This macrostrategy research article critically revisits Nozick’s libertarian vision of meta-utopia, in light of the novel capabilities and risks posed by transformative AGI. Consilient with the pluralistic alignment of AI, at the governance level, meta-utopia proposes civilisation alignment to an ecosystem of multiple sovereign cultures rather than to a single conception of the perfect world-society.
Drawing on Hanson's framework of Utopia's Garden, Wall, and World, we construct a matrix mapping how the interaction of two civilisation design variables – cultural integrity (the intra-cultural self-reproduction of sub-utopias) and membrane permeability (the inter-cultural self-protection of sub-utopias) – generates four possible trajectories for post-AGI cultural dynamics. This set of scenarios situates meta-utopia as a desired multi-cultural equilibrium threatened by three cultural existential risks:
Based on this typology, we propose (1) high-level principles for the (AI) governance of cultural evolution (2) delineate civilisation design criteria for a viable world-system and (3) endorse a candidate project for a meta-utopian political institution: The Internet Government, a virtual form of moral parliament with AI cultural representatives.
In recent years, Effective Altruism (EA) has undergone a ‘utopian turn’ with thought leaders broadening their horizons beyond existential risk to existential flourishing, from the end of the world to the beginning of better futures. Whilst a discourse on dystopia and utopia has always been present within the wider futurist culture surrounding EA, this discourse is now coming to the forefront in the light of the transformative potential of AGI.
Principally, the next-generation macrostrategy institute Forethought, directed by MacAskill (co-founder of EA), have initiated a research agenda for navigating ‘the transition to a post-AGI society’ oriented around the novel frame of Viatopia. A major desideratum for Viatopia is that it constitutes ‘a state of society… where many different moral points of view can flourish’. Here, MacAskill’s Viatopia can be genealogically situated as a higher-level conceptual engineering incorporating Nozick’s Meta-Utopia: the ideal world-society according to libertarian political philosophy which proposes that ‘utopia will consist of utopias, of many different and divergent communities’.
Based on a review of the literature within the PARA-academic sphere – the Progress (studies), AI alignment, Rationalist and Effective Altruist research communities – meta-utopia, as originally envisioned by Nozick, has arguably become the closest to a consensus view on what form a desirable post-AGI society should take and what a positive AI future would look like. Major materials representative of this consensus include:
Despite this there has been minimal research to critically and systematically examine the mechanics of meta-utopia: how a future post-AGI world-system, as a sociotechnical architecture, functions to mediate the interaction between multiple cultures (epistemologies, ontologies, axiologies) and translate the complexity of values into a dynamic, overlapping consensus. In other words, how civilisation can sustain a progressive form of pluralism at a civilisational-scale, over long-term time horizons (ge geopolitically and spatio-temporally).
As we see it, this is the ultimate project of steering towards desirable civilisational equilibria – and as such, it will inevitably be beyond the scope of this material to provide a sufficient answer. Nonetheless, we aim to formulate the primary constraints, criteria and catastrophes for such a world-system and in doing so formalise an ambitious paradigm for future civilisation design and civilisation alignment research. The most useful starting point for our purposes is Hanson’s short essay Utopia’s Garden, World, and Wall (2020), which we turn to next.
Utopia’s Garden, World, and Wall provides a foundational framework for meta-utopian civilisation design. According to Hanson, ‘utopias have three key issue areas... “garden”, “world”, and “wall”:
To translate Hanson’s poetic language into more precise terminology, we consider gardens to be sub-topias, the world to be the ‘meta-utopia’ as a whole and the ‘walls’ to be the boundaries between subutopias.
In relation to sub-topias the relevant attribute is their internal cultural integrity: that is, the persistence of their culture or the persistence of their collective cultural identity across time, particularly from inter-topian immigration (converting new members from outside) and inter-generational transmission (creating new members from inside).
High integrity allows a community to maintain a distinct way of life, while low integrity leads to value dilution and drift. Integrity is a measure of how well the sub-topia maintains cultural continuity and resists cultural change; the strength of its memetic immune system.
In relation to boundaries between sub-topias, the relevant attribute is their permeability: the degree to which they are open or closed to novel information from digital communication or physical migration, determined by their border control and migration policy.
High permeability allows for voluntary movement and freedom of association, while low permeability indicates high exit/entry costs or even complete lock-in/lock-out. Permeability is a measure of how easy it is for citizens to transition to another community or a meme to spread across sub-topias.
Based on maximalist and minimalist levels of these two variables, we can construct a typology of four possible future trajectories for post-AGI cultural dynamics, including a desired multi-cultural equilibrium threatened by three cultural existential risks: meta-utopian uplift, meta-dystopian enclosure, mono-cultural takeover and cultural collapse.
The diagram below charts states and transitions in the possibility space of civilisation design. A civilisation – existing, historical, future or speculative – can be represented here as a point, with its coordinates dynamically shifting over time, corresponding to its overall degree of cultural integrity and membrane permeability.
The transition to a defense-dominant, maximally decentralised world-system where every sub-topia is a completely closed system with memetic transmission and physical migration rendered functionally impossible.
The transition to a semi-compartmentalised world-system with boundaries open enough for multi-culturalism, freedom of movement and moral progress, but sufficiently protected to prevent hostile cultural takeover.
A null state where all sub-topias have lost their coherent, collective, cultural identity and localised lock-downs prevent the creation of new sub-topias, leading to civilisational stagnation by default.
An expansionist culture or an invasive memetic replicator breaks out of one sub-topia and colonises all others, proliferating to the point of extreme cultural homogeneity across the entire civilisation.
An underdetermined, hybrid condition – exhibiting proto-characteristics of mono-culture, meta-dystopia and cultural collapse – where multiple cultures compete for survival, sovereignty and supremacy.
With the end of the cold war and ‘the age of ideology’ in the late 20th century, the political theorist Samuel Huntington declared that ‘world politics is entering a new phase’, The Clash of Civilisations:
From a cursory view of world-events since 1993, Huntington's hypothesis appears to have been correct. From the rise of anti-immigration sentiments (ethno-nationalism, right-wing populism) in the EU, to continued war in the Middle East between Judaeo-Christian and Islamic civilisations, competition and conflict between cultures has certainly become a large-scale geopolitical pattern in the 21st century. Even great power conflicts – the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the looming invasion of Taiwan by China – can be interpreted as conflicts between hegemonic Russian, Chinese and American cultural visions of modernity.
From this semi-stable multi-cultural equilibrium, AGI could be a disruptive force: an accelerative force that escalates soft-power competition (AI-augmented clash of civilisations); a stabilising force that regulates the balance of soft-power between states (meta-utopian uplift); or a terminal force that enables one state to achieve cultural hegemony or all states to lock-down (monocultural takeover & meta-dystopian enclosure).
Throughout the history of civilisation, the political and cultural reach of empires was limited by technological immaturity. To visualise this topologically, the cultural landscape was divided into subcultural regions, all mutually inaccessible to each other. Since the emergence of our current globalised civilisation (Mcluhan’s ‘global village’), memes can now proliferate anywhere and everywhere and the sphere of soft power can extend to encompass the entire world.
Enabled by advanced AI, the ultimate endgame of expansionist, universalist cultures – global cultural hegemony – could become a plausible scenario. We call this monocultural takeover: a parallel to AI takeover and human takeover, emphasising the cultural dimension over the political, where a single culture becomes dominant at a civilisation-scale and eliminates all cultural variation. There are three, potentially overlapping sub-scenarios of monocultural takeover: runaway replicators, soft superpower and unidimensional utopia.
An adaptive memeplex proliferates to the point of extreme cultural homogeneity, effectively creating the memetic equivalent in mind-space of a ‘grey goo’ scenario (Drexler), where a physical replicator consumes all resources in the universe. No single agent necessarily intends for one memeplex to rule them all, but competitive multi-agent dynamics and emergent selection pressures against competing variants leads to the most efficient replicator colonising the entire cultural landscape. Technologically, this ultimately results from a failure of defensive accelerationism or differential technological development where weaponry (‘spears’) outcompetes defenses (‘shields’) in memetic warfare. Just as advanced AI enables the design of biological superviruses, it also enables the design of memetic mind-viruses that rapidly spread across a population.
Through leading or winning the arms race in AI, a single nation-state achieves a decisive technological advantage and uses this to secure geopolitical control over the entire world-system. This AI-enabled coup or political takeover leads to the belief and value-systems of the new superpower taking over. Historical presidents include state-imposed ideology by totalitarian regimes and Western cultural imperialism in the 20-21st centuries. Cultural hegemony could arise from an initial use of force (undesired) and then more insidiously through intergenerational assimilation (artificially desired). For example, a US/Chinese takeover could lead to the mandate of English/Chinese as the global language, diminishing or even eliminating the use of Chinese/English or other languages from the rest of the world. AI for social engineering could enable mass population-level manipulation:
A single utopian vision of the good society becomes universally adopted and brings itself into existence, representing a flawed realisation (Bostrom) of civilisations (meta-utopian) cultural potential. Even if the utopia realised is indeed a utopia and not a desired dystopia (Ord), the fact that it is only one utopia in the design space of possible utopias means that civilisation has failed to align with the complexity of value (Yudkowsky) and the future contains less richness than what otherwise could have been. AGI-assisted coherent blended volition (CBV) could form a hybrid world-culture that is deemed desirable to all subcultures, but that still misses out on potential values that no one holds or that future cultures could have arrived at through more expansive and extensive reflective processes.
Historically, geographical formations such as mountain ranges (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism in the Himalayas) and remote islands (e.g. the tribe of the North Sentinelese Island) provided natural protection from external political and cultural interference (kinetic and memetic invasion). In the future, the combination of space colonisation and cosmic expansion will function similarly resulting in an archipelago of interstellar civilisations unable to reach each other due to hard physical limits (i.e travelling at the speed of light). Bracketing convergent cultural evolution, physical distance results in diversity by default – or what we might call distance-secure diversity – with isolation from outsiders allowing local value lock-ins to persist for thousands of years.
As noted in the previous section, the advancement of transport and telecommunications technology has terminated this condition, enabling a single culture to spread across the entire surface of the Earth. Globalisation now poses a historically unprecedented cultural existential risk of monocultural takeover and the artificial cultural evolution of a global monoculture. Whilst this has broken local value lock-ins and ended historical moral catastrophes (e.g. The British East India company banning the widow burning Hindu ritual of Sati in India), it risks replacing it with a global value lock-in.
A predictable reaction to the risk of cultural extinction from monocultural takeover, is to construct technological defenses against memetic invasion (‘shields’).This form of memetic defensive accelerationism aims to shift civilisation into a defense-dominant condition where states can effectively wall themselves off from the outside world (zero permeability) to prevent exposure to alien influences and protect their own cultural identity. Whilst the endgame of this strategy is an impervious barrier that guarantees total isolation, there are already strong instances of memetic shields in our civilisation today.
Sadly, despite Barlow’s Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, the totalitarian ‘Governments of the Industrial World… weary giants of flesh and steel’ appear intent on controlling the information landscape for national cognitive security (CogSec), posing the risk of ‘stable totalitarianism’, post-AGI.
Whilst these examples are from autocratic regimes, democracies are also threatened by foreign interference and may be compelled by AI-enhanced cyberattacks and MAD information warfare to also separate and securitise their own intranets.
As the virtual imposes on the real (Baudrillard’s ‘hyper-reality’), the risk of physical migration enabling digital infiltration – agents of states entering other states to compromise their cognitive security or more passively, migrants exerting cultural influence over the host culture – may demand strict border control, even to the point of an absolute no-entry policy.
The final attractor state of this trajectory we diagnose as meta-dystopian enclosure: a future maximally decentralised world-system where every state is a completely closed system, where lock-downs are total and escape is functionally impossible.
Over the long-term future, if we extrapolate the current condition, this would result in a mixed landscape of utopias and dystopias, a stable state where neither good societies or harmful societies can expand their spheres of soft power and cultural influence.
If it miraculously happens that (1) all sub-topias are sub-utopias and there are no sub-dystopias and (2) all populations are in the sub-utopia they want to be in, then this meta-utopian enclosure scenario would be moderately good. Even in this scenario however, the meta-dystopian element is not being able to move to a new sub-utopia, an inability to leave due to hyper-defensive governance against memetic competition.
If we the meta-system could be composed solely of sub-utopias, the lesser moral catastrophe here is a condition of perpetual pluralism: where cultural variation persists indefinitely with no reflective selection process to optimise the parameters of civilisation, refining the set of subutopias to include only the most morally advanced to realise moral progress.
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, for five hundred to a thousand years (depending on historical interpretation) medieval Europe existed in a period of technological and cultural stagnation. These ‘Dark Ages’, compared to the "light" of classical antiquity, were eventually ended by renewed contact with the Islamic and Byzantine world which had not just preserved ancient Greek philosophy, but elaborated upon it. This ‘Renaissance’ (‘rebirth’) between the 14th-17th centuries was succeeded by the Enlightenment, a period of scientific, technological and moral progress which seeded modernity as we know it: giving rise to a liberal and cosmopolitan international society that, in principle if not (yet) in practice, holds freedom – of thought, belief and speech – as fundamental human rights.
As explored in the previous section, if meta-dystopian enclosure occurs and all states lock-down into separate enclaves, the lack of external influences could result in localised value lock-ins and cultural stagnation on a global-level. If at the same time, the internal institutions of social reproduction within states fail – to preserve their beliefs, values and practices – this state of cultural stagnation could devolve further into a permanent state of cultural collapse: a null state where all cultures have lost coherent collective identities and are unable to restore them or create new ones. Imagine a Dark Ages, but not just within Europe, but (1) everywhere all at once, and (2) not just for a millennium but for millions of years – and with no influence from outside ever coming to restore the light. Beyond this scenario of unrecoverable collapse, we can also foresee scenarios of recoverable and recurrent collapse:
Unrecoverable Collapse (Permanent Plateau): a permanent null state where the internal institutions of pattern maintenance fail so completely that the necessary knowledge, values, or ambition for cultural experimentation is lost. Enclosure ensures that no external culture can provide a restorative influence, sealing civilization’s fate into an indefinite, low-potential stasis. This corresponds to what Fischer (Capitalist Realism, 2009) has called ‘the cancellation of the future’ or ‘lost futures’ , where there is a pervading ‘feeling that there is nothing new’.
Recoverable Collapse (New Renaissance): While internal cultural integrity degrades and progress stalls, the fundamental capacity for cultural pattern maintenance is not entirely lost. Further, the collapse is partial or localized, meaning pockets of cultural experimentation still exist elsewhere. If, despite the initial low permeability, a sufficient external or internal stimulus later arrives a new cultural renaissance becomes possible, pulling the affected region of civilization out of stagnation and back into dynamism, though potentially with a long time-frame for recovery.
Recurrent Collapse (Eternal Return): a cyclical condition where civilization repeatedly achieves a level of cultural progress, only to collapse before achieving stability. The mechanisms for internal social reproduction are chronically unstable, leading to predictable, recurring failures. This represents a failure to reach a stable equilibrium in the civilisation design space.
The Peace of Westphalia (1648) is widely considered to have seeded the political principle of sovereignty that defines modern international relations and the liberal international order. According to Westphalian sovereignty, each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory and within the Westphalian system, no state has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other states. Codifying this as an international rule of law, The United Nations Charter (1945) stipulates that “nothing ... shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” Essentially, the idealised world of Westphalia is one characterised by national self-determination and non-interference from supranational institutions.
Whilst the reality of (neo)colonialism, imperialism and great power competition throughout modern geopolitical history may darken this picture, at least in principle, the liberal international order can be considered a meta-utopia in progress: a proto- meta-utopia. In practice, the current world-system is more accurately characterised as both a meta-eutopia (‘many good places’) and a meta-dystopia (‘many bad places’) simultaneously – containing sub-eutopias and sub-dystopias, good societies and bad societies.
Perhaps the most important measure of meta-utopia is freedom of movement, the ability to choose which society to live in. In this respect, whilst there are international zones, such as the Schengen Area in Europe, national borders and varied immigration policies means that the ideal of freedom of movement is far from fully realised. Further, as the vast majority of land is owned by existing states there is no new territory or provision of resources for people to start new kinds of societies. Based on these two characteristics – the restriction of movement across existing societies and the lack of a right of exit to create new societies – the current world-system appears to be closer to a form of meta-dystopia.
From this condition, we can envision a positive scenario of meta-utopian uplift: the transition to a semi-compartmentalised world-system sustaining multi-cultural equilibria with boundaries open enough for freedom of movement and moral progress (avoiding meta-dystopia), but sufficiently protected to prevent cultural dilution (avoiding monocultural takeover). This could arise from AI-enhanced international diplomacy facilitating greater cross-cultural cooperation and consensus to protect Westphalian principles and improve the existing liberal international order.
As meta-utopia includes many sub-utopias and requires a minimal form of agreement (in sovereignty and non-interference), meta-utopian uplift could be deemed a desirable change for many different states and actors and from many different moral standpoints. For instance, both right-libertarianism emphasising the value of negative freedom (freedom from) and left-wokeism (critical social theory) emphasising the value of cultural diversity, converge on meta-utopia as a political ideal (horseshoe theory).
Even expansionist, universalist cultures – that would enact a monocultural takeover if powerful enough – may be amenable to meta-utopia as a bargain with rival mono-topians and meta-utopians to avoid conflict, protect their own culture and secure their own region of control (subutopia); adhering to the maxim that ‘something is better than nothing’. However, even if they agree to not being functionally expansionist (which could be deceptive to stay in the game) and can be effectively contained, it still could be a potential threat (absent 100% security) or an undesirable phenomenological condition to want to take over the world, but be unable to do so.
Based on the scenarios introduced in this research article, we can derive fundamental frames for the governance of cultural evolution in the Age of AGI: navigating the Narrow Cultural Corridor and solving the Symmetry Problem.
The governance of cultural evolution must navigate between pluralistic libertarianism, a minimalist laissez-faire approach which allows a global poly-culture (extreme heterogenisation) to persist without progress and benevolent paternalism, a maximalist interventionist approach which enforces a global monoculture (extreme homogenisation), ending multi-cultural diversity. Both lead to moral stagnation and the flawed realisation of civilisation’s potential.
The parameters of diversity within meta-utopia need to be reflected upon as the ideal goldilocks zone for designed cultural lock-in is (1) not an extreme monoculture that excludes morally valuable cultures or (2) an extreme polyculture that includes morally disvaluable cultures. Cultural homogeneity and heterogeneity have two different failure modes: simply put, exclusion of the good and inclusion of the bad. Governance must avoid both cultural existential risks simultaneously. The middle path to achieve this we call autopoetic alignment (though we leave it underspecified here).
The natural defence against monocultural takeover is to restrict permeability, by, for instance, closing borders, filtering information, controlling what members encounter from outside. These are memetic shields: defensive technologies that protect a community's cultural integrity by limiting exposure to external influence.
However, these mechanisms that defend against monocultural takeover can produce localised lock-ins. A community that closes its borders to prevent memetic dissolution also traps its members, suppresses internal dissent, and blocks the moral learning that comes from exposure to alternatives.
This can be imposed centrally (potentially by a UniGov-like meta-political authority) such as a state mandating information controls, or arise in a decentralised way through selection pressures, as sub-topias are forced to adopt defensive technologies that make their boundaries impervious to invasion.
The symmetry is the core design problem. Mechanisms that mitigate against monocultural takeover risk producing lock-ins. Mechanisms that mitigate against lock-ins risk enabling monocultural takeover. The memetic shields and memetic permeability are a single tradeoff, and a viable region between grey goo and meta-dystopia, if it exists, is determined by whether defence can be made selective rather than total. Whether this is achievable is an open empirical question about the offence-defence balance in the memetic domain in a post-AGI world.
Based on the scenarios introduced in this research article, we can derive criteria for what constitutes a viable civilisation design and transitional strategy to navigate towards it. In other words, a theory of cultural and institutional change for humanity to safely arrive at meta-utopia.
To realise meta-utopia, the Westphalian system of sovereign states must evolve into a political structure more closely resembling a democratic world-federation. This is necessary to support freedom of information, movement and association across sub-topias which current nationalist citizenship laws restrict.
freedom of exit and entry: To prevent the structural entrapment of meta-dystopia (localised lock-ins), the transitional process must legally protect freedom of movement for individuals between sub-topias. Furthermore, a mechanism for the creation of new sub-topias must be secured, providing a true right of exit for groups dissatisfied with all existing options. At this point in time, charter cities are the closest approximation to such a mechanism.
The meta-utopian system requires robust mechanisms to contain cultures that exhibit strong, universalist, or expansionist tendencies. This containment is necessary to prevent any single culture from achieving monocultural takeover and hegemonically imposing its worldview. The goal is the regulation of cultural influence, ensuring an epistemic commons where competition occurs without one group being able to violate the sovereignty or cultural integrity of others.
Defensive Accelerationism: The overarching system must ensure a defense-dominant technological landscape in the memetic domain. This means that "shields" (defensive technologies against memetic infiltration) must be reliably superior to "spears" (memetic weaponry). Without a stable, defense-dominant equilibrium, the containment of expansionist cultures is functionally impossible. If memetic offense outpaces defense, then expansionist cultures, which seek to impose their values universally , cannot be merely contained within the meta-utopian architecture. The existential threat they pose to meta-utopia, necessitates their exclusion from the cooperative structure (or even elimination) to prevent system-wide collapse into a global monoculture. A robust defense-dominant paradigm is the only way to facilitate high permeability (free movement and information flow) without risking dissolution into a single, dominant culture.
A moral parliament of AI representatives may be useful, even necessary (due to computational complexity constraints) to facilitate effective, non-biased cross-cultural dialogue and decision-making at a civilizational scale. These AI agents, potentially granted a form of legal personhood, would be designed to accurately model and advocate for the values, goals, and existential concerns of their respective cultures, mediating disputes and aiding the formation of consensus (or ‘coherent blended volition’).
Coherent blended volition (CBV) proposes a creative blending process that produces new, harmonious value systems that all participants would recognize as adequately representing their contributions. (AI Safety Atlas, 2025)
The transitional strategy to meta-utopia must be an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS): the process by which the target structure of high integrity and high permeability is achieved must be resistant to invading strategies that would default to monocultural takeover or meta-dystopian lock-in. The arrangement must be self-stabilising, where the optimal local strategy for every sub-state is to maintain the overarching meta-utopian structure, making defection (either by enclosure or expansion) globally disadvantageous in the long-term.
The transition towards meta-utopia must prioritize non-coercive steering and rely foundationally on voluntary cooperation between states, cultural groups and individuals. Any strategy involving centralized imposition or forced compliance risks violating human agency. Advanced AI should be used to facilitate cooperation and consensus-building, demonstrating the clear mutual benefits of the meta-utopian arrangement rather than enforcing it through superior technological power.
Liberalism vs Illiberalism: whilst the default method for the transition, this principle is conditional on sub-topias upholding minimum liberal standards, particularly freedom of exit and entry. If an illiberal regime uses the meta-utopian principle of non-interference to enforce a local lock-in and suppress the rights of its members, then the global governance response may need to employ non-violent, strategically targeted interventions to dismantle the sub-dystopia and uphold the higher-order value of individual freedom and human agency, thus ensuring the transition is towards a legitimate landscape of utopias, and not a stable meta-dystopia.
Cultural transition should be viewed as a stadial process: from the current state (a world-system that is both good and bad, containing sub-utopias and sub-dystopias), to a stable Viatopia (minimum necessary coordination to achieve existential security) to Metautopia (an equilibrium between political and cultural groups), and finally, potentially, to Syntopia (a future stage involving a consensual, dynamic synthesis of cultures). This positions full synthesis (Syntopia) as a longer-term goal and Metautopia as a more realistic and desirable vision based on the existing landscape of cultures and their interests.
Syntopia: is an ideal civilisational endstate in which humanity has converged on a universal morality, ‘perennial philosophy’ and syncretic culture. All minds share in the truth (epistemics), goodness (ethics) and beauty (aesthetics) of a grand synthesis; which transcends and includes all worldviews from history into an emergent whole, aligned with the nature of interobjective reality and the conditions of existential flourishing. Life is lived pluralistically and dynamically without locking-in the future to a singular way of life or form of being, but instead oscillating between cultures across (what would for humans be multiple) lifetimes. Syntopia could potentially emerge from mass multi-directional migration and cultural cross-pollination over intergenerational time or from AI-enhanced epistemics at a civilisational-scale.
Finally, we point to a compelling candidate project for a new meta-utopian political institution, The Internet Government: a participatory digital democracy for mediating communication, cooperation and consensus-building between cultures.
This variation of Alexander's ‘UniGov’ could use AGI agents as cultural representatives, effectively creating a virtual ‘moral parliament’ for inter-cultural interactions and civilisation-scale decision-making to take place.
Currently the project by The Society Library (2013) seems to still be in the early concept-stages, though we would like to see it advance further and begin to develop prototypes. With sufficient support – and integration with other AI for democracy innovations (e.g Polis, Harmonica, the Habermas Machine) – we believe it has the potential to contribute to a new operating system for steering civilisation towards desirable multi-cultural futures.