5
$\begingroup$

Assuming the human race achieves the utopia by automation in the sense that:

  1. We have robots and machines capabile of perfect autonomy (robots create new robots and robots repair existing robots)
  2. Medicine advancements grant the possibility of immortality
  3. Humans have only the purpose of simply enjoy life
  4. Countries and the notion of state disappears (no need for politicians anymore, or any jobs whatsoever)

Basically everything is automated and humans live to enjoy life.

The robots have perfect AI algorithms with zero risk of going "Terminator" on their own.

The machines are being controlled by a group of people, a council (most likely made of the founders of this system). This would be needed as the system would not be entirely left alone, it would have some high level oversight.

Regarding the resources, they are virtually unlimited.

Question:

Would this council (which has absolute control) allow everyone to enjoy the utopia?

or would they thin the herd just because humans are bad at sharing and keeping peace.


Basically we have lots of literature and media related to technology and AI automation gone wild (for example Dune The Butlerian Jihad).

I am curious if we would be fine if we achieve this automation without the machines rising against their creators. If "we" humans would still be in control of the system, would we share the utopia? given that we are all economically useless once this happens.

I see that a similar question was not closed here. I find it's answers illumiating in regard with my question, even if there is a difference in the approach (utopia fail vs would we share or not the utopia).

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If there is an utopia, then why is there even a need for a ruling council? If resources are limitless and everything is free then why bother? $\endgroup$ – A.bakker Jan 29 at 14:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Seems like you've already made up your mind. I'm not sure what sort of answers you were expecting to get. $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Jan 29 at 14:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question boils down to "In a world with no restrictions to material welfare, would humans still try to control each other?". Honestly, you're better off asking in the philosophy stack. $\endgroup$ – Luis Jan 29 at 14:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Are you familiar with Iain Banks's Culture? It appears that's lots of interesting things can happen after the humans become the valued and pampered masters of ever caring machines. (And your points 3 and 4 do not follow from points 1 and 2. It is perfectly possible for a man to have all his material needs satisfied and yet have a more noble purpose in life than eat, drink and be merry.) $\endgroup$ – AlexP Jan 29 at 17:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Sociology is a science, this isn't opinion-based. Reopen the question. $\endgroup$ – John O Jan 29 at 17:43
5
$\begingroup$

Humans need a purpose. If they don’t work they will have to define their lives in some other way. They need something to achieve.

With the absence of economic differences you would be left with social, political, artistic and fashion motives.

Political motives would still exist with people trying to get their own identity or wishes realized in the form of parks, living areas, music venues, etc., being built at specific points where they are easier to reach or less likely to annoy them.

Social context would explode. Right now you can already be ousted from a social group for simply wearing the "wrong" company name on a piece of clothing or not behaving "correctly" in a social group or on a phone. In this scenario without work and economic worth being existent anymore it would go absolutely haywire with how many social norms and values would be formed, if only to fill the void of not belonging to a group of colleagues with their own norms and values.

Artistic value would also grow, as would the importance of fashion within social contexts.

Would one group start eliminating others? Well that depend on how much oversight is there on the people having the oversight. You build an AI system that doesn't go rogue or accidentally murder the populace because it learned the wrong thing by accident. You should be able to make a system where the top people can't order the AI to do exactly what you don’t want it to do.

Is it POSSIBLE that people might do that? Why yes of course! If there is no selection procedure and no fail-safes this is almost a given. SOMEONE will have a personality that gives them the will to do so. Wars have been fought over the tiniest things, having a spurned lover eradicate an entire part of the population out of spite isn't a huge step. Again, this is assuming that things like "majority vote" and "psychological evaluation" don't exist for the top ruling caste.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Add to this not having a purpose causes humans to behave in very destructive ways. Studies of rats have shown that without "purpose" the rats will randomly form gangs and attack each other. Comparisons have been drawn with how human gangs tend to form in similar areas where people feel their life has no purpose or value, and by forming a gang they can achieve meaning and identity in their life they can't get through normal societal means. smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/… If not given purpose people will make purpose. $\endgroup$ – user2352714 Jan 29 at 19:56
2
$\begingroup$

Just consider human biology and the desire to have offspring with a good mate. People would still want to attract good partners and show off. Is this possible in your society and if it is, how is it realized? What happens if someone doesn't get to stay with the ones they like? What happens if people are not perfect parents? What about mental illness?

You say that there is no state, but actually there is a single huge oligarchy, with the council being its government. How will they behave? It depend on who is in power. They'll probably use it to their own advantage for the reasons listed above. Most would still be able to enjoy themselves, but this depend on the council. They may be a bit sadistic-like and enjoy making the rest suffer. Or consider any of the many mental-disorders that causes lack of empathy, they may have no problem to kill thousands for little gains. Or maybe they just have no moral qualms and are fine with killing someone to take his wife or husband.

What about the others? knowing that there is this council, would they be fine with being out of it? Well, if they know that it exist, there would surely be people who want to be part of it. How would the council respond to this? This can easily transform into a dystopia.

To me the most probable result is that you'll end up with pervasive surveillance, knowledge of information technology being outlawed to prevent people cracking the robots and taking over the world, huge amount of propaganda to avoid people wanting a share of the government. The council would take advantage of their situation, but without killing everyone else. This along with a permanent political struggle within the council and with the people close to it.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.