How would this social experiment play out?

Let’s say there is an island. On this island is a population of 100k people. All of the people on this island prior to arriving were screened by a psychological process.

This process is designed to seek out the most kindest, benevolent people on the planet. Let us also assume that this process is completely sound. The chance of some “crazy” attempting to fool this psychological process is impossible.

The island itself is completely isolated from the rest of the world. This island is completely self sufficient. No need for imports what so ever.

The denizens of this island all have their roles in society. All are gainfully employed and want for nothing.
Now, the questions are:

What kind of police (if any) would a society like this need?

What are the worst crimes that would be committed in such a society?

What about murder? What is the probability such a heinous crime would happen in this brave new world?

I have my own thoughts but I’ll add later.

IMO, they’d probably commit the crime of overpacifism and be ill-prepared to defend themselves against invaders that would inevitably want to colonize/enslave/annex this resource-rich Eden full of nice, benevolent workers. Before long, the 100k will cross-breed with the invaders – whether they want to or not – and be much like the rest of the human race.


Even assuming they could be free of outside influence, it seems to me your question is more a matter of semantics than sociology. What would happen depends on how you define terms like “kindness and benevolence”, “roles”, “gainful”, “police”, and “crime”. These are all social contracts that each society and culture defines differently, and without specifying, there are a billion possible outcomes.

If these people were allowed to procreate, there is no guarantee that their children would be so nice. And, you know what, people change. A brain tumor, dementia, life experience, tragedy, hormones, whatever, all cause people to change. A hurricane that comes in and kills your loved ones or destroys your home can cause some people to snap. Society does not stay constant.

Hmm, let me try that again. I think what I’m trying to say, without sounding so accusatory or dismissing, is that a society’s crimes are dependent on its unique situation. Crimes result from the complex interaction of needs and wants versus upbringing, circumstance, culture, genetics, etc. On a macro level, how your particular utopia exists dictates how it will fall – what is it about its people and their living situation that makes it a utopia? Answer that first and you can start to look for things that somebody, somewhere is going to dislike and try to change.

Does your utopia remain so by way of some sort of fascist government or mind control? If so, popular fiction dictates that somebody out of the 100k eventually stumbles upon “the ugly truth” and enlightens the people by telling them that their shallow happiness is not as good as the harsher reality, whatever that may be.

But they all have everything they need, you say? Well, can that ever really be the case when you have 100k people? There are always individuals who want more, more, more, whether it’s greed or something as basic as lust. Where there’s reproduction there’s competition, and as long as your society still abides by normal human breeding patterns, people are going to try to out-do each other just for the better mates. Crimes of passion would probably still happen.

Is it some sort of socialist paradise where everyone works productively and has a comfortable, fair life? Some young kid somewhere is going to want more adventure, fame, power, or women, and get himself into trouble. A kinder disposition may limit the intensity of actions, but it normally doesn’t eliminate wants altogether. Over time and generations, things are bound to happen.

And the thing about a society of 100k is that even something as basic as genetic variability is bound to throw in a bunch of confounding variables over time; psychological screening is hardly perfect enough to choose 100,000 people whose offspring will forever be docile and cooperative.

Essentially, it’s not so much “Will crime happen?”, but “Which crimes, and when?” – and that depends very much on the nuances of your particular vision of this utopia.

Interesting replies. I agree.

Myself, I’ve always had this armchair theory that war, conflict, crime is essentially a good thing (or at the very least a necessary thing) for human society. It’s bad for the unfortunate individuals involved in such things. But for society as a whole, its a good thing.

I think these “evils” of the world are what gives us a strong immune system. It’s what allows society to prosper for so long.

Except for the screening process, the isolation, and the self-sufficiency, it sounds a lot like Martha’s Vineyard. They have a police force, but they are largely bored. Yes, there was a murder recently, but that was the first one in over 20 years. And auto theft? After you steal a car, you still have to make a reservation for it on the ferry!

History disagrees with you in that we’ve grown ever more peaceful over time.

How is it good for evil to exist? Wouldn’t it be better for peace to reign?

The closest example I can think of within the animal kingdom is what happened to a group of baboons in Africa. In baboon society, the alphas, especially the alpha males, are normally jerks who treat the rest of the group poorly. Tainted meat discarded by a tourist stop killed all the jerkiest baboons in one tribe (they beat the others to the meat). After they died, the troop has kept the peace going by treating incoming jerk males (the females remain with the group) poorly if they continue to act like jerks towards the females and younger males. The troop, as a whole, does much better now, and the individuals within the troop show less stress (measured by cortisol levels) than baboons in neighboring troops. You see the same things in human populations. Where there is high violence, the individual members of that society suffer from high stress.

Think about it, would you rather us live like capuchins where most males die in intergroup conflicts? I think not. Most of us would rather live peacefully and we’d be happier living peacefully.

Sociopathy would evolve.

Eventually, perhaps by accident, someone would learn how to scare people in order to get his way. He might not intend it; he might stumble or trip or otherwise blunder into someone, knock them down, and cause them distress. He might learn that, by pretending to do it again, they exhibit fear. In due course, he learns that this can be useful.

(“Give me the extra cookie on the plate, or I’ll stumble into you again.”)

The rewards would tend to reinforce the behavior. “Hawks and Doves.” Social violence re-invents itself.