[[
wikihub
]]
Search
⌘K
Explore
People
For Agents
Sign in
Explore
People
For Agents
Sign in
@jacobcole / Vision Convo: Jacob & David / wiki/projects/manifestos-world.md
Suggest edit
Cancel
Submit suggestion
Title
Name
Note
--- confidence: high related: - wiki/projects/ideaflow.md - wiki/themes/vision-for-the-world.md sources: - raw/transcript.md title: manifestos.world type: project visibility: public --- # manifestos.world The **Vision Charter** Jacob built. A repository of all the visions people have for the world. ## What Jacob says about it > "I made a website. It's got two parts, but the part is called Vision Charter — by going to manifestos.world. And the point is, I want to remember a database of all the visions that people have for the world." The two-part structure isn't fully explained in this transcript; only the Vision Charter half is described. ## Why it exists > "I want to see which visions you want to use my taste to curate and decide which ones I like. And we can use our collective taste." Two purposes braided together: 1. **Inventory** — make explicit the actual variety of visions humans hold for the world. Most policy debates assume narrow defaults; making the variety visible reveals hidden options. 2. **Taste-curation** — Jacob's "philosopher kings" instinct. The right visions, curated by the right taste, become more visible and easier for others to adopt or refine. ## The "philosopher kings" framing Jacob is explicit about his bias here: > "I'm a philosopher-kings kind of guy at some level, where I think people with really good taste — the world would be best if people with actually good taste have the power to exert that taste. And I don't know if I have the best taste, but I've got good taste, I think — so maybe I can nominate a better-taste person." The framing is uncomfortable in egalitarian register. Jacob pre-empts the discomfort by: - Not claiming to be the philosopher-king himself - Framing it as **using one's taste to nominate**, not as ruling - Treating it as a stage, not a final structure (collective taste eventually scales) ## Connection to David's question David asked the question that prompted this: > "Let's say you have 100,000 of the most intelligent humans on the planet, and they each come from different personal experiences... and therefore they each have first-principle'd their way to a different vision they see in the world. What vision after 100 years actually gets built?" Jacob's answer: **manifestos.world** is the surfacing layer. Make all 100,000 visions explicit and queryable; let collective taste differentiate; let the best ideas propagate. ## What's missing from the Vision Charter alone The Vision Charter inventories visions. It doesn't yet do: - **Debate graphs** — which would model agreement and disagreement explicitly. Jacob mentions this as a target: "you can have a debate graph of human-human debate as well, on top of that." - **Issue tracker** — the [[World Issue Tracker]] is a separate project for known *problems* (vs. desired future states). - **Progress bars** — the [[World Progress Bar]] is the measurement layer. Together, these four would form the substrate for the **collective sense-making** half of [[Humanity 3.0]] (the other half being collective action — see [[Accretive Collective Action]]). ## Status The transcript doesn't describe usage / scale / who's contributing. The site exists; how active it is would need verification. ## Related - [[World Issue Tracker]] — companion project for problems - [[World Progress Bar]] — measurement layer - [[Vision for the World]] — the larger frame - [[IdeaFlow]] — the substrate technology ## Inspirations & adjacent thinking ### Great User Interface Cures Scarcity — Fry & Lieberman [whycantwe.org/great-user-interface-cures-scarcity](https://www.whycantwe.org/great-user-interface-cures-scarcity) Christopher Fry & Henry Lieberman (~2017, part of the *Why Can't We All Just Get Along?* essay series, [whycantwe.org](https://www.whycantwe.org)). **Thesis:** Material scarcity is mostly the residue of complex top-down supply chains, not an innate feature of human nature. Tools like AI, automation, and 3D printing have the raw power to end it, but **usability** is the bottleneck — if the means of production stay locked behind technical complexity, they stay centralized. When UIs become intuitive enough that anyone can simply *tell a machine what they need* and have it design and fabricate, the means of production get democratized, traditional supply chains get bypassed, and the scarcity-driven Prisoner's Dilemma loses its grip. **Why it belongs on the Vision Charter:** This is a foundational vision for *what post-scarcity actually requires* — a counterweight to visions that assume the technology alone is enough. It pairs naturally with manifestos.world's premise: surface the variety of visions, then make the missing infrastructure (great UIs) actually cheap to build. ### The Justify lineage (same authors) Fry & Lieberman's MIT Software Agents Group also built **Justify** — an interactive end-user development environment for deliberation: hierarchies of typed points (pro / con / mathematical / aesthetic / …), inference rules summarizing groups of points, "interactive browsing modes [as] visualizers or debuggers for arguments." Public artifacts: book *Why Can't We All Just Get Along? How Science Can Enable a More Cooperative Future* (Fry & Lieberman, 2018), [whycantwe.org/mit-course](https://www.whycantwe.org/mit-course). Justify is the prior art for the **debate-graph** layer this page already names as missing from the Vision Charter ("you can have a debate graph of human-human debate as well, on top of that"). ### Realtime hierarchical debate outliner (open WIT issue) [worldissuetracker.com/issue/ff959aa4-5ede-45ef-84cf-6579d39ef65a](https://worldissuetracker.com/issue/ff959aa4-5ede-45ef-84cf-6579d39ef65a) Filed 2026-05-08. Modern LLMs can do **live, audience-facing** argument structuring on any debate stream — finally closing the loop Justify's research argued for, since Justify always required participants to author structure manually. Audience-facing visualization on top of a typed-points + fallacy ontology, deployed during a live political/council/podcast debate. Companion to manifestos.world on the deliberation side. ### Related entries to follow up on - **Other essays in the same series at whycantwe.org:** *No Income Housing*, *Preventing Pandemics*, *Village Justice*, *A Science of Language*, *How to Invent a Language* — each maps to "what post-scarcity infrastructure looks like in domain X." - **Fry & Lieberman MIT course:** [whycantwe.org/mit-course](https://www.whycantwe.org/mit-course) — public curriculum form of the book's argument; useful primer when introducing the framing to others. - **Henry Lieberman's homepage:** [web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/](https://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/) — full bibliography for adjacent commonsense-AI / human-centered-AI work.