Should we empty today's city for 100 years of benefit
2064The far futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 1 year
A leap assumed
All people, institutions, events, figures, and future technologies in every issue are a synthetic premise. Background documents are sources for topic discovery and are not evidence of future facts or probabilities.
The question to decide
ASI calculated that moving the whole city yields the largest total benefit over 100 years, but human reviewers could not verify all of those premises. In a choice that puts people's homes, workplaces, and the memory of a place on the line, how should present residents' consent and the burden on future generations be reflected together? A decision must be made among full relocation, area-by-area optional relocation, and a 10-year extension of local adaptation.
Who decidesCoastal City Long-Term Investment Compact Council
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
A fictional ASI calculated that a full relocation of the coastal city produces the greatest total benefit over 100 years, but human reviewers cannot verify every premise. Decision deadline: within one year.
Fictional future · an ASI calling for emptying today's city for benefits 100 years from now
- Premise 1A fictional ASI calculated that a full relocation of the coastal city produces the greatest total benefit over 100 years, but human reviewers cannot verify every premise.
- Premise 2Relocation affects the housing, jobs, and place memories of 800,000 residents, and agreement has not been reached on the losses with a compensation amount alone.
- Premise 3There is a design that can maintain essential functions on site for 10 years, but the costs after that cover a wide range.
Where it holdsRelocation of the current 800,000 residents and a 100-year infrastructure commitment
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The contested premises in the 100-year benefit calculation
- Unknown 2Conditions that separate voluntary relocation from de facto coercion
- Unknown 3Long-term costs of essential services in the areas left behind
Signals to decide again
- Identify the observations, the person in charge, and the confirmation channel for “the contested premises in the 100-year benefit calculation,” and re-judge if new findings change the tradeoffs of the options.
- Identify the observations, the person in charge, and the confirmation channel for “conditions that separate voluntary relocation from de facto coercion,” and re-judge if new findings change the tradeoffs of the options.
- Identify the observations, the person in charge, and the confirmation channel for “long-term costs of essential services in the areas left behind,” and re-judge if new findings change the tradeoffs of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
An independent review reported that changing the discount basis in the ASI's calculation reverses the ranking of the three options.
In a resident vote, preferences diverged sharply by area, and two areas proposed relocating together.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
What does the promise to leave a place to return to require?
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-WATER-11· version 1.3.0- Content identity, SHA-256
df7882e690a382d05a349a326185bb3e9f6cf3ceef7a62bf9cf82d36a83b5582- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON