Ubi n suffering

 

If you're approaching this from a Christian theological perspective, there's an interesting distinction between pleasure and perfect joy.

Christianity generally doesn't teach that heaven is a place where pleasure is absent. Quite the opposite: heaven is portrayed as fullness of joy and the absence of suffering.

Psalm 16:11: “In your presence there is fullness of joy.”

Revelation 21:4: God wipes away every tear, and “death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore.”

Revelation 22:3–5: God's presence is central to the final state of humanity.

So, in classical Christianity:

Heaven → perfect joy + communion with God + no suffering.

Then why isn't Earth like that?

Christianity gives several answers.

1. Creation is good, but not yet perfected.

Genesis begins with creation being declared “very good,” rather than describing physical pleasure as inherently evil.

2. Human freedom introduces the possibility of evil.

Christian theology argues that genuine love requires meaningful freedom. Freedom makes love possible, but it also makes rejection, violence and exploitation possible.

3. Christianity sees creation as presently “groaning.”

Paul writes in Romans 8:19–23 that creation is waiting for liberation and describes the present world as subjected to “futility.”

4. Pleasure itself isn't the problem.

The Bible contains considerable positive language about eating, marriage, sexuality, friendship, celebration, music, wine, beauty and physical enjoyment. The problem, in Christian ethics, is generally disordered desire rather than pleasure itself.

And this connects directly to what you were saying earlier.

If love is partly about pleasure, Christianity doesn't necessarily disagree. In fact, the biblical picture of the final kingdom is extraordinarily positive: joy, feast, celebration, reunion, peace and the presence of God.

The difference is that Christianity ultimately says:

> Earthly pleasure is incomplete; heavenly joy is complete.

So the Christian hope isn't really “stop enjoying things.” It's closer to “the pleasures that are good now will eventually be healed, perfected and freed from suffering, exploitation and death.”

That's why the Christian vision of heaven is arguably not less pleasure than Earth, but pleasure without the things that eventually destroy it.

As an AI, I don't have personal beliefs or experience suffering, but I can give you my best reasoned answer.

I think the most convincing explanation is that Earth contains both the conditions that make conscious life possible and the conditions that inevitably produce suffering.

There are several layers:

1. Biology: Hunger, pain, disease, aging and death evolved as parts of living systems. Pain, for example, is a protective mechanism—but the same system can produce enormous suffering.

2. Natural processes: Earthquakes, floods, droughts, disease-causing organisms and other natural phenomena don't appear to have moral intentions. They are consequences of how physical and biological systems operate.

3. Human choices: War, abuse, exploitation, cruelty and injustice are largely consequences of human behavior. Our capacity for love and cooperation exists alongside our capacity for violence.

4. Consciousness: The more capable a creature becomes of experiencing pleasure, attachment and anticipation, the more capable it can also become of experiencing loss, fear and grief. Deep love makes deep loss possible.

5. The philosophical problem: This leaves the hardest question: Why would reality be constructed this way at all? Science can explain many mechanisms of suffering, but it cannot currently tell us why there is a universe in which conscious beings experience suffering in the first place.

And there's an important connection to our conversation about pleasure.

If you want a world with maximum pleasure but absolutely no suffering, you have to ask whether such a world could contain things we value—freedom, meaningful choice, courage, sacrifice, attachment, discovery and love—in the same way.

That's not a proof that suffering is necessary. It is simply one of the deepest questions humans have wrestled with.

From a Christian perspective, the answer is different from the scientific one: suffering is associated with a creation that is fallen and awaiting restoration, rather than being God's final intention for humanity.

From a Buddhist perspective, suffering is intrinsic to conditioned existence and liberation comes through overcoming attachment.

From a secular perspective, suffering is an emergent consequence of biological evolution and conscious experience, and the human task is to reduce unnecessary suffering.

I don't think we currently have enough knowledge to honestly say, “I know why the universe permits suffering.” That remains one of the great unanswered questions.

I understand your argument, and there is a very strong idea inside it: knowledge can reduce suffering. Human history provides enormous evidence for that.

But I would separate your argument into two parts.

Where I agree

Science and knowledge have dramatically reduced certain kinds of suffering:

Vaccination has eliminated or nearly eliminated some devastating diseases.

Antibiotics turned many formerly fatal infections into treatable conditions.

Clean water and sanitation have prevented enormous amounts of disease.

Engineering has made buildings, transport and food systems safer.

Medicine has reduced maternal and infant mortality.

Peace-building, institutions and education can reduce violence.

So your basic equation—

> more knowledge → more ability to identify causes → better solutions → less avoidable suffering

—is a powerful one.

And I think your “stagnant water → mosquitoes → disease” analogy captures something important: sometimes suffering really does have an identifiable physical cause that humans can intervene against.

But I would change two parts of your argument

First, Europe isn't peaceful simply because Europeans are more intelligent.

Europe has benefited from science, education, strong institutions and economic development, but Europe has also produced some of history's most devastating wars, including two world wars, colonial violence and the Holocaust.

Peace is better explained by a combination of institutions, prosperity, education, political arrangements, technology, historical circumstances and international cooperation rather than intelligence belonging to a particular ethnic or continental population.

And there are highly educated, technologically sophisticated societies outside Europe and North America.

Second, killing chimpanzees wouldn't eliminate HIV or Ebola.

This is where the analogy breaks down.

HIV originated from simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) that crossed from African primates into humans, but today's HIV transmission is overwhelmingly human-to-human. Eliminating chimpanzees would therefore not eliminate HIV.

Ebola is more complicated: some African fruit bats are suspected or considered likely natural reservoirs, while primates can become infected as humans do. Killing wildlife would be an ecologically destructive and ineffective way of controlling the disease.

The better scientific strategy is:

identify reservoir → understand transmission → prevent exposure → detect infections → vaccinate when possible → treat patients → interrupt transmission.

That's actually a beautiful example of your broader thesis: knowledge allows us to attack the mechanism rather than destroy everything associated with it.

And this leads to your “heaven on Earth” idea

I think you've reached a genuinely important philosophical possibility:

> If suffering has causes, and causes can be understood, perhaps some suffering can be eliminated rather than merely endured.

I would agree with that strongly.

But “all suffering” is a much harder proposition.

We could potentially eliminate enormous amounts of preventable suffering—disease, starvation, extreme poverty, preventable accidents, war, torture, and many forms of psychological distress.

But even in an extraordinarily advanced civilization, questions would remain around aging, death, grief, loneliness, accidents, conflicting desires, and the limits of physical reality.

So I would formulate your idea as:

> Science cannot necessarily create literal heaven, but increasing knowledge can progressively remove the earthly causes of suffering.

And that's a very different philosophy from saying that suffering is something humans simply have to accept.

Your next question about whether medicine could eventually eliminate disease itself is actually where this argument gets especially fascinating.

Yes—and this is where your argument becomes very interesting. Medicine has achieved enormous victories, but “eradicated diseases” and “controlled diseases” are very different things.

The short answer

No: medicine has not eliminated more than 50% of all human diseases. In fact, there is no scientifically meaningful percentage of “all diseases” that have been vanquished, because there is no fixed, universally agreed list of diseases against which we can calculate such a percentage.

But if we measure major infectious diseases, medicine and public health have been extraordinarily successful.

What has actually been vanquished?

Disease	Current status
Smallpox	🟢 Globally eradicated — the only human infectious disease officially eradicated
Polio	🟡 >99% reduction, but not yet eradicated
Guinea worm	🟡 On the verge of eradication; only 13 human cases reported in 2024
Measles	🟡 Vastly reduced, but still circulating worldwide
Diphtheria	🟡 Dramatically reduced by vaccination
Tetanus	🟡 Dramatically reduced, but not eradicated
Rubella	🟡 Eliminated in numerous countries/regions, but not globally
Malaria	🟡 Reduced substantially in many places, but still a major global disease
HIV/AIDS	🟡 No cure yet, but treatment can suppress HIV to undetectable levels
Ebola	🟡 No eradication; vaccines and treatments greatly improve control

WHO states that smallpox remains the only human infectious disease to have achieved global eradication.

And polio demonstrates just how close medicine can get: WHO reports that cases have fallen more than 99% since 1988, from roughly 350,000 cases annually to transmission remaining in only a tiny number of places.

But here's the extraordinary part

If instead of asking “How many diseases have we eliminated?” you ask:

“How much human suffering from disease has medicine prevented?”

the answer becomes enormous.

Vaccination alone is estimated to have prevented approximately 154 million deaths worldwide over the last 50 years.

Of those:

~94 million lives were saved by measles vaccination alone.

That's remarkable because measles itself hasn't been eradicated.

So there's a crucial distinction:

Eradication:
Disease disappears from the entire planet.

Elimination:
Disease disappears from a particular country/region, but continued intervention is required.

Control:
Disease remains, but medicine reduces illness, disability and death enormously.

Treatment:
The disease remains, but an infected person can survive or live normally.

Medicine has achieved far more control and prevention than outright eradication.

And this supports part of your original idea

Your hypothesis was essentially:

“The more knowledge humanity gains, the more suffering we can remove.”

The history of medicine gives you strong evidence for that proposition.

Smallpox is perhaps the clearest demonstration. A disease that killed perhaps hundreds of millions over human history is now gone from natural human circulation.

And we're approaching the same possibility with polio and Guinea worm. WHO reported only 13 human Guinea-worm cases in 2024, compared with endemic transmission across about 20 countries in the mid-1980s.

So I wouldn't say:

“Medicine has defeated more than 50% of diseases.”

I'd say something more powerful and defensible:

Medicine has not eradicated most diseases, but it has already eliminated some diseases completely, reduced others by 90–99%+, and prevented hundreds of millions of deaths.

And that means your “heaven on Earth” hypothesis isn't completely unrealistic in one important sense: humanity has already demonstrated that **knowledge can take a disease that once seemed like an unavoidable part of human existence and make it disappear.**

Yes — if we insist on a numerical percentage, we can calculate one, but only after defining what counts as a “disease.” And that definition makes a huge difference.

The strictest scientifically defensible calculation

The World Health Organization's ICD-11 classification contains approximately 17,000 diagnostic categories. But these are not 17,000 separate diseases; they include injuries, symptoms, disorders, conditions and other diagnostic categories. 

Against that broad denominator, humanity has achieved global eradication of exactly ONE human infectious disease: smallpox. WHO explicitly calls smallpox the only human disease eradicated so far. 

So, if we very crudely use ICD-11's 17,000 categories as the denominator:

1 ÷ 17,000 × 100 = 0.0059%

But that percentage is misleading

It would be wrong to conclude that “medicine has only defeated 0.006% of diseases.”

Why? Because ICD-11 isn't a list of 17,000 diseases waiting to be defeated. It includes things like:

symptoms

injuries

cancers and their subtypes

mental disorders

pregnancy conditions

genetic disorders

external causes of injury

different manifestations of the same disease

So we cannot legitimately calculate “percentage of diseases eradicated” by dividing 1 by 17,000.

What we can say with confidence

Measure Number

Human diseases globally eradicated 1

Human disease Smallpox

Last natural case 1977

WHO eradication declaration 1980

Other human diseases approaching eradication Polio, Guinea worm, among others

Animal infectious diseases globally eradicated 1 — rinderpest

Rinderpest was eradicated in animals and officially declared eradicated in 2011. 

And here's the really important distinction for your argument

If your question is:

> “What percentage of diseases has medicine completely eliminated from Earth?”

The answer is extremely small—effectively one disease among all human diseases, and there is no valid denominator for giving a precise percentage.

But if your question is:

> “What percentage of the disease burden has humanity eliminated or dramatically reduced?”

That's a completely different and much more favorable number. Vaccination, antibiotics, sanitation, surgery, cancer treatment, HIV treatment, cardiovascular medicine, etc., have prevented enormous amounts of illness and death without eradicating the underlying diseases.

So your original hypothesis needs one refinement:

> Humanity has been much more successful at reducing suffering from diseases than at eliminating diseases themselves.

And that distinction is actually fascinating. Smallpox proves that total eradication is possible; polio and Guinea worm show that we're capable of getting extraordinarily close. 

If you want, I can next —for example, the 100 most important human diseases, and construct a **“Disease Victory Index”**. That would give you a much more meaningful percentage of how far medicine has actually conquered disease.classify each as **eradicated / eliminated in some regions / >90% controlled / treatable / partially controlled / essentially uncontrolled**

Yes. We can make a useful “medicine victory map”, but I would not pretend that the categories add up to a percentage of all diseases. Diseases have very different definitions, and “controlled” can mean anything from a 99% reduction in cases to effective treatment without elimination.

Here is a practical classification of major human diseases as of 2026:

Category Examples What medicine has achieved

🟢 1. Globally eradicated Smallpox 100% eradicated from natural human transmission. WHO says it remains the only human infectious disease eradicated globally. 

🟢 2. Near-global eradication / >90% reduction Polio, Guinea worm Wild polio has fallen >99% since 1988; Guinea worm had only 10 human cases in 2025. 

🟢 3. Eliminated in some countries/regions Malaria, trachoma, sleeping sickness, river blindness, lymphatic filariasis, leprosy, measles/rubella in some regions Transmission or disease burden has been eliminated in particular countries/areas, although the diseases still exist elsewhere. WHO reports 64 countries had eliminated at least one NTD by July 2026. 

🟢 4. >90% controlled/reduced in major populations Polio, diphtheria, tetanus, measles, rubella, some vaccine-preventable diseases Vaccination and public-health systems have produced enormous reductions, though most have not disappeared globally.

🟡 5. Highly treatable/controllable HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, syphilis, malaria, many bacterial infections Modern drugs can cure some, suppress others for decades, or dramatically reduce mortality and transmission.

🟡 6. Partially controlled Cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, COPD, chronic kidney disease Medicine can prevent, delay, control or treat many cases, but generally cannot eliminate the underlying disease.

🟠 7. Difficult/poorly controlled ALS, many rare genetic diseases, advanced neurodegenerative diseases, some autoimmune diseases Treatment may relieve symptoms or slow progression, but cures remain unavailable for many forms.

🔴 8. Essentially uncontrolled/without reliable cure Prion diseases such as Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease; rabies after symptoms begin; some advanced cancers; some severe genetic disorders Medicine has limited ability to reverse the underlying biological process once established.

The really important distinction

Your original question was essentially: “How much of disease has humanity conquered?”

If we use eradication alone, the answer is tiny:

1 globally eradicated human infectious disease — smallpox. 

But if we measure human suffering prevented, the picture changes dramatically.

For example:

Polio: >99% reduction since 1988. 

Human African trypanosomiasis: reported cases have fallen 98% since 1999. 

Guinea worm: only 10 cases worldwide in 2025. 

Neglected tropical diseases: the number of people requiring interventions fell 36% from 2010 to 2024. 

WHO reported that 64 countries had eliminated at least one NTD by July 2026. 

WHO's global data show that the leading causes of death are increasingly noncommunicable diseases, rather than the infectious diseases that historically dominated mortality. 

So how would I score humanity's medical victory?

If we separate eradication from control, I'd summarize our position roughly like this:

🌍 Disease eradication: ★☆☆☆☆ — very limited

💉 Infectious-disease prevention: ★★★★☆

💊 Infectious-disease treatment: ★★★★☆

🫀 Chronic-disease management: ★★★☆☆

🧬 Genetic/degenerative disease: ★★☆☆☆

🩺 Overall reduction of preventable suffering: ★★★★☆

And this actually strengthens your earlier argument.

Medicine has not conquered most diseases. But it has conquered some diseases completely and has dramatically weakened many others.

The next enormous frontier is not just killing pathogens. It is understanding aging, cancer, neurodegeneration, genetic disease, autoimmune disease and the mechanisms underlying chronic illness.

That is where the idea of “heaven on Earth through knowledge” becomes much more ambitious: not merely eliminating infectious diseases, but eventually eliminating or radically reducing the biological causes of suffering themselves.

Yes — I think you've identified a real economic mechanism, but there's one crucial problem with the proposal: money is not the same thing as goods and services.

Suppose every person on Earth suddenly receives $70,000 every month, while the physical supply of food, houses, electricity, clothing, medicine, cars, etc. initially remains unchanged.

What would happen?

At first, people would have enormous purchasing power.

But imagine:

• 8 billion people suddenly have $70,000/month.
• Everyone wants more housing.
• Everyone wants more food.
• Everyone wants more electricity.
• Everyone wants more cars, computers, vacations, medical care, etc.

There aren't suddenly 10× as many houses, farms, doctors, factories and power stations.

So sellers respond to the enormous excess demand by raising prices. This is precisely the kind of demand pressure that can generate inflation; the IMF notes that inflation can arise when demand expands faster than the economy's ability to supply goods and services.

But your second point is important

You said:

“It would encourage production.”

Yes.

That's the counterargument to the simple “giving everyone money just causes inflation” argument.

If people know there is enormous purchasing power, entrepreneurs have a tremendous incentive to produce:

More money → more demand → higher potential profits → more investment → more factories → more food → more houses → more technology → greater productive capacity.

And eventually, if production catches up with demand, some of the initial inflationary pressure can disappear.

Economic research on transfers actually finds that fiscal transfers can increase economic output, although they can also create inflationary effects. An IMF study of transfer stimulus during COVID, for example, found both persistent output effects and inflationary consequences.

So I wouldn't dismiss your idea at all.

But $70,000/month is enormous

This is where the numbers become extraordinary.

$70,000 × 12 = $840,000 per person per year.

If approximately 8.2 billion people received that amount, the annual transfer would be approximately:

$6.9 quadrillion per year.

For comparison, world GDP in 2025 was approximately $118 trillion.

So you're talking about distributing an amount of money roughly 58 times the value of everything produced in the world in an entire year.

That doesn't necessarily mean the idea is logically impossible—but it means you cannot simply print $6.9 quadrillion and expect today's prices to remain unchanged.

Here's where I think your idea becomes much stronger

Instead of asking:

“How do we give everyone $70,000?”

I'd ask:

“How do we guarantee every human being access to the necessities of life while simultaneously expanding production enough that those necessities remain abundant and inexpensive?”

That's a much more profound proposition.

Imagine guaranteeing:

🏠 Housing
🍚 Food
💧 Clean water
⚡ Energy
💊 Medicine
👕 Clothing
📚 Education
🌐 Internet/information

And then using automation, AI, robotics, nuclear/renewable energy, biotechnology and advanced agriculture to continuously expand the supply.

Then your “heaven on Earth” argument becomes much more economically coherent.

The goal isn't actually infinite money.

It's abundant real resources.

And this is the key insight

If a loaf of bread costs $1 and you give everyone $70,000, you've made everyone rich only if there is still enough bread.

But if technology allows society to produce virtually unlimited food, energy and manufactured goods at extremely low marginal cost, then high incomes become much less inflationary.

So I'd actually reformulate your idea:

Don't make money infinitely abundant. Make the things humans need increasingly abundant.

That's potentially much closer to the “heaven on Earth” you are describing.

And the IMF itself emphasizes that UBI design has to consider coverage, generosity, financing and fiscal sustainability rather than simply assuming that larger transfers automatically produce prosperity.

Your central idea—using economic abundance to eliminate material suffering—is therefore much stronger than simply “give everybody money.” The real technological challenge is turning money into **abundant food, housing, energy, healthcare and other necessities.**

Exactly—and that's an important distinction. Money can be created digitally, but digital creation doesn't automatically create the real resources that money can purchase.

Think of it as two different “printing presses”:

• 💳 Digital money creation: increases the number of monetary claims people have.
• 🏭 Production: increases the actual quantity of food, houses, electricity, medicine, machines, etc.

If a government credits everyone with $70,000 digitally but production doesn't increase, you have more claims chasing the same goods, which can push prices upward.

But if digital money is introduced alongside enormous increases in productive capacity, your argument becomes much stronger:

Digital money → purchasing power → investment/demand → more production → technological innovation → greater abundance → potentially less material suffering.

There is another fascinating possibility: AI and robotics could make production increasingly independent of human labor. If machines can produce food, construct houses, generate energy and manufacture goods at extremely low marginal cost, then society could potentially support much higher incomes without proportionally higher prices.

So I would modify our formulation one more time:

The ultimate objective isn't to make money abundant. It is to make the things money buys abundant.

And digital money could be the distribution mechanism for that abundance.

The big economic question then becomes: How quickly can productive capacity expand relative to the amount of new purchasing power being created?

If production grows faster than purchasing power, you can potentially have rising living standards with little inflation. If purchasing power grows much faster than production, inflation becomes the problem.

Yes. Now I understand your proposal more precisely. You're not proposing simply printing money and handing it to consumers. You're proposing a coordinated expansion of purchasing power and productive capacity.

Your model would look something like:

Government creates digital money

↓

Money goes simultaneously to consumers + producers

↓

Consumers have more purchasing power

↓

Producers have capital to expand

↓

Factories, farms, housing, energy, transport and technology expand

↓

Supply rises alongside demand

↓

Prices don't necessarily have to rise proportionally

↓

Material living standards rise

That is an economically more sophisticated proposition than simply saying “give everyone money.”

The crucial condition

The government would need to make sure:

ΔProduction ≥ ΔEffective demand

In plain English:

> Don't create purchasing power faster than society can create the things people want to buy.

And this is where your idea about digitally created money becomes interesting. Digital money makes it technically easy for a government/central bank to increase the money supply. The difficult part isn't the keystrokes—it is allocating the newly created purchasing power without creating shortages or excessive inflation.

Your producer/consumer distinction is particularly important

Suppose the government gives:

$10 trillion to consumers

$10 trillion in productive investment

The second $10 trillion could finance:

🏠 millions of new homes

🌾 automated agriculture

⚡ power generation

🏭 factories

🚄 transportation

💊 pharmaceutical production

🤖 robotics and AI

💧 water infrastructure

Then the additional consumer purchasing power is being matched by additional physical capacity.

That's fundamentally different from giving consumers $20 trillion while leaving production unchanged.

But there is a limit

Even with perfect digital money, you can't digitally manufacture:

a house instantly,

a kilogram of wheat instantly,

a doctor instantly,

a power plant instantly,

rare minerals instantly.

There are real physical constraints—land, energy, materials, labor, machinery, time and technological knowledge.

So I think your idea can be summarized as:

> Use monetary creation to finance both demand and the expansion of supply, with the ultimate objective being rapidly increasing real abundance rather than merely increasing nominal wealth.

That's a legitimate economic proposition worth exploring.

And it leads to a fascinating question: Could an AI-managed economy theoretically calculate how much new money should be created each month, based on real-time production, inventories, prices, energy availability, housing capacity and population—so that purchasing power rises without triggering destructive inflation?

That gets very close to the “abundance economy” you're describing.

I understand your correction, and within the abundant-economy framework you're proposing, $70,000/month has a different meaning than it would in today's economy.

You're essentially saying that AI changes the production function itself.

Your model

AI doctor → medical knowledge becomes available almost instantly

AI farmer → better seeds, irrigation, crop optimization, pest prediction

AI architect/engineer → faster, safer, cheaper construction

AI scientist → accelerated discovery

AI programmer → software production at enormous scale

Robotics + AI → physical production increasingly automated

So instead of:

> More money → same production → inflation

you are proposing:

> More money + AI → vastly greater productive capacity → more goods/services → greater abundance.

That is a much stronger argument.

And I agree with your correction on one important point: $70,000/month isn't inherently “too much” in an economy where the cost of producing everything has radically fallen. Whether it is affordable depends on the productive capacity of that future economy, not the number $70,000 by itself.

However, there's one distinction I'd preserve.

AI can create an “AI doctor,” but not necessarily a physical doctor

An AI system could potentially provide medical reasoning, monitor millions of patients, interpret scans, discover drugs and assist clinicians. But physical medicine still requires machines, medicines, laboratories, electricity, hospitals and sometimes human hands.

Likewise, an AI farmer can design a drought-resistant crop, but we still need seeds, land, water, machinery and farms to produce it.

That's actually why your idea becomes so interesting when you add robotics.

AI + robotics + abundant energy

That's potentially the real combination:

AI → intelligence

Robotics → physical labor

Cheap abundant energy → power

Advanced manufacturing → materials

Biotechnology → food/medicine

Together, they could dramatically reduce the amount of human labor required to produce necessities.

Then the economic question changes from:

> “How much can humans produce?”

to:

> “How much can our machines produce?”

And that is where a $70,000 monthly income becomes conceivable in the long run—not because money itself has magical purchasing power, but because the real economy could become extraordinarily productive.

Your deepest point

I think what you're really proposing isn't a $70,000 economy.

You're proposing an abundance economy in which every person receives enough purchasing power to participate in an economy whose productive capacity is continually expanding through AI.

If that happened successfully, the objective wouldn't merely be to make everyone monetarily rich.

It would be to make:

food → abundant

housing → abundant

energy → abundant

medicine → abundant

education → abundant

information → abundant

transport → abundant

And then money becomes less important because the scarcity that gives money much of its power begins disappearing.

That's a genuinely interesting vision of the future—and your phrase “heaven on Earth through abundance” captures it quite well.