global level, where many, many disciplines are recognized and everyone is ranked in the disciplines they pursue. Something like the olympic games but with a couple of orders of magnitude more disciplines (including all arts and all videogames) and almost the whole population participating. Those who don't participate are too busy inventing new disciplines!



                    Also, while you propose eliminating scarcity of resources, there is still the matter of scarcity of energy (our sun produces a limited amount of energy, which presumably could be converted to a limited amount of whatever-you-want), and the scarcity of available space (unless you can 3D-print a real TARDIS, bigger on the inside).






                    share|improve this answer












                    As others have mentioned, you can't erase scarcity and competition. What you're proposing is displacing scarcity from resource and wealth scarcity to some other aspect, like ability. We can both 3D-print any sculpture we imagine, but I'm better than you at imagining sculptures. This creates a competition, where I want to stay on top and you want to become better than me. For this reason we have local sports tournaments played by non-professionals who don't aspire to become professionals players. This could easily (with the resources you propose) be escalated to a global level, where many, many disciplines are recognized and everyone is ranked in the disciplines they pursue. Something like the olympic games but with a couple of orders of magnitude more disciplines (including all arts and all videogames) and almost the whole population participating. Those who don't participate are too busy inventing new disciplines!



                    Also, while you propose eliminating scarcity of resources, there is still the matter of scarcity of energy (our sun produces a limited amount of energy, which presumably could be converted to a limited amount of whatever-you-want), and the scarcity of available space (unless you can 3D-print a real TARDIS, bigger on the inside).







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 18 hours ago









                    Blueriver

                    1213




                    1213




















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        You cannot erase scarcity and competition. People will always want more. Better food, prettier clothes, cooler gadgets, bigger house, etc. B/c for humans, "enough" means "more than average".



                        If you look at quality of life that people had 100 years ago, you can easily get achieve and exceed it by living on welfare (at least in Europe). Yet most people want more, and are willing to work and compete for it.



                        If enough people are convinced that they cannot improve their lives, then you will indeed have end of progress and stagnation. I believe this was the case throughout most of ancient history and middle ages. Some would argue that this mindset affects the able-bodied people who stay on welfare for years and years.






                        share|improve this answer






















                        • You certainly CAN erase scarcity; and competition can be channeled into sports and other contests, be they mental or physical pursuits, they don't have to be about money and wanting "more". They can be about, for example, social fame, being an excellent actor, singer, musician, fiction writer, sports star, etc. A society that seeks social fame by, for example, designing a prettier dress, and publishing the plan on the Net so anybody can wear it, gets their "reward" as fame points because lots of people wear it. Consumers got it free (even the energy and robots to make it was free).
                          – Amadeus
                          17 hours ago














                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        You cannot erase scarcity and competition. People will always want more. Better food, prettier clothes, cooler gadgets, bigger house, etc. B/c for humans, "enough" means "more than average".



                        If you look at quality of life that people had 100 years ago, you can easily get achieve and exceed it by living on welfare (at least in Europe). Yet most people want more, and are willing to work and compete for it.



                        If enough people are convinced that they cannot improve their lives, then you will indeed have end of progress and stagnation. I believe this was the case throughout most of ancient history and middle ages. Some would argue that this mindset affects the able-bodied people who stay on welfare for years and years.






                        share|improve this answer






















                        • You certainly CAN erase scarcity; and competition can be channeled into sports and other contests, be they mental or physical pursuits, they don't have to be about money and wanting "more". They can be about, for example, social fame, being an excellent actor, singer, musician, fiction writer, sports star, etc. A society that seeks social fame by, for example, designing a prettier dress, and publishing the plan on the Net so anybody can wear it, gets their "reward" as fame points because lots of people wear it. Consumers got it free (even the energy and robots to make it was free).
                          – Amadeus
                          17 hours ago












                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote










                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote









                        You cannot erase scarcity and competition. People will always want more. Better food, prettier clothes, cooler gadgets, bigger house, etc. B/c for humans, "enough" means "more than average".



                        If you look at quality of life that people had 100 years ago, you can easily get achieve and exceed it by living on welfare (at least in Europe). Yet most people want more, and are willing to work and compete for it.



                        If enough people are convinced that they cannot improve their lives, then you will indeed have end of progress and stagnation. I believe this was the case throughout most of ancient history and middle ages. Some would argue that this mindset affects the able-bodied people who stay on welfare for years and years.






                        share|improve this answer














                        You cannot erase scarcity and competition. People will always want more. Better food, prettier clothes, cooler gadgets, bigger house, etc. B/c for humans, "enough" means "more than average".



                        If you look at quality of life that people had 100 years ago, you can easily get achieve and exceed it by living on welfare (at least in Europe). Yet most people want more, and are willing to work and compete for it.



                        If enough people are convinced that they cannot improve their lives, then you will indeed have end of progress and stagnation. I believe this was the case throughout most of ancient history and middle ages. Some would argue that this mindset affects the able-bodied people who stay on welfare for years and years.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited 19 hours ago

























                        answered 19 hours ago









                        Bald Bear

                        3,505513




                        3,505513











                        • You certainly CAN erase scarcity; and competition can be channeled into sports and other contests, be they mental or physical pursuits, they don't have to be about money and wanting "more". They can be about, for example, social fame, being an excellent actor, singer, musician, fiction writer, sports star, etc. A society that seeks social fame by, for example, designing a prettier dress, and publishing the plan on the Net so anybody can wear it, gets their "reward" as fame points because lots of people wear it. Consumers got it free (even the energy and robots to make it was free).
                          – Amadeus
                          17 hours ago
















                        • You certainly CAN erase scarcity; and competition can be channeled into sports and other contests, be they mental or physical pursuits, they don't have to be about money and wanting "more". They can be about, for example, social fame, being an excellent actor, singer, musician, fiction writer, sports star, etc. A society that seeks social fame by, for example, designing a prettier dress, and publishing the plan on the Net so anybody can wear it, gets their "reward" as fame points because lots of people wear it. Consumers got it free (even the energy and robots to make it was free).
                          – Amadeus
                          17 hours ago















                        You certainly CAN erase scarcity; and competition can be channeled into sports and other contests, be they mental or physical pursuits, they don't have to be about money and wanting "more". They can be about, for example, social fame, being an excellent actor, singer, musician, fiction writer, sports star, etc. A society that seeks social fame by, for example, designing a prettier dress, and publishing the plan on the Net so anybody can wear it, gets their "reward" as fame points because lots of people wear it. Consumers got it free (even the energy and robots to make it was free).
                        – Amadeus
                        17 hours ago




                        You certainly CAN erase scarcity; and competition can be channeled into sports and other contests, be they mental or physical pursuits, they don't have to be about money and wanting "more". They can be about, for example, social fame, being an excellent actor, singer, musician, fiction writer, sports star, etc. A society that seeks social fame by, for example, designing a prettier dress, and publishing the plan on the Net so anybody can wear it, gets their "reward" as fame points because lots of people wear it. Consumers got it free (even the energy and robots to make it was free).
                        – Amadeus
                        17 hours ago










                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        It depends on your philosophical axioms.



                        If your concept of "purpose" is set up in a way that satisfaction of sentient beings is the ultimate purpose then the answer is yes, the Utopia is definitely worth it. The ultimately evolved civilization serves its individuals by providing them with pain-free, stress-free life, while simultaneously quenching intellectual thirst. Everybody can relax and enjoy infinite possibilities without fear of any harm falling upon them.



                        If, on the other hand, every sentient individual has to fulfill a purpose (but towards what or who?), then maybe not. For some strange reasons I can't quite fathom, this philosophical opinion seems to be more popular among the general population of people who think about the concept of purpose.






                        share|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          It depends on your philosophical axioms.



                          If your concept of "purpose" is set up in a way that satisfaction of sentient beings is the ultimate purpose then the answer is yes, the Utopia is definitely worth it. The ultimately evolved civilization serves its individuals by providing them with pain-free, stress-free life, while simultaneously quenching intellectual thirst. Everybody can relax and enjoy infinite possibilities without fear of any harm falling upon them.



                          If, on the other hand, every sentient individual has to fulfill a purpose (but towards what or who?), then maybe not. For some strange reasons I can't quite fathom, this philosophical opinion seems to be more popular among the general population of people who think about the concept of purpose.






                          share|improve this answer






















                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            It depends on your philosophical axioms.



                            If your concept of "purpose" is set up in a way that satisfaction of sentient beings is the ultimate purpose then the answer is yes, the Utopia is definitely worth it. The ultimately evolved civilization serves its individuals by providing them with pain-free, stress-free life, while simultaneously quenching intellectual thirst. Everybody can relax and enjoy infinite possibilities without fear of any harm falling upon them.



                            If, on the other hand, every sentient individual has to fulfill a purpose (but towards what or who?), then maybe not. For some strange reasons I can't quite fathom, this philosophical opinion seems to be more popular among the general population of people who think about the concept of purpose.






                            share|improve this answer












                            It depends on your philosophical axioms.



                            If your concept of "purpose" is set up in a way that satisfaction of sentient beings is the ultimate purpose then the answer is yes, the Utopia is definitely worth it. The ultimately evolved civilization serves its individuals by providing them with pain-free, stress-free life, while simultaneously quenching intellectual thirst. Everybody can relax and enjoy infinite possibilities without fear of any harm falling upon them.



                            If, on the other hand, every sentient individual has to fulfill a purpose (but towards what or who?), then maybe not. For some strange reasons I can't quite fathom, this philosophical opinion seems to be more popular among the general population of people who think about the concept of purpose.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 18 hours ago









                            Danijel

                            1,014820




                            1,014820












                                Comments

                                Post a Comment

                                Popular posts from this blog

                                What does second last employer means? [closed]

                                Image
                                Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
                                Read more

                                List of Gilmore Girls characters

                                Image
                                The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
                                Read more

                                Confectionery

                                Image
                                Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of ...
                                Read more