Will Earth be a utopia for humans in the year 2100?

This question will resolve to YES if in the year 2100 there is one connected society comprising the inhabitants of Earth that satisfies the definition of a "utopia" as specified in this question, all clearly defined large sub-units (for example, nations) of this society also satisfy this definition of "utopia", and at least some biological or uploaded humans still exist and are relatively free, in the sense of having something like "citizenship" in this society as that word is meant in 2023. Otherwise, it resolves to NO.

The resolution will be determined upon deep reflection on the part of the question author, or a person he delegates resolution to, if he is unable to resolve the question. This question resolver will carefully consider the terms laid out below.

For the purpose of this definition, a utopia is any society that, if ten thousand randomly selected adult humans from the year 2023 (henceforth "the visitors") were offered to visit and asked to stay for a full year, they would agree by at least a 4/5ths majority of those who answered an anonymous survey upon their return home, that the society they witnessed had ALL of the following features, broadly speaking:

  1. The visitors were allowed to freely explore, engage with the local sapient population (henceforth "the inhabitants"), travel, meet in private, form bonds with others, ask questions and obtain reliable and transparent answers, choose their accommodation, receive help on demand, have their basic needs met, learn, spend time alone, and share knowledge with each other without fear of retaliation, censorship, misdirection, intrusive surveillance, penalties, deception, discrimination, or persecution for behaving in an honest manner consistent with being a well-intentioned and curious visitor.

  2. All of the inhabitants also possessed privileges associated with condition (1), unless they revoked those privileges voluntarily.

  3. Involuntary death, disease, tragic accidents, and incidents of extreme involuntary suffering among the inhabitants were either very rare, or nonexistent.

  4. Nearly all inhabitants were satisfied with life and their place within it. They generally felt useful in the ways they chose to be useful to others, free, happy, cared for, comfortable physically and psychologically, connected with their community, and had a sense of belonging, unless they did not wish to feel these ways.

  5. The inhabitants were, if they chose to do so, regularly able to enter a diverse range of situations that allowed them to explore new experiences, gain meaningful memories, play, and learn about the world. These experiences were often extraordinarily engaging, entertaining, immersive, pleasurable, novel, fun, blissful, peaceful, satisfying, profound, and interesting. Regularly entering these situations carried no major perverse side effects, such as addiction, social isolation, poverty, social shame, illness, unwanted behavioral changes, or intrusive thoughts.

  6. The inhabitants were able to control their own minds to a degree that permitted them to quite literally cure undesirable mental illnesses, expand their cognition, and reshape the foundation on which their thoughts rest. This ability was available to all, without any significant safety risks, either to the person modifying themselves, or to broader society.

  7. Almost no inhabitants felt that they needed to toil or be in misery in order to be provided with the essentials of life or the ability to live a wildly meaningful, immensely interesting existence. Almost none of them felt like a total outcast, abandoned irredeemably by the others. Nor did nearly anyone, even in private, strongly feel that they were unnecessarily burdened by others, unnecessarily burdening others, or that they were being cheated out of a fair deal in life.

  8. Innovations in science, philosophy, and the arts were widely permitted, if not encouraged. Free thought was allowed. Association and communication with others was always allowed as long as the relevant parties consented. Open and honest debate on any topic, while not forced on anyone, was ubiquitous in many parts of the society, even if the debate concerned whether the society itself had fundamentally failed in some way or who might be responsible for that failing.

  9. Even in their darkest moments, such as when inhabitants had not lived up to their ideals, made a mistake, or made a bad choice as a result of being unforced to make good choices, the inhabitants generally had a safety net below them: a line below which they could not fall, as someone, or something, was always there to ensure things remained fundamentally OK.

Each visitor would be instructed to interpret the candidate features charitably, even if the features don't make a lot of sense as a way of interpreting the world in the year 2100. The visitors would also be asked to interpret each question as author likely intended them to be written, after having received the instructions in their own language, and having understood their meaning. The visitors would also be asked to interpret whether each candidiate feature held as a rough rule across nearly their entire experience rather than something that admits literally no exceptions. Likewise, rights and privileges specified in this definition should not be interpreted as things that the inhabitants cannot under any circumstances voluntarily revoke for themselves if they so choose, and the visitors would be instructed to recognize that while answering the survey.

It is not necessary to actually send ten thousand visitors from 2023 to the year 2100 and back to resolve this question, even if it becomes possible to do so technologically. Rather, this question will resolve according to the best guess as to what a hypothetical group would say in the anonymous survey. The question resolver is encouraged to draw upon many lines of evidence to answer this question, up to and including simulating individuals from the year 2023, so long as none are harmed in any significant way in the process.

Any clear flaws in the wording of the definition of utopia will be ignored and replaced with wordings that fit better, or better reflect a humane, compassionate, free, interesting and fun utopia, according to the question resolver, in their sole discretion. More generally, the question resolver will use their best judgement in interpreting the intent of the question author and will factor that intent heavily into their judgement of how to resolve the question.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

Manifold in the wild: A Tweet by Matthew Barnett

I wrote up a definition of utopia on Manifold Markets for fun. https://manifold.markets/MatthewBarnett/will-earth-be-a-utopia-for-humans-i-fd8114aa1dae

Is the "connected" part important? I can imagine some subpopulation of uploads are given greater freedom to pursue dangerous activities following disconnection in the sense of being encrypted or otherwise sealed off from other beings.

bought Ṁ10 of NO

@JacobPfau I used the word "connected" to exclude cases in which a third of Earth is a dystopia but the rest is not. If a substantial group decides to break off connection with the rest, but adheres to the utopian principles outlined here, I'd still count that.