Replacing democracy

[the_lyniezian]

Don't know why I'm arguing, I'm afraid UE that I can't take any of this stuff seriously. It's vague and totally ignores the realities of human nature and power politics.

Actually, it doesn't. I did not ignore those issues. On the contrary, the primary goal of the system is to solve the problems caused by those realities. I'm surprised you can't see that by the way it is presented. It ought to be obvious. Why else do you get the scientists to select the religious leaders, etc...? Why else stipulate that the arbiter stands down having used his casting vote? These are checks and balances which are there for the specific purpose of preventing typical "power politics."

You have checks and balances, though I'm not too sure they won't prevent bias at least. There's fundamentally nothing to stop this turning into a self-serving old-boys' (and presumably girls'?) club for one thing, secondly, it's bound to produce some sort of establishment bias. Your shortlist of new mmbers is selected by existing scientific/non-scientific members, and so is based upon the people they think are best for the role (maverick outsiders not welcome, even if they perhaps have better ideas), and the final say is your specially-trained group of philosophers from which the arbiter is drawn, who are bound to have particular views.

[Snail]

Have you read this Undercover:

http://www.eoslife.eu/articles/35-socia ... echnocracy

Basically saying democracy (at a more local level) and a council of experts could go hand-in-hand.

[ceti331]

Any system comprised of people will produce the same emergent problems.

Best work with the system, aware of its flaws, and aware of the flaws of the populace.

improving the situation requires new technology - singularity level AI (humans have failed to govern themselves , we can hope machines will do better), or improved man-machine interface so that humans can understand eachother better, educate each other or be educated better, or understand herds better, or make better use of collective-intelligence schemes (like prediction markets, semantic wikis etc), or perhaps mastering knowledge of the human genome to breed smarter more balanced people without the clumsiness of previous eugenics schemes, or better still transhumanism, fix the problems with human nature by modifying/evolving people to the point where they are no longer human

[Ludwig]

You have checks and balances, though I'm not too sure they won't prevent bias at least. There's fundamentally nothing to stop this turning into a self-serving old-boys' (and presumably girls'?) club for one thing, secondly, it's bound to produce some sort of establishment bias. Your shortlist of new mmbers is selected by existing scientific/non-scientific members, and so is based upon the people they think are best for the role (maverick outsiders not welcome, even if they perhaps have better ideas), and the final say is your specially-trained group of philosophers from which the arbiter is drawn, who are bound to have particular views.

Exactly.

There is nothing in UE's system to prevent power from being misused, beyond the bland assumption that it won't be because the leaders will be people of the highest moral calibre.

Theoretically, that was true of the Russian Revolution, and if you want a guide to how likely this new green world order would be to succeed, you only need to look to the former.

Moreover, the idea of a world run by philosophers scares me shitless. Never trust a theoriser to deal well with practical matters. I might enjoy reading Nietzsche or Roger Scruton but I sure as hell wouldn't want them running my life.

Good acts come from good will, not from any theory.

[Snail]

Any system comprised of people will produce the same emergent problems

With some form of energy accounting, computers could have a far greater role in managing and allocating natural resources.

[energy-village]

If you have the same elite/vested interests behind everything it doesn't matter much who appears to be in control.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Democracy doesn't prevent dictatorship.

A robustly defended and universally applicable bill of rights prevents dictatorship.

What are you meaning here? Are you thinking more along the lines of someone being voted in who could turn dictator, or a party which enshrines totalitarianism? Or are you thinking more along the lines of "tyranny of the majority"?

Both.

The rights of minorities always get trampled in democracies and any system of government tends to accumulate more power as it progresses.

The process can be seen from parish councils through to national government. The kind of people who crave authority generally should never be trusted with it.

[Ludwig]

There are plenty of "distinguished" scientists who have done nothing but follow orthodox thinking, made the right friends, and perhaps come up with some meretricious theory that is either unprovable or that reformulates what we already knew in different terms.

No there aren't. That's your view as an outsider, and it is basically wrong.

Presumably you feel qualified to speak as an insider, then?

You consistently undervalue scientists, and unjustly question their motives.

So let me get this straight - you are seriously suggesting that we should never question the motives of scientists? That they are a special case?

Everybody's motives should be questioned to exactly the same degree, whether they are scientists, politicians or car mechanics.

Since you seem to think my status as a non-scientist invalidates any opinion I might have about scientists as human beings, here are a couple of quotes from scientists regarding their experiences in academe:

It has been like this throughout the history of science. Many, perhaps even most, of its practitioners have been greedy, power-hungry, prestige-seeking, dogmatic, pompous asses, not above political chicanery and outright lying, cheating, and stealing.
...
In the past, these character flaws couldn't wholly prevent the recognition of scientific truths. Both sides of a controversy would fight with equal vehemence, and the one with better evidence would usually win sooner or later. In the last four decades, however, changes in the structure of scientific institutions have produced a situation so heavily weighted in favor of the establishment that it impedes progress in health care and prevents truly new ideas from getting a fair hearing in almost all circumstances. The present system is in effect a dogmatic religion with a self-perpetuating priesthood dedicated only to preserving the current orthodoxies. The system rewards the sycophant and punishes the visionary to a degree unparalleled in the four-hundred-year history of modern science.

(Robert O Becker, "The Body Electric")

In nations both capitalist and Communist, the official academies of science remain the centres of power of the scientific establishment. There is no separation of science and state. Scientists play the role of an established priesthood, influencing government policies on the arts of warfare, industry, agriculture, medicine, education and research.
...
But governments and corporations do not usually pay scientists to do research because they want innocent knowledge, like that of Adam before the Fall. Naming animals, as in classifying endangered species of beetles in tropical rainforests, is a low priority. Most funding is in response to Bacon's persuasive slogan 'knowledge is power'.
...
Scientists are subject to all the usual constraints of human social life, including peer-group pressure and the need to conform to the norms of the group.

(Rupert Sheldrake, "The Science Delusion")

To sum it up, it seems to me you are stating that we should have unwavering faith in scientists. Can you really not see that this is the very antithesis of what science is about?

You are often just a breath away from saying "science isn't so special." There is a culture of honesty and openess in science which exists nowhere else.

I see no reason to believe this based purely on your assertion. Someone could say the same thing about the Catholic Church, doesn't make it true.

What motivates most scientists, apart from a direct interest in finding out how things work, is to become recognised by other scientists as a great scientist.

Have you read "The Double Helix"? A tale of intrigue and academic backstabbing, straight from one of the men who did the stabbing.

In that case there is no system I could suggest that you would not criticise in the same way. If humans aren't psychologically capable of remaining true to their principles

... assuming they had any principles to start with, or that their principles weren't just a self-deceiving veil for lust for power...

when they are in positions of power, no system will ever avoid those problems.

No, it won't. That's just the way the world is, and it's no use saying, "This vision of human nature isn't good enough, bring me another one"; either one's interpretation of human nature is based on fact, or it is based on fantasy.

The advantage of democracy is that, while it doesn't eliminate corruption, it stops it short at the point where the population in general really start to suffer.

[Ludwig]

PS on the subject of scientific openness, check out Frank's new thread: http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... highlight=
Interesting. Disturbing.

[Ludwig]

If you have the same elite/vested interests behind everything it doesn't matter much who appears to be in control.

+1. There is no way that this group of scientists and mystics could gain power without the sanction of existing vested interests.

[Lord Beria3]

UE - since Prince Charles is a hard-core green why don't you advocate a absolutist green monarchist dictatorship?

[RenewableCandy]

That might be a goer...until some oil co lackey assassinated him

[UndercoverElephant]

UE - since Prince Charles is a hard-core green why don't you advocate a absolutist green monarchist dictatorship?

Because of the power problems. Dictatorship is just fine, so long as it's the right dictator and not the wrong one. And sooner or later it is guaranteed to be the wrong one.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you have the same elite/vested interests behind everything it doesn't matter much who appears to be in control.

+1. There is no way that this group of scientists and mystics could gain power without the sanction of existing vested interests.

Of course not. This hasn't got anything to do with overturning the current system - we have to wait for that to collapse under the weight of its own internal structural problems.

To gain power in the first place they would require either an army or some sort of freak sequence of events. What I'm interested in is whether people think the system would be better than democracy as we know it.

[Ludwig]

If you have the same elite/vested interests behind everything it doesn't matter much who appears to be in control.

+1. There is no way that this group of scientists and mystics could gain power without the sanction of existing vested interests.

Of course not. This hasn't got anything to do with overturning the current system - we have to wait for that to collapse under the weight of its own internal structural problems.

To gain power in the first place they would require either an army or some sort of freak sequence of events. What I'm interested in is whether people think the system would be better than democracy as we know it.

OK, clear enough. Well I've given my answer and it's no

My general view is that life is one problem after another, and that the only real solution is death