Discussion What Would The Ideal Society Be Like?

[Deleted member 35171]

Tell me what your ideal society would look like.

For me it would be a brotherhood of men where productive assets are equally owned by male members and resources distributed based on one's contribution aka mental and physical labor. Men are introduced to different sectors of the economy at a young age and are given the choice to specialize in the area of their liking. On top of that, they are taught how to fight and defend themselves since childhood. All important matters are decided by electronic public election where every man is given exactly one vote. There is a copy of every man's genetic information kept in the national DNA library. Once members reach a certain age, they are legally given the right to reproduce or rather clone themselves. According to the rules, each member can only do this once and this is heavily enforced. The clone grows in an artificial womb, and after conception is raised in a governmental facility where it will be properly trained and educated to eventually replace its old self. Upon conquering other countries, first the females are eradicated and then the males are given an opportunity to join the nation as initiates (or die). Initiates have to undergo military training and prove their devotion by participating in the future conquests of the nation. Once that is done, they are welcomed to the brotherhood as real members and their DNA added to the national library where it will be later used for cloning.

In short, no money, no hierarchies, no females to compete over and no male infighting. A society of immortalized men united by a common goal/enemy.

 

[Caesercel]

One where a flood drowns the entire western hemisphere

 

[Deleted member 34074]

A world with cumskins only

 

[JoeBruhcel]

A world with cumskins only

so only cucks and simps

 

[GhostedPhantom]

There's no perfect solution but yours sounds as good as it gets. I think the main thing would be to get rid of genders because most of the male-to-male abuse comes from them trying to prove their dominance to stone-age-minded foids.

 

[Blackpillapologist]

A world where eugenics and banning of reproduction of people with unfit genes has sanitized the population and now sufferings like baldness, shortness, recessed chin, genetic disorders etc are unheard of (just like smallpox). Everyone is fit and healthy except those who purposefully ruin it (like lazy slobs).

A place instead of just one set of beauty standards (unlike in this world where only eurocentric standards are enforced) there are many types so that people of different phenotypes and different ethnicities may also have a chance.

A place where gender roles are enforced back again and women aren't as spoilt as today bcz of feminism.

A world run TOTALLY by meritocracy and not bullshit like "women empowerment" or "we need more diversity".

And a world world where people move more and more to mother nature instead of polluted crowded noisy cities more technology is spent in integrating nature with cities. (Singapore is working on something similar where they are planting trees on buildings).

A world without mosquitoes and cockroaches but full of cats.

An AI powered real life neko. These robotic nekos are sold as sex slaves. They are pre-ordered with you providing all the details like boob size and height. These robots are also slaves and help with chores and stuff, and are programmed to be your best friend.

 

[Lycan]

i have no utopic visions or idealistic demands

we're all doomed just accept it, lay back, and watch the world burn
oh and don't forget your popcorn while society is collapsing

 

[Deleted member 37269]

just like a forest, with no humans around

 

[Blackpillapologist]

One where a flood drowns the entire western hemisphere

 

[InMyCellInHell]

i have no utopic visions or idealistic demands

we're all doomed just accept it, lay back, and watch the world burn
oh and don't forget your popcorn while society is collapsing

I got the extra buttery kind just for this occasion.

 

[Lycan]

I got the extra buttery kind just for this occasion.

this guy knows what's up

 

[Deleted member 35171]

There's no perfect solution but yours sounds as good as it gets. I think the main thing would be to get rid of genders because most of the male-to-male abuse comes from them trying to prove their dominance to stone-age-minded foids.

We have the power to make this a reality by vocally and financially supporting relevant technologies. Imagine if all of us invested some money in artificial womb research?

 

[GhostedPhantom]

We have the power to make this a reality by vocally and financially supporting relevant technologies. Imagine if all of us invested some money in artificial womb research?

Coincidentally, I've just shat on my past self for having any hope in artificial wombs :

in the past I used to see artificial wombs as a way to tip the scales in favor of men ( )

I suspect that the hypocritical gynocentric society will shut down any attempt to develop them in the near future with "muh baby's right to 2 parents" arguments (all the while perpetuating single motherhood). Also, they're way harder to develop than sperm banks with our current level of technology. It's more than just an incubator; it also provides the fetus with immunity cells, gut bacteria and so on. At least it can't smoke or drink while pregnant, unlike foids, and it can't pull a "my body, my choice".


As an alternative, I've considered a small-scale male-only society, the population of which gets replenished by an influx of new disenfranchised men, hoping it may be more feasible than artificial wombs. However, I doubt it, because the law of female infiltration remains undefeated:

Maybe with elimination of libido with 0 negative side-effects (apart from sterilization; I don't care if I have the option to spread my subhuman genes or not), we can prevent male thirst and thus female infiltration. I'd invest in it. Also, mandatory for every newcomer.

Meanwhile foids get to make a female-only island. Of course, they did need men to construct that """female-only""" island. I wouldn't be surprised if they need men for plumbing, electricity, repairs, etc., too.


Ultimately, I'd like a society with 100% artificial wombs, designer babies and near-immortality, but I surely won't even be alive to witness that so I don't care if it happens or people manage to kill themselves (in modded Minecraft) with a massive nuclear winter before it happens.

 

[Deleted member 34074]

so only cucks and simps

let cumskins suffer, i dont give a shit about this shitworld

 

[Deleted member 34301]

One where a flood drowns the entire western hemisphere

let cumskins suffer, i dont give a shit about this shitworld

Why do whites have to pay for your ethnic self-hatred?

 

[Deleted member 34074]

Why do whites have to pay for your ethnic self-hatred?

Because everyone in this world suffer, and i dont give a shit about other humans.

 

[Deleted member 34301]

Because everyone in this world suffer, and i dont give a shit about other humans.

So should ethnics suffer as well or do you only want whites to suffer?

 

[MinixMouse]

Thinking about such a world makes me more bitter than pleasured. Any hope of a utopian society first requires an extensive revision of human nature at its core to be implemented.

 

[Deleted member 34074]

So should ethnics suffer as well or do you only want whites to suffer?

cumskin suffering is more pleasant to me.

 

[Deleted member 34301]

cumskin suffering is more pleasant to me.

If there are no whites then shitskins will contaminate the gene pool

 

[Deleted member 34074]

If there are no whites then shitskins will contaminate the gene pool

if cumskins didnt existed this world would be more fair.

 

[Deleted member 34301]

if cumskins didnt existed this world would be more fair.

Without whites we would essentially not have civilization at all

 

[Deleted member 34074]

Without whites we would essentially not have civilization at all

Thats the point, Civilizations are often ruled by the genetic elite of chads and their bloodline, Do you like that?

 

[Deleted member 34301]

Thats the point, Civilizations are often ruled by the genetic elite of chads and their bloodline, Do you like that?

There would be no scientific advances, no medical advances, no electricity, etc. all invented by white people. People would basically die from disease and have a life expectancy of 30 if there were only curries and sands

 

[Deleted member 34074]

There would be no scientific advances, no medical advances, no electricity, etc. all invented by white people. People would basically die from disease and have a life expectancy of 30 if there were only curries and sands

The poorest indigenous people in mexico dont have access to that things, And they breed like rabbits and live simple and "happy" lives, and they fuck like rabbits to keep their bloodline alive, and if the ecosystem wasnt fucked up by modern soyciety they could thrive and prosper, Hunting wild deer/boar and foraging, That sounds more fun than going to the supermarket to buy things and wageslave.

 

[Deleted member 34301]

The poorest indigenous people in mexico dont have access to that things, And they breed like rabbits and live simple and "happy" lives, and they fuck like rabbits to keep their bloodline alive, and if the ecosystem wasnt fucked up by modern soyciety they could thrive and prosper, Hunting wild deer/boar and foraging, That sounds more fun than going to the supermarket to buy things and wageslave.

If you want to go back to a hunter/gatherer society, chad will still fuck all the girls. In prehistoric times only 1 male in 14 females reproduced. Plus you will have a short life expectancy and everyday you have the risk that you get killed

 

[Deleted member 34074]

If you want to go back to a hunter/gatherer society, chad will still fuck all the girls. In prehistoric times only 1 male in 14 females reproduced. Plus you will have a short life expectancy and everyday you have the risk that you get killed

short life=Less suffering.

I just dont like this world, I dont give a shit about procreation honestly. Im not a puppet under the strings of my own instincts.

 

[Deleted member 35171]

If you want to go back to a hunter/gatherer society, chad will still fuck all the girls. In prehistoric times only 1 male in 14 females reproduced. Plus you will have a short life expectancy and everyday you have the risk that you get killed

I believe that was after the invention of farming, thus leading to slave societies.
During hunterer gatherer times monogamy was heavily enforced. Hunts could only be done in groups and everyone in the group had to be happy and satisfied. Social stability was of utmost importance.

 

[the3rdwill]

I believe that was after the invention of farming, thus leading to slave societies

Whites weren't even the first to discover farming. And the Native Americans were hunter/gatherer society and they were killing eachother all the time before white men even stepped foot in America. The reason why some peoples can live a simple lifestyle today is because everyone else is interested in taking part of the modern lifestyle. Indigenous peoples in south America are left alone because they have nothing of value and aren't competition to more advanced societies

 

[Deleted member 35171]

Whites weren't even the first to discover farming. And the Native Americans were hunter/gatherer society and they were killing eachother all the time before white men even stepped foot in America. The reason why some peoples can live a simple lifestyle today is because everyone else is interested in taking part of the modern lifestyle. Indigenous peoples in south America are left alone because they have nothing of value and aren't competition to more advanced societies

How is this a response to what I said? Did you press reply by mistake?

 

[the3rdwill]

How is this a response to what I said? Did you press reply by mistake?

It's me adding my take to the discussion and you flipping out apparently because you dont like what I said.

 

[worthlessloser26]

Whites weren't even the first to discover farming. And the Native Americans were hunter/gatherer society and they were killing eachother all the time before white men even stepped foot in America. The reason why some peoples can live a simple lifestyle today is because everyone else is interested in taking part of the modern lifestyle. Indigenous peoples in south America are left alone because they have nothing of value and aren't competition to more advanced societies

The incans and the Myans were extremely advanced for their time.

 

[Deleted member 35171]

It's me adding my take to the discussion and you flipping out apparently because you dont like what I said.

I'm not flipping out lol

I'm just confused because I never said which race invented farming (hell if I know..) no where in my post did I mention race lol

I never said hunterer gatherer tribes weren't killing each other. In fact quite the opposite, since everyone could mostly enough gather food only to feed themselves, holding slaves wasn't an economically feasible option. Therefore after conquering other tribes their populations were genocided or some times even eaten.

 

[Deleted member 34301]

I believe that was after the invention of farming, thus leading to slave societies.
During hunterer gatherer times monogamy was heavily enforced. Hunts could only be done in groups and everyone in the group had to be happy and satisfied. Social stability was of utmost importance.

That makes no sense. The mushroom shaped head of the penis is evidence that tribes engaged in polygamous behaviour, because it has a scrape mechanism that removes the sperm of other suitors in order to maximize reproductive succes. Probably a few chads could fuck the women in orgies while the men with lower status got nothing, but they could stay contend by getting food and having the means to survive

 

[Deleted member 31092]

My ideal society would be some sort of nomadic forager society. No agriculture, no animal domestication, no cities, no permanent residences, we simply rove and live off the land. We're all vegetarians too, so no need to hunt and kill animals. To the extent that we use animals products such as their furs or skins to make clothing, we scavenge it from already dead animals. Our numbers are low, no more than 1.2 million people in the entire continental US. That way, there are enough resources to go around. All men are guaranteed a mate, so long as they follow the codes of conduct of the group. The men are honorbound, and are closer to each other than to their wives and children. We live pretty much a hand to mouth existence, yet we survive, and thrive.

The mushroom shaped head of the penis is evidence that tribes engaged in polygamous behaviour, because it has a scrape mechanism that removes the sperm of other in order to maximize reproductive succes.

Pure nonsense. Hunter gathers would have to be engaging in gangbang orgies all the time for this to be true. What evidence is there that they did this?

 

[erenyeager]

A universe ruled by me of course.

 

[the3rdwill]

everyone here would still be fucked in their ideal society. If it was tribal they would be stabbed to death by Chad warrior. If it was forager society they would die because forager Chad would throw a rock at their head or they would starve to death. If it was a fuedal society they would be a serf. If it was transhumanist society they would be unmodified. In a ideal human society there would always be those at the top and those at the bottom. There is no equality in nature and those with bad genetics are meant to to be at the bottom. Even if you could make everyone genetically the same people would still find ways to discriminate, separate, and fight

 

[Deleted member 35171]

That makes no sense. The mushroom shaped head of the penis is evidence that tribes engaged in polygamous behaviour, because it has a scrape mechanism that removes the sperm of other suitors in order to maximize reproductive succes

Fiest of all if that is true (which for as long as we know is just a theory), that refutes not only monogamy but also the idea that tribal chad got all the women. Because if he did, there would be no "sperm of other suitors" to remove.

Second of all, we can look at genetic data my guy. Up until the invention of farming, your male to female parent ratio is 1:1.

Finally, there are living hunter gatherer tribes today with minimal or no outside world contact that we can study. They are almost all exclusively monogamous.

 

[K9Otaku]

Tell me what your ideal society would look like.

For me it would be a brotherhood of men where productive assets are equally owned by male members and resources distributed based on one's contribution aka mental and physical labor. Men are introduced to different sectors of the economy at a young age and are given the choice to specialize in the area of their liking. On top of that, they are taught how to fight and defend themselves since childhood. All important matters are decided by electronic public election where every man is given exactly one vote. There is a copy of every man's genetic information kept in the national DNA library. Once members reach a certain age, they are legally given the right to reproduce or rather clone themselves. According to the rules, each member can only do this once and this is heavily enforced. The clone grows in an artificial womb, and after conception is raised in a governmental facility where it will be properly trained and educated to eventually replace its old self. Upon conquering other countries, first the females are eradicated and then the males are given an opportunity to join the nation as initiates (or die). Initiates have to undergo military training and prove their devotion by participating in the future conquests of the nation. Once that is done, they are welcomed to the brotherhood as real members and their DNA added to the national library where it will be later used for cloning.

In short, no money, no hierarchies, no females to compete over and no male infighting. A society of immortalized men united by a common goal/enemy.

All this looks very much like a monastery, which is good.

Only problem is "no hierarchy". That is not an advisable proposition, for two reasons.

1. Hierarchies are a practical necessity. You have 2 kinds of hierarchies:

a. Hierarchies of competence. More competent people rank higher, which means that the more competent are listened to more and their opinions carry more weight than those of the less competent. Otherwise, nonsense, waste of time and bad decisions ensue.​

b. Hierarchies of leadership. When a project is undertaken (fighting a battle, building a house), there must be a leader to coordinate the task. Otherwise inefficiency results or, at worst, complete failure (which includes defeat in war).​

​

2. The fact that you reject hierarchy means you have a spiritual problem: envy. If you allow that thought in your mind, it will destroy everything you do. Therefore, the existence of a hierarchy is also a symbolic necessity, in order to combat this problem. A community that allows envy to fester will not last

The main challenge of hierarchies is that you have to allow them but at the same time prevent the emergence of alpha males (chads). Even in the absence of foids, this will be a problem and needs to be dealt with. In the past, monastic communities of men dealt with it with a simple trick. God was declared the alpha male and therefore there could be no other (omnipotent alpha male is necessarily unique). As a result, every man in a monastery, including the Abbot, the prior (number 2) and the elders were all beta males and behaved accordingly.

The challenge for us is that, since we do not believe in God anymore, we have to find another system to achieve the same goal. But we cannot say "no hierarchies" That will not work.

 

[Deleted member 34301]

Fiest of all if that is true (which for as long as we know is just a theory), that refutes not only monogamy but also the idea that tribal chad got all the women. Because if he did, there would be no "sperm of other suitors" to remove.

Second of all, we can look at genetic data my guy. Up until the invention of farming, your male to female parent ratio is 1:1.

Finally, there are living hunter gatherer tribes today with minimal or no outside world contact that we can study. They are almost all exclusively monogamous.

I think several chads would fuck a women in the tribe because anthropologist have studied primitive tribes and they find that those tribes are all very prone to the belief that sperm mixes in the womb, so in order to get the best child the woman had to be fucked by the best men (best hunter, strongest guy, most attractive guy, smartest guy, etc.) to get all those different qualities. This is basically the modern day equivalent of the 80-20% rule and would explain the mushroom shape and also the female disposition to want to engage in gangbangs with chads

 

[Deleted member 35171]

All this looks very much like a monastery, which is good.

Only problem is "no hierarchy". That is not an advisable proposition, for two reasons.

1. Hierarchies are a practical necessity. You have 2 kinds of hierarchies:

a. Hierarchies of competence. More competent people rank higher, which means that the more competent are listened to more and their opinions carry more weight than those of the less competent. Otherwise, nonsense, waste of time and bad decisions ensue.​

b. Hierarchies of leadership. When a project is undertaken (fighting a battle, building a house), there must be a leader to coordinate the task. Otherwise inefficiency results or, at worst, complete failure (which includes defeat in war).​

​

2. The fact that you reject hierarchy means you have a spiritual problem: envy. If you allow that thought in your mind, it will destroy everything you do. Therefore, the existence of a hierarchy is also a symbolic necessity, in order to combat this problem. A community that allows envy to fester will not last

The main challenge of hierarchies is that you have to allow them but at the same time prevent the emergence of alpha males (chads). Even in the absence of foids, this will be a problem and needs to be dealt with. In the past, monastic communities of men dealt with it with a simple trick. God was declared the alpha male and therefore there could be no other (omnipotent alpha male is necessarily unique). As a result, every man in a monastery, including the Abbot, the prior (number 2) and the elders were all beta males and behaved accordingly.

The challenge for us is that, since we do not believe in God anymore, we have to find another system to achieve the same goal. But we cannot say "no hierarchies" That will not work.

I should have been more clear. I'm not against all types of hierarchies.

I'm against self-enforcing hierarchies. For example the kind of hierarchy seen in today's society where the people born to the wealthiest parents with the best genes have a massive advantage compared to the rest of the population, and so will their children and so on.

In my imaginary society, members are more than free to vote and elect leaders for themselves. Naturally with level playing grounds the most diligent/competent individuals are most likely to rise to leadership positions. However leaders are held equally against the rules: only one child, equal share of productive assets, paid according to hours worked/quota percentages fulfilled, similar taxation policies, no inhertance (upon death their acquired resources become publicly owned and equally shared between other members), etc.

 

[_realist_]

Fucking beautiful bitches, being genuinely happy, having lots of money, having a nice house, having a good job or no job at all, having anything you wanted, and doing it when you want.

 

[schwiftycel]

A society where all the Stacies flock to MEE.

 

[Words2_live_bye]

just like a forest, with no humans around

 

[goldenfold]

A society where ordinary people can have sex with stacies on command.

 

[K9Otaku]

I should have been more clear. I'm not against all types of hierarchies.

Good

I'm against self-enforcing hierarchies.

That is an unclear concept. Are you ok with the kind of hierachy that exists in a Christian medieval monastery?

Let us be clear. I am not asking you if you believe in God (I don't), just whether you are ok with that kind of organization. In order to be clear on what we mean, it is always good to have a concrete example in mind

For example the kind of hierarchy seen in today's society where the people born to the wealthiest parents with the best genes have a massive advantage compared to the rest of the population, and so will their children and so on.

That is unclear too. Genes for beauty are useless, yes. But what about genes for intelligence, or manual dexterity? These are good, yet they also give individuals who have them an advantage.

In my imaginary society, members are more than free to vote and elect leaders for themselves.

Democracy does not seem to work that well. It is what made the possible. Should we do that again?

Naturally with level playing grounds the most diligent/competent individuals are most likely to rise to leadership positions. However leaders are held equally against the rules:

There a few practical problem with the ideas below. Let me deal with them one by one:

equal share of productive assets

That is not a good idea. More competent people should have a bigger share. If you give a fraction of a blast furnace to everyone, no iron will ever be produced. Assets need to be concentrated to be productive.

paid according to hours worked/quota percentages fulfilled

This applies only to low level workers. The closer you move to the top of the hierarchy, the more difficult it becomes to measure performance. How do you decide whether an aircraft designer has done his job? From the design phase to actual use, maybe 10-15 will pass. If you pay by the hour, you will not encourage the best to fill in key positions (which generally involve more work and above all more stress)

If you are too egalitarian, you end up with a mass of demotivated workers who are not good at anything.

no inhertance (upon death their acquired resources become publicly owned and equally shared between other members), etc.

That is tricky too. If you forbid inheritance, you discourage parents to invest in their kids.

Also, there are certain tasks which can't be accomplished in a single generation and yet are impossible to measure "objectively". This is true typically of highly innovative activities like developing steam engines or creating a leader in aerospace engines. These type of endeavors take at least 50 to 100 years to complete and it is very hard to gauge the success before that time. Traditionally, this was handled by dynasties with father to son transmission of both the vision and the necessary assets. It is hardly obvious that such a process can be replaced with administrative procedures not involving inheritance.

 

[Deleted member 35171]

That is not a good idea. More competent people should have a bigger share. If you give a fraction of a blast furnace to everyone, no iron will ever be produced. Assets need to be concentrated to be productive.

You're making wild assumptions with 0 proof that high number of share holders = bad and that worker ownership = bad.
Many successful corporations today have very high number of share holders whether they are worker owned or not.
There are also many studies showing that worker co-ops are more competitive than traditionally owned businesses.
The more competent people will still get paid more because they can either work more hours or fulfill their quotas better depending on the job.

This applies only to low level workers. The closer you move to the top of the hierarchy, the more difficult it becomes to measure performance.

Quotas.
Let's say we want an aircraft design that meets certain criteria. The top X number of designers get paid accordingly to how well their designs fit those criteria.
Everything can be measured and quantified using appropriate mathematical models.

That is tricky too. If you forbid inheritance, you discourage parents to invest in their kids.

There are no families.

That is an unclear concept. Are you ok with the kind of hierachy that exists in a Christian medieval monastery?

I'm unfamiliar with the inner workings of a medial monastery

 

[Mecoja]

Where every boy gets a girl assigned to him as a lifelong partner and they get a house and jobs from home. Cheating is punishable by death and everyone has the same life standard no matter the job, you work 4 hours per day.

 

[K9Otaku]

You're making wild assumptions with 0 proof that high number of share holders = bad and that worker ownership = bad.

Actually there is a ton of evidence of that. Lots of cooperatives of all kinds were tried in the 19th and 20th century. They all failed. And you have the Soviet Union, China under Mao, etc ... What more proof do you need?

Many successful corporations today have very high number of share holders whether they are worker owned or not.

When a corporation has gained an established position, yes, the number of shareholders can be increased. But initially, when the company is young and innovative, it is a bad idea.

Also, there is a big difference between investor-owned and worker-owned companies. The latter never do well.

There are also many studies showing that worker co-ops are more competitive than traditionally owned businesses.

"Studies"? What studies. You mean socialist propaganda, right?

The word "studies" (like in "gender studies") today means "I will fuck you over with bogus science". I think you must be aware of that, right?

Let's say we want an aircraft design that meets certain criteria. The top X number of designers get paid accordingly to how well their designs fit those criteria.

Aircraft design is an art, not a science. You cannot know how well an aircraft will do if you just look at its specs. Even the soviets knew that. That is why they had a slew of "design bureaus" which were run pretty much like private companies and competed between themselves (MiG, Sukhoi, Tupolev, Yakovlev, etc).

You cannot know if an aircraft is going to be good until it has been used several years in the field (civilian or military). The process takes 3-4 years in wartime and 10 to 15 in peace time.

Before that period is passed, you just don't know if the plane is going to be good or not. Many adjustments have to be made to the design throughout and before they have done, you don't know if the result is going to be a Ferrari or a lemon.

Are you going to tell your designers "you are going to be paid 15 years from now"?

Everything can be measured and quantified using appropriate mathematical models.

It is so cute to hear you say that. That is really puppy talk.

You are hopelessly naive if you still think that "models" (mathematical or otherwise) can be made to fit human stuff

There are no families.

What?

I'm unfamiliar with the inner workings of a medial monastery

You should be, because this is where are your ideas are coming from.

All the utopian models of the 19th and 20th century are ultimately based on the monastic experience.

 

[Deleted member 35171]

Aircraft design is an art, not a science. You cannot know how well an aircraft will do if you just look at its specs. Even the soviets knew that. That is why they had a slew of "design bureaus" which were run pretty much like private companies and competed between themselves (MiG, Sukhoi, Tupolev, Yakovlev, etc).

How is this any different from what I said? Also those still wouldn't be private companies. Markets & competition =/= privately owned.

You cannot know if an aircraft is going to be good until it has been used several years in the field (civilian or military). The process takes 3-4 years in wartime and 10 to 15 in peace time.

Before that period is passed, you just don't know if the plane is going to be good or not. Many adjustments have to be made to the design throughout and before they have done, you don't know if the result is going to be a Ferrari or a lemon.

Are you going to tell your designers "you are going to be paid 15 years from now"?

How would this problem not apply to the current system? Tell me how aircraft design works now. How does a private company know whether or not the designer has done a good job without proper testing?
Whatever testing method they use now, could be used in my futuristic society to test how good of a job the designer has done and determine his income.

It is so cute to hear you say that. That is really puppy talk.

You are hopelessly naive if you still think that "models" (mathematical or otherwise) can be made to fit human stuff

Lmfao no you're the hopelessly naive one who doesn't understand how the world that you live in at this very moment works (works the way I described it btw, people have come up with mathematical model for EVERYTHING)

What?

No families. No women. No biological births. Only males who will be cloned, the clones are raised in governmental education facilities until they can enter the economy as adults.

You should be, because this is where are your ideas are coming from.

All the utopian models of the 19th and 20th century are ultimately based on the monastic experience.

No my ideas come from elsewhere.