BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What to do when democracy fails.
coberst
post Dec 22, 2008, 05:30 AM
Post #1


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



What to do when democracy fails.

In a democracy the citizens are sovereign; when the citizens of a democracy haven’t the capacity to comprehend the problems of that democracy that democracy will fail.

Human ingenuity has proven to be capable of producing very sophisticated technology. But humans seem to be unable to develop the intellectual sophistication required to guide and control that technology. That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.

Our financial system’s abrupt collapse is one manifestation of this problem. Few of our experts, if any, have the sophistication to mange this high tech economy that we have created. Certainly few if any of our (USA) citizens have the sophistication to make decisions about this matter.

A large democratic state cannot consistently function within a world that is beyond the comprehension capacity of the citizens of that democracy.

We have tried Monarchy, Oligarchy, and now Democracy.

Where can we turn when our technology outstrips our intellectual sophistication?

To me the only direction that seems available is that since we cannot achieve the commensurate intellectual sophistication demanded by our technology then we must curtail the use of such sophisticated technology.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Dec 22, 2008, 10:19 AM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



Democracy is really just a complex social interaction. The more intelligent we become the more sophisticated our social interactions become.

For instance did you know that the brain size of a monkey can be used to directly determine how large its society will be? In the smallest monkeys they are alone or have 1 other of their species. In the most intelligent monkeys they have troupe sizes in the thousands and have complex social interactions.

Our troupe sizes are in the hundreds of millions and even into the billions, as such, we have very very complicated means of interacting with each other. Its theorized that social status evolved to keep us from killing each other.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Dec 22, 2008, 10:25 AM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



Politically speaking, here in the United States, the government was initiated as a Republic. The founders of the U.S. Constitution based the government on certain laws that pertained to rights and freedoms and also restrictions of universal proportions.
People being created equal within a body that was God created. Meaning potential is real and in relative reality has useful boundaries. What serves one (all humans being created equal) serves all. What one needs to flourish will necessarily help all flourish.
The democratic principal was to work within the useful boundaries to refine or articulate the boundaries within the changing times and evolutionary achievements of science and industry. As long as what was being created was to benefit the whole without creating special interests where profit took from the well being of others law was the guiding principle. That was the idea of the Republic.
Today democracy has circumvented our republic with the special interests convincing the whole what is best for the whole and also feeding just the information needed to create complacency and ignorance.
Our public school systems are strictly controlled and all information compiled to feed the masses with useless information they will barely remember or use when they set out to struggle for their meals and mortgage money.
The government no longer represents universal law but laws to protect one from being served coffee that is too hot to drink and food that isn't grown to the specification of government regulation.
The republic is no longer a nation by the people and for the people but for the people by special interests, and for the people by design of democratic influence of beliefs and processes.
The groundwater is full of chemicals put into our food and animal feed, flushed into the toilets from our own bodies by the prescriptions of our drug and medical industry regulated and approved by our government as a democracy. There are more people living in poverty and without food than ever before even tho our technology and combined earthly wealth is such that we can feed and clothe all of mankind.
Our democratic process is what designs the complacency of thought that we can only do so much as long as I am left alone and nothing will threaten what I have.

Governments are not the problem and it is not technology that is the problem. If we do not address ourselves and our intelligence, solving problems at the level in which they were created will not change anything.
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Dec 22, 2008, 02:42 PM
Post #4


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167




The point of the post is to say that the citizens of all democracies are not sophisticated enough to make responsible decisions. It appears that they never will be sophisticated enough to make the judgments required by our high tech society. If citizens do not have the sophistication demanded in a democracy what can we do to prevent the destruction of the species as a result?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Dec 22, 2008, 04:54 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
If citizens do not have the sophistication demanded in a democracy what can we do to prevent the destruction of the species as a result?
Another question might be, does it deserve to be saved? Or would saving it impede the necessary steps that are required for the evolution of consciousness in its awareness of reality and the ignorance of illusions steeped in stupidity? Sometimes you gotta fall a couple of times before you gain your balance and learn to walk.
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Dec 23, 2008, 03:03 AM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(coberst @ Dec 22, 2008, 10:42 PM) *

The point of the post is to say that the citizens of all democracies are not sophisticated enough to make responsible decisions. It appears that they never will be sophisticated enough to make the judgments required by our high tech society. If citizens do not have the sophistication demanded in a democracy what can we do to prevent the destruction of the species as a result?
It's not the citizens who are the problem, but the governments they elect on principals they always renege on. The internet-cellphone age will (hopefully and eventually) empower the people. No more government. Rather, a dedicated civil service that is political-party free and whos instructions come from mass votes on each and every issue by the public masses, who will email and text (or future equivalent, in a simple instant configuration) both their policy ideas and their opinions on individual policies. Power for the masses, most of whom are intelligent and technology savvy.

We do not need political parties, we need ideas (from the people) and the machinery (civil service) to enact them. And we need an initiative to stimulate the masses to participate in the system, playing a part in the generation of all ideas and voting on every formulated solution then proposed. Whether this should be some compulsory system (must vote for a % of total or fine?) or purely voluntary (then only a small proportion will bother?) would determine if this system could work. If the latter, then it could lead back to a small representative group (synonymous with a political party, as today) and the public would get what they deserve.
laugh.gif wacko.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Dec 23, 2008, 03:10 AM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Or do we prefer to have system where non-elected leaders stepping in willy-nilly and determining our lives and futures (cf Gordon Brown), whilst ignoring (admittedly sometimes stealing) the ideas of members of other political parties many of which are as good or better?

Voting for a party one day and assuming that they have ALL the ideas (that you will agree with and want) for problems 5 years hence is ridiculous.

No more political parties - fight for public consensus voting !!!!!!!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Dec 23, 2008, 04:32 AM
Post #8


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



The citizens are said to be soverign because they elect the politicians. If the politicians are fools it is because the citizens have failed to perform their task adequatly.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Dec 23, 2008, 05:09 AM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(coberst @ Dec 23, 2008, 12:32 PM) *

The citizens are said to be soverign because they elect the politicians. If the politicians are fools it is because the citizens have failed to perform their task adequatly.
How can you say this? The citizens vote for politicians who state their manifesto. That they change the policies or manipulate their meaning is beyond the means of the citizens, until the next election. But then the same thing repeats. What else within the present system can the citizens do? To change this will require martyrs, as there will have to be lives, liberties, careers etc sacrificed. To protest against politicians in the UK is futile. They do not listen and more volume results in restricted access and even arrest (commonly). There are government systems to voice opinions (e.g. on the internet) but these are almost always rejected. They merely give the illusion that the government listens and there is a chance to change their policy. Only when there is a crisis, usually associated with some political indiscretion do they try and appease.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GodConsciousness
post Dec 23, 2008, 07:30 AM
Post #10


Demi-God
*****

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 865
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Member No.: 5683



We may be witnessing some of the shortcomings of capitalism rather than democracy per say. Marx was particularly prescient in his assessment of the future of capitalist societies.

The commodification of everything including our natural resources and work itself may lead to serious perturbations in financial markets, jobs worldwide, and ecological issues. I'm not sure present leaders are ready to take a close look at the foundations of capitalism itself.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Dec 23, 2008, 11:49 AM
Post #11


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Dec 23, 2008, 03:30 PM) *

We may be witnessing some of the shortcomings of capitalism rather than democracy per say. Marx was particularly prescient in his assessment of the future of capitalist societies.

The commodification of everything including our natural resources and work itself may lead to serious perturbations in financial markets, jobs worldwide, and ecological issues. I'm not sure present leaders are ready to take a close look at the foundations of capitalism itself.
So which other modes of politics, aside from capitalism, do you consider to offer a democratic solution without corruption?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GodConsciousness
post Dec 23, 2008, 05:56 PM
Post #12


Demi-God
*****

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 865
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Member No.: 5683



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 23, 2008, 02:49 PM) *

QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Dec 23, 2008, 03:30 PM) *

We may be witnessing some of the shortcomings of capitalism rather than democracy per say. Marx was particularly prescient in his assessment of the future of capitalist societies.

The commodification of everything including our natural resources and work itself may lead to serious perturbations in financial markets, jobs worldwide, and ecological issues. I'm not sure present leaders are ready to take a close look at the foundations of capitalism itself.
So which other modes of politics, aside from capitalism, do you consider to offer a democratic solution without corruption?


It may not be possible to construct a political system devoid of corruption due to the shortcomings of human nature. I suppose my sincere hope is that we eventually evolve into a more enlightened species capable of systematically addressing our global challenges. We need to move beyond a limited view of what our country's own best interest is (whatever country we may find ourselves in).

In a world where competition for limited resources may be intensifying, I question whether humans will ever move beyond war. The will to power is too alluring. Yet, billions of isolated power-grabs could prove devastating to the planet.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wall with spots
post Dec 26, 2008, 10:43 PM
Post #13


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Dec 26, 2008
Member No.: 31816



Would have thought that the voting public (more so in a voluntary electoral system) would pick people (&/or policies) which were a reflection of their own attitudes? hence the general public may be just as corrupt????

Am sure there are enough people out there capable of using the technology to make the system work ??? though Why??? what is the incentive??? you will always get critics and supporters, in the current system if you help your friends they protect you and help you????

Possibly a change of self esteem in the overall population, may be needed? Such that the money, is less important??? rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Dec 27, 2008, 02:56 AM
Post #14


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



QUOTE(wall with spots @ Dec 26, 2008, 10:43 PM) *

Would have thought that the voting public (more so in a voluntary electoral system) would pick people (&/or policies) which were a reflection of their own attitudes? hence the general public may be just as corrupt????

Am sure there are enough people out there capable of using the technology to make the system work ??? though Why??? what is the incentive??? you will always get critics and supporters, in the current system if you help your friends they protect you and help you????

Possibly a change of self esteem in the overall population, may be needed? Such that the money, is less important??? rolleyes.gif


CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.

A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.

In America we have policy makers, decision makers, and citizens. The decision makers are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The policy makers are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. Policy makers exercise significant control of decision makers by controlling the financing of elections.

Policy makers customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.

An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.


“Thomas R. Dye, Professor of Political Science at Florida State University, has published a series of books examining who and what institutions actually control and run America. to understand who is making the decisions that affect our lives, we also have to understand how societies structure themselves in general. Why the few always tend to share more power than the many and what this means in terms of both a society's evolution and our daily lives. they examined the other 11 institutions that exert just as powerful a shaping influence, although somewhat more subtle: The Industrial, Corporations, Utilities and Communications, Banking, Insurance Investment, Mass Media, Law, Education Foundation, Civic and Cultural Organizations, Government, and the Military.”
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/12-dye.html


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wall with spots
post Dec 27, 2008, 03:43 AM
Post #15


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Dec 26, 2008
Member No.: 31816



QUOTE
Policy makers customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.

An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.



Looks like there is not hope then ???????

was nice knowing you................................................. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd June 2017 - 07:41 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles