A choice of worlds

[Xeno]

Consider there are three possible equilibria that humanity can achieve. We'll call these worlds "equilibria" because from generation to generation, they don't change in dynamics and the numbers below are consistent throughout the remainder of human history (from that equilibria onwards). Note, these options are the only choices for this example, and I wouldn't mind an explanation of why you picked that world after you vote.

So, which equilibria, knowing these are the only 3 choices, should humanity right now work towards establishing (given these are the 3 possible fates of mankind):

World A: Maximal happiness, general suffering. Overall happiness: 100 points

This world would have a core population that enjoys very, very great happiness, but would be in the striking minority. The vast majority of people would live in a state of "general suffering", and their lives would generally be unhappy. The core minority population, however, would enjoy near euphoric happiness through each generation.

World B: General happiness, maximal suffering. Overall happiness: 50 points

In this world, the majority of people are happy, but not as happy as world A. They live their lives in a general state of happiness, not approaching euphoria. The consequence of this is that there is a minority of people who live very, very painful lives. The amount of suffering in this world to the population that receives it is equal to the happiness that the people of world A would receive; very intense pain is destined for the people living these lives.

World C: Minimal happiness, non-existent suffering. Overall happiness: Approaching 0

This world would be defined by no one being in a state of unhappiness, but each person not constantly happy either. Basically, all lives lived in this world are mundane, and the only happiness achieved is periodic breaks from boredom. These period breaks would pale in comparison to the other world's happiness (even World B, especially World A), however, and while people would enjoy minimal (occasional) happiness, the lives lived through each generation are generally boring.

Now, these are the only 3 equilibria for this example, and humanity can only work to progress towards one.

[xorbie]

There is a short story I once read, that does not seem to fall into any of your Equilibria. It was called the road to something, or the road from something, or something.... yeah, that's it (if anyone knows the name, please help out).

It is about this village (the "something" in the name of the story) in which everyone lives totally happy lives, everything is perfect. Except there is this one kid, who sits in a closet all his life, in his own excrement and eats bad food. He is totally uneducated. Every citizen in this country goes to see the boy once, then goes on with their life. And then once in a while, somebody leaves this city.

I think the point of the story is that it is a way of eliminating all compassion from this village, people who are able to live knowing that their happiness is derived from the suffering of others (or those simply immune to the suffering of others) stay around and are jolly, everyone else leaves.

If enough people in here have read it, I think it would be cool to start a seperate thread about it, so as not to hijack this one (although I have been relevant thusfar- I hope).

[Bookman]

Can I ask you to clarify your thought experiement? In each case, how are people sorted into the 'happiness' and 'suffering' categories?

My answer might be different if for instance a person's outcome were to be determined by a random agent (like drawing lots) rather than through their own actions.

Bookman

[wiploc]

Originally posted by xorbie
There is a short story I once read, that does not seem to fall into any of your Equilibria. It was called the road to something, or the road from something, or something.... yeah, that's it (if anyone knows the name, please help out).

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.
crc

[xorbie]

Thanks. I think I might start a thread on that. It was not all that well written, and my first reaction to it was "what the f***!?!?" But after some thought, I actually got a lot out of it. Good thought fodder.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by xorbie
Thanks. I think I might start a thread on that.

Let me know if you do. I read the story for a class recently, and I think it would make good discussing.
crc

[Jack Kamm]

Well, if those three worlds were the only options, I would pick the world that would benefit me most. Probably World B, because chances are I'll end up in the majority...but if I know I'll end up in the minority, definately World A.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Bookman
Can I ask you to clarify your thought experiement? In each case, how are people sorted into the 'happiness' and 'suffering' categories?

My answer might be different if for instance a person's outcome were to be determined by a random agent (like drawing lots) rather than through their own actions.

Bookman

When I originally thought up the question, I meant to imply that it was a random lot. Similar, I suppose, to people being born today. Some are born in Afganistan and Africa, starving from day 1, and some are born in Beverly Hills. Think of it like that.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Jack Kamm
Well, if those three worlds were the only options, I would pick the world that would benefit me most. Probably World B, because chances are I'll end up in the majority...but if I know I'll end up in the minority, definately World A.

Sorry, you do not get to live in the world that results, you merely have to make a decision about which world the human race should progress too. Consider yourself a world leader, and the top game theorists of the age have come up with these three possibilities for mankind. Which one do you tilt the progress of the world towards?