The world should be governed by people with intellectual thought and people should listen

Submitted by New-Shop-7539 t3_11dp5lj in Futurology

I think this world NEEDS a hierarchical structure. A structure in the sense that we have the wisest of humans, that genuinely really care about people and have a true understanding of our position here on earth that can pass down knowledge to the rest of us, generation to generation. To teach us the values of being part of a stable global system and teach us how to be grounded, cooperative, responsible and happy. Creative, open mided, stuctured and smart. This can be recycled throughout our history, the wisest telling their teachings to people who for the most part do not have the time to dwell on such things. To the point where our global society itself is aware enough to work together and survive the eons.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CTDKZOO t1_ja9yybe wrote

This sounds great until humans get involved.

Who watches the Watchmen indeed? Some animals are more equal.

20

Surur t1_ja9z8gy wrote

Good idea. I think the ubermensch should immediately start conquering the world and set up a 3rd Reich which will last 1000 years at least.

5

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.

14

mf279801 t1_jaa09u5 wrote

So you want a dictatorship with lots of feel good fluff on top of it. Noted.

13

XueShiLong t1_jaa2m0f wrote

no one who actively seeks power over others should be given power over others

18

LoWkEyPyRaT t1_jaa43jg wrote

You know....as for someone who thinks intellectuals should be the only ones who run the planet....thats really ranks to the top of my " literally the stupidest thing" I have heard today. Are you open to renaming yourself as hitler? Lol wooooow.....wow, I have to admit... you wanted attention, and that's the way to do it. Here comes the 3rd reich.

2

Low-Restaurant3504 t1_jaa4ip5 wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,078,388)

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?

1

LoWkEyPyRaT t1_jaa59fj wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,078,734)

Because humans will never get past what makes humans human. There will always be corruption, greed, bigotry, selfishness, lack of empathy, and narcissism. What makes someone or a group "intellectuals"? We may have different opinions about that

2

Rare-Birthday4527 t1_jaa5mfx wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,077,973)

I do. I believe we first need to sublimate the legal system by those who understand our fundamental drives as teleological absurdities of consciousness castrated from the implications of our indifferent physical reality. That is Economics guided by Existentialism. Where understanding of the teleology of humankind is given to the science of the will of humankind. Put it into an AI, or let a person do it, or whatever you please. But just let it be.

1

Seiren t1_jaa6218 wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,077,641)

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.

3

New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa66j4 wrote

Replying to LoWkEyPyRaT (#2,078,964)

Who are you to say our species can't overcome these flaws?? We are great and with enough teaching we can conquer our differences and shortcomings to produce a better life for the present and the future generations

2

NerdforceHeroes t1_jaa6d9u wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,079,113)

Questions regarding your ideology:

Who picks this group of apparently enlightened humans?

How do they make the world come to together?

How do they deal with those who don't want to come together?

How would they deal with future generations who don't want to live under their rule?

12

kotukutuku t1_jaa79g7 wrote

Hmm we have a pretty powerful hierarchy right now. Is it run by geniuses? I don't think so.

2

strvgglecity t1_jaa7cyg wrote

Pretty sure this is karma farming based on the account history. Downvote this nonsense.

1

peadith t1_jaa7eqr wrote

The problem with democracy is some people are dumb and some smart people are assholes. You figure out how to fix that and you'll surely get a big prize.

1

CTDKZOO t1_jaa7f6k wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,077,822)

I asked ChatGPT for fun.

>Ultimately, the comic suggests that the hierarchical structure of power is inherently flawed, and that true change can only come from the actions of individuals who are willing to challenge the status quo.

5

strvgglecity t1_jaa7pmz wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,079,488)

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.

1

New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa7usj wrote

Replying to strvgglecity (#2,079,514)

Humans need a structure of hierarchy. Just cause your on this sub reddit doesn't make you a maestro of knowledge...

We (myself included) would benefit from people with a true love for our being teaching us

0

NerdforceHeroes t1_jaa87oe wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,079,510)

People have. This has all been tried before.

Vanguard socialism was the idea that a group of enlightened revolutionaries needed to lead the people towards the coming socialist utopia. The Vanguard became concerned only with maintaining its own power and the totalitarian Soviet Union was born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism

I believe humans are inherently good but we are also inherently corruptible. Thats why the most successful modern societies contain transparent institutions and frequent elections, so that the people can hold their leaders to account and ensure they work to make the nation as a whole richer, rather than just their own chequebooks.

8

acutelychronicpanic t1_jaa88mc wrote

The problem with this is that most people think they are wise. I doubt you will find many historical examples of governance where the leaders didn't claim to have the most wisdom and insight.

The fault in this idea is in the actual implementation. How do you find the most competent? How do you ensure that those chosen aren't corrupted by power? What does this system look like in 50 years?

Its equivalent to saying "let's all agree to only do good things for good reasons."

2

royalblue1982 t1_jaa9678 wrote

Yes - and we should follow the most logical people of all, the Vulcans, when it comes to our sexual habits. We shall only mate once every 7 years.

For some people this will mean much less sex. For others it will mean much, much more.

1

colintbowers t1_jaa9br1 wrote

Democracy is such a system, where the metric for "wisest" is "able to win the most votes".

I get what you're saying here, but you have to understand that "wisest", "responsible", "happy", "creative", "open-minded" are all subjective terms, and as soon as you try to define them in terms of an objective, measurable definition, you'll end up in conflict with others who disagree with your definition.

Our current best attempt to metricize these things is "able to win the most votes". No other metric proposed thus far has been able to surpass this one.

1

New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaa9uw9 wrote

Replying to acutelychronicpanic (#2,079,826)

I agree with what you are saying.

I think of myself when I say about the governing of stuff. But I am innocent and do not no anything about how to take charge of a scenario like that.

I know humans have the capability to do it though

2

drzdeano t1_jaabko6 wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,080,218)

You should look for writings or books about Utopia by Plato the ancient greek philosopher , might interest your desires to bring about the fourth Reich.

I can give two easy reasons why your idea will never work.

The people smart enough to rule are smart enough to not want to be involved in politics.

You cannot underestimate just how different some people's goals, beliefs and motivations are. Without becoming increasingly facist you cannot force peoples opinions and beliefs, because who decides what is right?

Scientists know the limitations of of the scientific method, it doesn't cover ethics. That's a seperate subject. .

8

kotukutuku t1_jaacrd5 wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,079,488)

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"

3

New-Shop-7539 OP t1_jaad15v wrote

Replying to drzdeano (#2,080,833)

People smart enough wouldn't want to be enveloped in the shit show that is governing the people?

That makes sense.

I don't feel smart enough to do it but I feel its my life duty to try bring people together. I'd rather work a day job but my mind is set.

All humans only have a short time here on earth and we have the capability to globally work together.

I'm not sure how that would happen but it will.

−2

peadith t1_jaae2mx wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,080,538)

That's what I'm saying. The only in-roads I can give you on this is of course you may not use coersion or force yet people must recognize and reject their own character flaws. If that doesn't happen we stall out.

1

WetnessPensive t1_jaae3w6 wrote

Replying to LoWkEyPyRaT (#2,080,512)

Great point. Humans still legally rape babies and own slaves. Laws do not curb bad human behavior, and we have not used legislation to protect people and criminalize anti-social acts. There has been no human progress over the past few centuries, and enacting more laws, rules and legislation to make the world fairer is not possible, because of human natur- oh wait. I'm an idiot! The "human nature" argument is nonsense!

I'm reminded of an Arthur C. Clarke story, where he pointed out how you can create a fair, just economic and political system with a simple USB drive containing a word document full of societal rules. In his story the USB drive would go from planet to planet, and be codified by people on these planets as their new societal laws. Rules, the story argued, guide how socioeconomic systems behave, and these systems in turn shape people. ie- you want a better world, you get smart people to push smarter laws.

2

Splenda t1_jaaed3i wrote

Agreed. I keep telling people they should do things my way, yet they just don't listen!

2

drzdeano t1_jaafczg wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,081,270)

It's not as glorious but I highly highly recommend trying to volunteer or help your local community first , before trying to achieve global peace. If you cannot help those around you , what makes you think you can help those far away, who live in different cultures.

I'll assume you are a young person who has great ambitions and that's fucking awesome we need people like you to change the world.

The problem is we need millions of people like you , in every community around the world.

But you also need to take a bit of a reality check.

Not everyone wants help.

And you are just a single person wanting to take on a task that requires millions, even billions of people to actively work towards.

Start small , in your family even, then see what you can do in your neighbourhood, your community, your city.

7

bundle_man t1_jaaftep wrote

Fast track to fascism. If you really think this is what the world needs, you're a fascist your just might not realize it yet

2

WetnessPensive t1_jaagiqj wrote

Replying to colintbowers (#2,080,180)

We have studies that show that what passes for "democracies" are in fact highly anti democratic (in the sense that the laws they pass overwhelmingly favor a oligarchic minority, and uphold an exclusionary regime of property rights). So that's not really a good example.

The OP's post made me think of some kind of Star Trek future. Or maybe you could have an education system in which a computer selects the smartest people in various fields, and then randomly selects a group of them to lead for a set time, upon which they're replaced by another random selection.

You can even combine this with things like citizen's assemblies, or forms of participatory democracy. ie, the Big Brain Geniuses meet with randomly-chosen citizens to work on legislation, and if convinced by the Big Brain Geniuses, the citizens rubber stamp the legislation and push it up the chain to be enacted as law. This creates a kind of check on authoritarianism or on the Big Brain Geniuses steamrolling the populace.

And actually, some of this stuff has been tried in various countries to good effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charrette). What typically stands in the way of these methods being implemented is the usual thing: moneyed interests.

3

StarChild413 t1_jaagjrs wrote

Replying to XueShiLong (#2,078,191)

And without an infinite regress of people forced into service to others how do you check the corruption of the people in power-behind-the-throne holding the ability to force others into power

5

Rakshear t1_jaai02f wrote

The problem being many People only seem intelligent and compassionate while they share your views and you share theirs, take Reddit as an example. Sure many mods on many threads help keep it all civil and peaceful, but how many subreddits are not just censored but controlled by mods who have nearly unchecked power in their sub? What happens when you say something they disagree with even though it doesn’t break the rules? Banned, silenced, and removed. That doesn’t happen often granted, at least in the subs I frequent and I haven’t been banned from any, but it does happen every now and then to some. Again this being Reddit, and subreddits being limited to certain topics most people who get banned did something as there is a suspension period before permanently banning, but still, some mods do power trip, and they go basically unchecked.

1

fugupinkeye t1_jaaicv8 wrote

Or you could try to structure ways to reach those ideals and goals that include safeguards against the things that happen in the real world.

1

LoWkEyPyRaT t1_jaajxya wrote

Replying to WetnessPensive (#2,081,552)

That intern creates a caste system...always funny seeing those intellectuals think people always follows rules and laws according to others...it won't ever work. Keep trying tho. Humans are not robots.

1

acutelychronicpanic t1_jaan8nl wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,080,581)

I hope you succeed in making the world a better place. Just don't focus so much on efficiency and perfect solutions. They can be short-sighted.

It seems to me like you have an idea for what the ideal world might look like. But beware that it would be an unstable solution. The problem with central control is that it is fragile. Voting systems are inefficient, but they are more robust and harder to corrupt. Still corruptible, obviously, but less so.

You want to seek a system that can withstand the pressures and corruption of the real world.

1

cryptonymcolin t1_jaasp5j wrote

I know there's been a lot of snark in this thread, but I deeply sympathize with the feelings of frustration that produced the suggestions you've made OP. Frankly, these are common frustrations, and actually there are a lot of people who might agree with your suggestions.

The trick is: how exactly to do this without having it become immediately corrupted into something that is the opposite of what we desired?

I've tried to build my own approach to solving this design issue; it's called Aretéanism. The Assemblage of Areté just hit its 7-year anniversary the other day, and we're growing stronger and stronger- but also more importantly, we're growing better and better.

If you're curious to learn more about it, this Dropbox link will take you to a PDF of our booklet "What Is Aretéanism?".

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1kl5g30eugxj2v1/What%20is%20Areteanism%20v3.pdf?dl=0

1

colintbowers t1_jaau3tt wrote

Replying to WetnessPensive (#2,082,312)

I'm not really making an argument here for whether Democracy is good or bad. I'm just saying it is an example of a hierarchical structure, where the people making decisions at the top are supposed to be better suited to that role than everyone else, which is exactly what OP was after. I guess my purpose in posting was to try and highlight the difficulty in setting up such a system on a large scale. Who chooses what "wisest" is? How do you measure it? The system of voting just happens to be the most successful thing we've tried so far (at large scales). You've offered some alternatives which perhaps could work better, but they've never been tested at scale, so we don't really know. Who are your Big Brain Geniuses? How do we choose them? How do we avoid the roles being captured by bad faith actors? There are plenty of really smart people who are assholes, and plenty of people who perform poorly in standardized testing, yet are full of kindness and compassion.

Also I totally agree that Democracy doesn't work so well in some countries. For example, I think a failing of the US-style Democracy is that not everyone votes (unlike, say, Australia, where it is compulsory), but I didn't want to get into that as it is somewhat orthogonal to the original post.

1

BoysenberryLanky6112 t1_jab4jbw wrote

Everyone who proposes this thinks the super smart people would believe what they believe, the reality is there's a huge variety of beliefs. Unless you're a genius there's probably someone much smarter than you who believes the earth is flat. Unless you're a genius there's probably someone much smarter than you who is a white supremacist. Unless you're a genius there's probably someone much smarter than you who believes the economy should be a completely free market and there probably a different person much smarter than you who believes the economy should be state-owned and controlled top down. There's probably someone way smarter than you who believes all drugs should be legal and someone else way smarter than you that believes we should ban all drugs, alcohol, caffeine, and added sugar.

Intelligence isn't some linear thing, and even the smartest people are humans and fall prey to biases and flawed thinking. And even if we somehow could find the smartest person or ai with 0 biases, my guess is we wouldn't agree on which variable to optimize. For example how do you balance freedom and security? If we have the parameters to minimize lives lost, my guess is the society would resemble a police state. If we have the parameters to maximize freedom, we likely wouldn't have law enforcement at all. Or in the economic space, the question of whether a doctor should make more than a cashier is not an intelligence question. If you value equality maybe you think that just because a doctor is better at being a doctor, they shouldn't be paid more. But others would likely argue that the doctor does generally contribute more to society, so they should be paid more. But that's not a thing intelligence allows you to solve, it's simply a values question.

2

No_Pop4019 t1_jab5hrw wrote

The idea is as great as it is necessary. Unfortunately greed and corruption have overruled governments.

1

AFutureBrighter t1_jabbm18 wrote

ANOTHER ANGLE TO FATHOM: This world should be governed as it currently is, in the cases of countries with so called free and fair elections, but, instead of by the demented corrupt debased criminals we currently have, by HONEST, DECENT, KIND, EMPATHETIC, CREATIVE, CLEVER, CURIOUS SOULS.

So called “intellectuals” have destroyed everything good humanity ever had, and the sheep who listened to them are as much to blame, while being complicit in their own doom, and they have taken the rest of us down with them.

0

AFutureBrighter t1_jabcmbq wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,077,641)

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?

0

eyewhycue2 t1_jabf5iq wrote

Empathy and collaboration should be at the top of the list with the goal of a circular economy.

2

blaqkcatjack t1_jabzt12 wrote

Having a hierarchy is easy, but who decides who gets to be where is the problem. Right now the only thing we're building toward is rich people get richer. We don't have a common goal as human beings because self interest is still king

1

dneboi t1_jacg416 wrote

Replying to New-Shop-7539 (#2,077,468)

Exactly. Read the first part of your comment that I’m replying to, over and over. People are bringing up real examples, parables and analogies to discuss this idea at a higher level and you can’t even keep up. Read something.

1

Rofel_Wodring t1_jacw64k wrote

Replying to StarChild413 (#2,082,320)

Random selection from the citizenry.

Such an idea is anathema to Enlightenment liberalism. 'But what if we make a homeless bum God-king bluh bluh bluh'.

But look: if you idiots were any good at designing a society then randomly selecting some schlub and getting a philosopher king only slightly less competent than a certified genius should be peanuts. It's been several centuries of Enlightenment liberalism's hegemony and they have only gotten more smug about their lack of ability to uplift society's lowest.

2

hypocritical-bastard t1_jaec4we wrote

The problem with wanting all smart politicians is that people are dumb. Dumb people should represent dumb people IMO.

0

Far_Pianist2707 t1_jaem1ov wrote

Matriarchy? I hope you're cool with native Americans if you believe this :0

1