I presume the purpose of a utopia is to optimize the feelings of all those in it. This could be done in two main ways: (1) directly, by acting upon the emotional/sensory processing areas of the brain, or (2) indirectly, by altering the environment. This article seems to assume that (2) is the only way to create a utopia. I understand that some degree of effort would need to be spent on optimizing the environment, in order to allow for the practical aspects of (1) to be developed and continually improved, but this article focuses entirely on environmental optimization. I wonder if this is due to a (subconscious?) moralistic belief that pleasure should be “meaningful”, and that pleasure which is not related to real life outcomes is “bad”. Or perhaps it is simply due to a lack of familiarity with the current and potential ways of directly acting on our brains (I doubt there would be a lack of familiarity with the theory behind this, but perhaps a lack of personal experience could result in the concept remaining abstract and not as well understood).
I think you may be overlooking that this is a guide for fictional utopias. I’m not sure a good story could be written about a world full of humans in a vegetative bliss state. But maybe it can! :)
Fun Theory is the field of knowledge that deals in questions such as “How much fun is there in the universe?”, “Will we ever run out of fun?”, “Are we having fun yet?” and “Could we be having more fun?”
and
If no one can imagine a Future where anyone would want to live, that may drain off motivation to work on the project. The prospect of endless boredom is routinely fielded by conservatives as a knockdown argument against research on lifespan extension, against cryonics, against all transhumanism, and occasionally against the entire Enlightenment ideal of a better future.
So I don’t think the article was intended only as a guide to authors.
I presume the purpose of a utopia is to optimize the feelings of all those in it. This could be done in two main ways: (1) directly, by acting upon the emotional/sensory processing areas of the brain, or (2) indirectly, by altering the environment. This article seems to assume that (2) is the only way to create a utopia. I understand that some degree of effort would need to be spent on optimizing the environment, in order to allow for the practical aspects of (1) to be developed and continually improved, but this article focuses entirely on environmental optimization. I wonder if this is due to a (subconscious?) moralistic belief that pleasure should be “meaningful”, and that pleasure which is not related to real life outcomes is “bad”. Or perhaps it is simply due to a lack of familiarity with the current and potential ways of directly acting on our brains (I doubt there would be a lack of familiarity with the theory behind this, but perhaps a lack of personal experience could result in the concept remaining abstract and not as well understood).
I think you may be overlooking that this is a guide for fictional utopias. I’m not sure a good story could be written about a world full of humans in a vegetative bliss state. But maybe it can! :)
In The Fun Theory Sequence Eliezer writes about the real life applications of this, eg.
and
So I don’t think the article was intended only as a guide to authors.