Re: The Super thread of literature, art, music, life, and the universe in general
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 4 May, 2021 10:49AM
Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In my view, the fatal flaw in Enlightenment
> > thinking is the mistaken assumption that people
> > are rational, well-informed beings who tend to
> act
> > in their own best interest. We are not. We are
> > driven by our emotions and manage to screw
> things
> > up massively again and again, both in our
> personal
> > lives and as a species. Moreover, giving in to
> > your prejudices is both easier and usually more
> > fun than getting educated and thinking
> critically,
> > which is hard.
> >
Interesting ideas. My comments interleaved.
>
> This is also the reason why democracy really
> doesn't work. People need a firm and wise leader,
> that genuinely cares for the people and society.
> The problem is that such a leader is hard to come
> by. Power also often tends to corrupt, eventually
> leading to a people's freedom revolution,
> resulting in chaos - everything having to start
> all over again.
There are huge flaws in a democratic system that extends the voting franchise too broadly, of this I have no doubt.
>
> I don't think there exists a perfect political
> society arrangement for humans, not in our present
> state of evolution. Instead it tends to switch
> back and forth between different imperfect forms,
> replacing each other over time in cycles. But it
> is not quite as clean and simple as that either,
> for several levels of influence weave into these
> cycles, manipulating people. Life remains a
> struggle, both individually and collectively, it's
> as simple as that.
I agree with this in essence. Life *does* remain a struggle, but the good news is that struggle is what humanity has evolved to accommodate, and one of the odd consequences is that each individual, if not occupied to some degree if not by struggle, at least productive problem solving, becomes maladjusted socially.
It's as if some degree of problem solving activity is essential to the mental well-being of the human individual in much the same way that physical exercise is still necessary for physical well being.
In the absence of either, a sort of malaise sets in. Physically, the person grows flabby and sluggish; mentally, in absence of sufficient metal activity aimed at improving one's lot, a tendency to "think bad thoughts" sets in. One becomes subject to emotional and intellectual manipulation, and very easily dissatisfied, when, if this same disenchanted, disaffiliated individual were to turn his/her attention to an attempt at self-improvement (and by this I mean anything that the individual values that is also within the agreed upon social strictures of the society in which they live) they'd feel at least somewhat empowered, and hence fulfilled, in a very basic way.
So if each individual can achieve at least this, in the aggregate the society will also be improved and more "healthy".
But as you say, this sounds a lot like work, and a parallel evolutionary strategy for each animate organism is conservation of energy. So that except as driven by need, organisms tend to exhibit lassitude, which is at odds with the sort of poking and prodding I counsel.
In the animal world of fairly limited abstract thought and communication this is OK because necessity for activity is always recognizable and is never confused with manipulation, as it is in humanity. This species' ironic flaw is that its intellect allows the *perception* of reality to be manipulated by other individuals, thus planting of doubt and mistrust to a degree that's often unwarranted. This undercuts the natural motivation to recognize reality and become involved in survival activity.
So you get vast swathes of the populace, in a state of natural lassitude, conserving energy as is properly dictated by nature, and when confronted with the reality of needing to act, physically or mentally, refusing to do so because they've been convinced by demagogs that to do so is not in their best interests, but is in fact in the best interests of others.
Hell of a note, isn't it?
>
> If I could decide upon a society form, it would be
> "knowledge-based democracy", in which citizens
> must first prove they have a general understanding
> of the mechanisms of society (including basics of
> biology, ecology, geology, physics,
> infrastructure, economy, sociology, psychology,
> ethnology, ethics) through examination tests,
> before being allowed to vote. These examination
> tests should be based on current accepted science,
> and be built upon, and consequently adjusted over
> time, as science and society gradually evolves.
> The weight of the vote (by points) should relate
> to the individual's range of knowledge. I believe
> such a society will have the most stable political
> form, and can gradually evolve towards ever more
> refinement, both scientifically and socially.
> Individual institutions, such as hospitals, should
> be more independently controlled by their own
> expertise hierarchy, ultimately by the professors,
> than by democratically elected politicians'
> uninitiated decisions. People who lack
> understanding of society, should obviously not be
> allowed to vote, for the responsibility of being
> given the privilege of influencing society is far
> to great to permit arbitrary voting. (Of course,
> there is always the risk of current scientific
> knowledge being wrecked by corrupted influence,
> which we can see clearly today. But I think the
> above system is still the best available to
> overcome such corruption.)
These ideas have merit, and of course they tend to reduce the voting franchise, so they have zero chance of being adopted in this society, within out lifetimes, barring a tremendous social upheaval.
It's difficult to see how an organized society can allow members to vote for a benefit for themselves, paid out of a pool of funds that they, themselves, do not contribute to. I mean, barring some degree of self-restraint--which is short supply today--they'll tend to do it every time.
If/when the pool of voters who do not themselves contribute to the public fund in any substantial way outnumbers the pool of voters who do so contribute, the system is at that point on a greased track to insolvency.
This would come about if the unquestioned admission to the voting franchise is simultaneously accompanied by a reduction in the requirement to contribute.
Sound at all familiar?
Have a good day!
:^)
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~