Submitted by New-Shop-7539 t3_11dp5lj in Futurology
Seiren t1_jaa00zr wrote
I think people should be guided by intellectual thought but I don't know about governed. It's possible to stray too far into authoritarianism which inevitably seems to leads to an overthrow because even the wisest can make mistakes and be unable to justify them to the masses.
I get your frustration though: sometimes it feels like a bunch of irrational fools have much influence and power.
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa0o1v wrote
My frustration is grand.
I think it needs to be a global reformation, COMPLETELY, for it all to work out. Do you have any ideas that I could think on?
strvgglecity t1_jaa5mp8 wrote
Intelligence is not correlated with morality or empathy. You're just as likely to get a smart psychopath.
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa6khu wrote
Maybe they would be better as a governing force for the ignorance the is the commen human thought
strvgglecity t1_jaa6z5d wrote
A psychopath? Sorry dude, but do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you know what these words mean?
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa7bur wrote
A human who has no empathy...
And I was just saying that...
Obiwan_ca_blowme t1_jaa2va3 wrote
So cultural genocide? Yikes.
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa3b9r wrote
No loss of culture what so ever??? No just a system of living together which benefits the people
strvgglecity t1_jaa6312 wrote
There are hundreds of cultures that have different views of morality and goodness. What you have described here is an authoritarian state that does not allow dissention or debate.
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa73mr wrote
No it's not... what I have described is a scenario where the common person who cares very little about the state of the HUMAN EARTH to be guided by people who care
kotukutuku t1_jaacrd5 wrote
Well, here's my thoughts. Anyone with half a brain can see that rampant neoliberal capitalism is dumbing us down and destroying the planet very efficiently, so that has me backing some form of socialism. I think socialism is the only hope we have now to focus production and consumption around genuine societal needs (health, education etc) instead of the endless oceans of plastic and junk food our children are growing up in. But what flavour of socialism does not inevitably result in authoritarian bureaucracy? How do we stop power grabs from those in powerful positions, or elites firming, as in the case of Soviet Russia?
Anarchism is the only socialist school of thought that directly challenges hierarchy and authority, with most of the various branches (syndicalism, anarcho-communism etc) offering systems of organisation that consciously distribute power, and mitigate centralisation. For those reasons I find anarchism really attractive. But the more I've thought about it, I come back to the need ultimately to sometimes require some kind of authority, at least on occasion, along with security. Even the few fledgling anarchistic regimes established had to acknowledge those needs in practice (before they were snuffed out by their opponents), and saw some corruption as a result. And if you start a revolution, who's to say who will end up in control? The best people to fight for a revolution are almost certainly not those you would want in charge of the new regime.
So if not anarchism, what? This is the question I've been stuck on for a long time, and the most satisfying answer I've found so far is Murray Bookchin's Social Ecology, also known as Municipal Communalism. I like it not only for it's pioneering vision of the need to create more sustainable societies, but for it's 'dual power' method of praxis, which acknowledges the risks if, and avoids, the classic revolutionary method of violent overthrow in place of gradual replacement.
To quote a slightly obscure meme: "Google Murray Bookchin"
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaadm4i wrote
I'll get back to you! Tomorrow! I'm spent on replying to longer posts
kotukutuku t1_jaaebdm wrote
All good mate, sleep well
strvgglecity t1_jaa7pmz wrote
And how does that person who cares take power? How does that occur?
And how is this description right here any different from current governance? All governments for that description: orgs of people who "care" guiding lots of other people who generally care less. It's just that what they actually care about is retaining power and influence.
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa9cq4 wrote
That's something undecided and uncomprehensible,. We (me included) have no clue how the new world can come together and unite.
strvgglecity t1_jaadao4 wrote
I'm enjoying downvoting every nonsense reply lol
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaadpph wrote
It's you choice I guess
Low-Restaurant3504 t1_jaa4ip5 wrote
Can't help but think the Tower of Babel is a fitting parable to get aquainted with if you are going to game out this idea. Not from a religious point of view, but from the point of view of cultural equity and unification... I'm not sure you can accomplish what you are proposing while keeping cultural distinctions intact. Then again, never been done before, so who knows?
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa5wbg wrote
I'll need to get back to you!!
Seiren t1_jaa6218 wrote
Global reformation is a really tough call. I understand the desire for global alteration, because it feels like chemotherapy is necessary for cancer.
First idea: Be the example you want to see in the world. People are ultimately sheep-like and will emulate the values that they see that work. In order for values we wish to see propagated in the world to manifest we must start with ourselves.
Second idea: A website that creates argument maps/trees for every narrative/conversation that is occurring. This way, we can drill through every argument and see what rational arguments are made at the very bottom. It needs to be flexible enough that one can point out hypocrisies and why certain issues are compatible or not compatible with certain values.
I'm not as confident idea 2 would work, but it's something that's been floating in my head. I'm not confident because irrational types are only interested in rational arguments as long as it's for their cause, as soon as it's against it's discarded, but at the very least we can disarm the bullshit in this world so it won't be as dangerous.
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa6ujl wrote
I'm getting a bunch of comments. I'll come back to yours I promise.
acutelychronicpanic t1_jaa8op0 wrote
Read history. Good governance has been a concern for 1000s of years.
The problem with such global reforms, even if it can be done, is what if you're wrong?
New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaaa5wi wrote
I don't feel I need to read something to be fair.
Humans already for the most part live under governance. The just need a little more guidance.
I truly believe we have the capability to live a uniform existence
acutelychronicpanic t1_jaaobgq wrote
You would not want to read the accounts of others who were seeking the same as you? To see where it led?
[deleted] t1_jaav7uq wrote
[removed]
AFutureBrighter t1_jabcmbq wrote
Think on this…. Global governance is a terrible idea, as it leads to a very select few—the “elite,” living like “gawds,” while everyone else lives in a giant open air prison. Productivity and innovation disappear, markets and economies fade, and mass starvation and disease become commonplace—Hell on earth is birthed by the good intentions of fools.
Secondly, there isn’t only one best way, for anything. So who decides what’s best; the acceptable “right” way?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments