Ten oz

This was my point regarding people having jobs today that did not exist 50yrs ago. Every job becomes obsolete. That has always been the case. As for the rest of your post I can not make heads or tails of it. Many industries come and go. Some die completely. Your inability to imagine what can come next is no barrier to what's coming next. Today you understand automation and the power of computing so are make arguments based on their perceived abilities. Tomorrows tech will have different limitations, abilities, and requirements.

@ALine the acquisition of knowledge knowledge is not equal to increased individual intelligence. If that were true humans today would be more inherently intelligent than humans were 500yrs ago and we are not. As for the legal system it exists as a mean to enforce safety standards. It is not designed to ensure no one ever will commit a crime. It is understood people will commit crimes which is why we have Law Enforcement officials, courts, and prisons.

Automation isn't a result of people being unwilling to work. Automation is more cost effective. A machine works 24/7, produces a more consistent product, and in many cases can perform tasks individual humans can not. Automation is not a problem. Economies, regardless of structure, require new markets to thrive. As a kid my parents use to by maps to navigate with during long trips now such things are done electronically. Better things always come along. One should always assume the jobs available today with be history tomorrow. Huge portions of the population today work in industries that did not even exist just 50yrs ago.

That is why I started a thread specifically for BUI. I am not dismissing your point. I just don't want to hijack this thread. @ALine's version of Utopia seems to focus on a crime free society were human intelligence can be increased. I don't believe either can be achieved through purposeful human action. Those goals (crime free society and increased intelligence) aren't stated goals of BUI.

As we have being discussing I think the potential of having family separated would create for to much dissension for the society to function. Having ones family (spouse, children, parents, etc) with them is often more important to people than anything else.

I created a separate thread for BUI. If you get caught up on what @ALine has outlined you'll see their vision is specific (untenable IMHO) and unrelated to BUI.

Things don't have to be correct to serve a logical purpose. Something can be both rational and silly at the same time. Humor blurs those lines constantly. What are the rational reasons for laughter? To your point about hope I think there are physiological benefits to being hopefully.

I didn't say people would stop working. If you read my post in its entirety I was saying that people would stop doing labor and sanitation related work. That immigrants and people with legal troubles would become a class forced to clean toilets and dig ditches. This is apparent all over the world. Not merely in oppressive countries. That is why I mentioned Switzerland. Lets be real. Growing up it was never a goal of mine to be a janitor. I grow up middle class with the reasonable expectation I could pursue any professional career I wanted. I travel some for work. This year I have been to Atlanta, San Diego, San Antonio, Green Bay, Chicago, Boston, Miami, and Providence. Without exception every housekeeper cleaning my room was female and an immigrant. In modern western society there are many career fields average citizens simply do not do. In theory that should raise the salary in those industries because employers should have to pay more to find people but that isn't what happens. Instead laws are used to create classes incapable of entering other types of careers. BUI doesn't address this. Rather it would make it worse. Unless you believe BUI would apply to everyone across the broad: felons, illegal immigrants, visa holders, people on probation, and etc.

Religion provides a shared structure for ethical behavior. Humans live together in societies and are not loners. There are many benefits within a society to have shared perspectives toward morality, identity, history, and etc. Among secular people there is often wide disagreement regarding right vs wrong and the nature of the world. Tending to a folk is easier that wrangling a gaggle. So it is rational that those with influence in society would turn to a mechanism like Religion to help produce conformity.

The whole notion is built around an inaccurate concept of evolution, Neanderthal & Denisovan history, and the nature of intelligence.

It is not known for sure why Neanderthals and Denisovans went extinct but their numbers were never vast and their habitats were small compared to Homo Sapiens. Also it is Homo Sapiens who migrated into their habitats and not vice verse. So it is possible scarcity had force a change in Homo Sapien behavior which lead to migration.

Both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA exists in Humans today. Not everyone have the genes either. A significant portion of both genomes still live in humans. The fact that both were able to interbred so successfully with Homo Sapiens also shows they were capable of living alongside Homo Sapiens in communities. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna It has never been established how intelligent Neanderthals and Denisovans were. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/

As @Strange said it is because of evaporation. An experiment you can do at home is boiling 2 pots of water (equal amounts). Put a lid on one to prevent steam from escaping and leave the other one uncovered allowing the steam to escape. The covered pot will biol faster as less of its heat is being lost to evaporation. Air has moisture in it. The devices heat the air around them. Removing that air removes the heat stored in its moisture and providing new air to absorb more of the devices heat.

This is getting into Minority Report territory. The OP asks how to build a Utopia. For me the potential of being separated from my spouse and family wouldn't be a Utopia. I would rather take my chances in the society I am currently in.

Reading a bit about the universe being zero energy should answer your questions. Here is a short video explaining the general concept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_dqtiDEds *and yes, this should have in the Religion

Correct, White Southerns felt threatened which is an example of how purely relative the idea of being safe is. It is why Marlow's hierarchy of needs, two-factor theory, Freud's theory of personality, and etc all fail to provided much more that philosophical carrots to keep us thinks about people's motivations. Most things are relative to an individual. What provides me a sense of comfort, satisfaction, and safety might not do the same for you.

You don't have to have evidence to have ideas but certainly evidence should be informing your ideas especially if your idea is for a evidence based society. The chance to re-take a test is not a guarantee one will pass a test. You are talking about potentially separating families: spouse, parents from children, siblings, and etc. History is full of society creating tests for citizens Purity, Loyalty, Theological,and etc have all done used. It always leads to oppression. The moment a test is instituted an us vs them is created. Us vs them is always divisive. I do not believe Utopia can be created by dividing people.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Eremites, Kuwait, and Bahrain all have versions in place. All citizens receive a form of profit sharing from the oil and other govt (Monarchy) controlled industries. It isn't workable though in the terms I think most westerners think in. In those OPEC wealthy nations it simply creates a sort of caste system. To @fiveworlds point citizens in those countries have no incentive to work. As a result they all have massive amounts of foreign migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and etc. For example only 15% of Qatar's population are citizens. The rest are foreign workers. Labor, tradesmen, janitorial, and most all service industries are 100% foreign workers. In European nations with strong social programs providing free healthcare, education, and varies housing programs to citizens a similar trend emerges. In Switzerland nearly a quarter of the workforce are migrants. The Swiss govt has strict immigration policies where by immigrants are either temporary, annual, or permanent. To become permanent one must have first been on an annual basis for 10yrs. In the U.S. I feel we are already teetering on our own sort of caste system. We use our immigration policies and legal system to create a classes of people society deems unfit for quality employment. It is those classes which must clean our toilets, dig our ditches, and do all the back breaker work. Those classes includes people with: Felonies, multiple misdemeanors, on various forms of probation, in the country illegally, and a variety of temporary Green Card holders. More and more credit history is becoming part of standard employment background checks so in the near future we'll be adding people with bad credit history to the unfit for quality employment to the list. I think BUI would be like pouring gasoline on that fire. This is a very interesting point. Many people vitriolically carry on about the number of unwed mothers and children being raised in non-traditional (mom & dad) homes. Yet in some cases it may actually be providing women more freedom, mobility, safety, and etc to not be tied to or dependent upon a Man? Certainly women using BUI to get from certain men would become one of the loudest criticisms against BUI, especially in the Evangelical community.

No limits; yes to feasibility.

I started a thread in Speculations to discuss UBI.

You don't see the irony in your data position? You want a society based on it yet I asked for a citation you had none. Using this data, which you don't have and are sure exists, would you separate families? What if I pass the test but my nephew doesn't?

Everyone has some sort of logical and ration for their morality. Empirical data has limits. Data has no judgement, feels no pain, and lacking feeling. There are simply too many intangibles to assume empirical data will consistently produce equitable results. My wife's grandmother (whom is 93yrs of age) gave birth to my father in-law when she was 16yrs old. The man, my grandfather in-law, she married to was 22yrs old. They remained happily married till his death in 2014. Likewise my father's mother had my father when she was 16yrs old. My father was her second child. My grandfather's age was never known for sure because he was born on family property and no records of his birth exist. He was raise poor not celebrating birthdays. So his age was always a guesstimate of plus or minus a year or two. That said he must have been approaching 30yrs of age when my father was born. While my father's parents did not remain married for long they did remain friendly their whole lives. I do not advocate men in their 20's dating teen age girls. It is not something I ever did. However I do understand that it's social norms which definition of adulthood and determining who is and is not a child. I am not aware of any empirical evidence that shows all 15yr olds are less mentally mature than all 18yr olds. Maturity doesn't respond to birth dates. Our laws defining adulthood are based on our judgments and not empirical data. Ultimately the brain isn't fully developed till ones mid 20's. That said evolution hasn't selected for it as until very recently ones m teenage years were the most common for reproduction.

Isn't morality relative though? To some people mixed race marriages and atheism are examples of immorality. Seems your society would be limited to the beliefs of its founder. Citation, can you provide a link which empirical reflects this?

Serial killers are often highly intelligent. What qualities would the exam look for? Also if your utopia is surround by other govts would your utopia need a formal govt as well? Do you have a study or some research which shows this increases intelligence?

I started a thread in Speculation to specifically discuss UBI. Those far I have restricted my view of UBI to its ability to create a Utopian society considering that is what this thread is about. My points have been about UBI's inability to change behavior or create happiness. Arguments about UBI's viability as a public well being and social safety net system in general are not what this thread is about. I don't fully agree that acquiring more knowledge through education increases intelligence. I am sure in many cases it certainly can but I don't believe it is a given that it does. If we use other animals as an example a wolf which has been trained by humans to perform different tasks isn't any more intelligent than a Wolf in the wild which hasn't. I like this idea. Sharing information openly is very important to the progress of knowledge. Test, what kind of test? What about the people who fail the test? They will have govts still right?