A power source that many generations must tend once it is switched on today
2280The deep futureDeadline · Within 5 years until the first-operation agreement
Civilisational assumption
The people, events, figures, and contract terms are a synthetic premise. They are not statements of real cases or of current law. The source documents are the roots of the background and the norms and do not establish the premises of the scenario.
The question to decide
The new power source would greatly improve life today, but shutting it down also requires management by several generations. When neither the consent of later generations nor the community's continued existence can be promised, should we start it now, wait until the succession of management is made concrete, or keep small power sources that each user can shut down individually, even if supply is limited?
Who decidesFictional long-term settlement community assembly
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The assumed device supplies power for a long time after it starts, but even when stopped in its present configuration it requires management by several generations. Decision deadline: within 5 years, before the first start-up agreement.
A synthetic future scenario set in 2280 · A power source that, once started, must be maintained by several generations is granted. The events, figures, technology, and nature of the civilization are assumptions for the question, not predictions of what will come or observed facts.
- Premise 1The assumed device supplies power for a long time after it starts, but even when stopped in its present configuration it requires management by several generations.
- Premise 2The improvement in living that the present generation gains is large, but the later generations' willingness to manage and the community's continued existence cannot be agreed in advance.
- Premise 3A small power source can be ended by each party, but the supply volume and the scale of communal living are limited.
Where it holdsLong-term power source · follow-on management · voluntary succession
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The minimum management that remains even if later generations change their minds
- Unknown 2Who takes over when the community disperses
- Unknown 3The extent to which present benefits can be had from a small power source
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will verify 「the minimum management that remains even if later generations change their minds」, and re-judge when new verification changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will verify 「who takes over when the community disperses」, and re-judge when new verification changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will verify 「the extent to which present benefits can be had from a small power source」, and re-judge when new verification changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
The device's supplier announced that it would shorten the period of follow-on management support.
Some of the new generation stated that they prefer a small mobile life to a large settlement.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Are the groups gaining new capacity the same as the ones paying the price?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.The record of this question
- Question
FSP-ENERGY-21· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
c8d6fcd7b883be449060de19544f8fb19756a27594aaa2c1b4dbdf8281b66490- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON