What to do when democracy fails.

[coberst]

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.

[sonrisa]

or we can do what they did in 1776

just a thought....

[coberst]

or we can do what they did in 1776

just a thought....

I assume that you think that we should make another DI, which leaves me a bit puzzled.

[Chan Tiger]

I assume that you think that we should make another DI, which leaves me a bit puzzled.

I think Sonrisa's point is revolution. As Jefferson put it, the Tree of Liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of patriots...and tyrants. While I don't advocate violence I think I agree with the general thrust of this sentiment, namely that the system itself is rotten and needs to be changed.

The problem, as I see it, has nothing to do with "intellectualism" or "sophistication". It's interesting to note that the people who got the US into its current economic mess were among our "best and brightest"; Harvard and Yale degrees and all.

Intellectual skills are necessary tools, but that is all they are---tools. They can be wielded in a number of different ways. Many members of the Nazi Party were intellectual, sophisticated, and intelligent---yet this sophistication did not stop them from engineering systematic savagery on a mass scale. On the contrary, their intelligence enabled them to commit atrocities with even greater efficiency.

I realize I'm not offering a solution here, but I do think we need to critically examine Coberst's claim that it's simply intelligence and education which are lacking in the United States. While these are necessary conditions for improving our society, they are far from sufficient.

[scameter]

Well, contrary to popular belief, full democracy has never actually existed. Full democracy is every single citizen of the nation having a say-so in every national/governmental decision, which has never been. For instance, in the ancient Greek democracy, women, children, foreigners and slaves were not allowed to participate, nor were they in Norse democracy. And, in American "democracy", women, criminals, foreigners and slaves were originally not allowed to vote, and children, criminals and foreigners are still not. But, America is in fact a democratic republic, not a full democracy. To me, democracy in it's common political application is an attribute or quality, i.e. the quality of individual freedom and limited participation in national affairs, than the full democracy of idealism. Democratic republics are much more efficient anyways, especially guided by capitalism or a free-market economy, which makes the common person focus more on making money and a living than politics anyways.

[coberst]

Chan Tiger

We were born smart enough but we weren’t born intellectually sophisticated enough to handle this high tech world we have invented.

What is the difference between “being smart” and “being sophisticated”? I would say that we can use the handyman and his tool box as a good analogy for comprehending this difference. The number and quality of the instruments in a handyman’s tool box is a measure of his smartness and his experience using those tools is a measure of his sophistication.

If a handyman has only a hammer then every job is a job that will get hammered on. If that handyman has a great tool box but has experience only with a hammer then that handyman will look for things that can be hammered into place.

My answer to the question “how do I become more intellectually sophisticated?” is “become a self-actualizing self-learner of disinterested knowledge.”

[coberst]

Scameter

The point is that whether you call it a democracy or vegetable soup we live in a form of government wherein the citizens are sovereign and in most cases lack the sophistication required for that task. Furthermore they often lack the will to perform their task adequately.

[scameter]

There's no need to be cute. You were talking about democracy, and I was simply clarifying it. To address the actual point you made there, I think that people who view society as a whole, rather than in terms of individuals within a whole, often have a tendency to de-humanize people, making them mere cogs in a machine. Many people in modern nations (which, by the way, democracy is not the main theme of, but rather their economic system; most normal people have no real political imput except in local government) are forced, because of financial restrictions, physical disabilities, or other hinderances, to do something they do not enjoy, or that is their best skill. They just have to do something to make ends meet, or something they hate but that makes alot of money. That makes people generally miserable, and so they spend all of their free time trying to do enjoyable things, such as relationships and sex, sports, shopping, etc.

[Thomas Knierim]

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.

Not possible.

We haven't yet reached the point of system failure. In my opinion, only continued system failures can force a change from within, despite there being alternative, untried, and potentially better forms of government available, such sociocracy or networked democracy. Many countries run "veneer democracies" today which are democratic on the surface, but ultimately controlled by an elite of capitalists and technologists. The line between oligarchy and representative democracy is quite blurry indeed. For example, many politics professors wouldn't hesitate calling the United States an oligarchy.

I think we are in the dinosaur age of politics right now. We have created these humongous geopolitical structures called "nations". Like dinosaurs, nations are a bit like war machines. They command unequalled military and economic power. However, their administration is rather complicated; they lack flexibility, responsiveness, and adaptiveness. The inevitable combination of growth-oriented capitalism and progress-oriented industry makes them quite "hungry", too. Nations are very resource-hungry and environmentally costly entities.

My guess it that the growth paradigm will either run into a brick-wall at some point, or perhaps -before that happens- an environmental catastrophe will halt the growth and cause disruption or collapse of the existing political structures.

Cheers, Thomas

[Michael]

The reality is that external issues are beyond our individual or collective control. We look beyond because we find it so diificult to look within with a clear eye. Before we can presume to address the external insanity we must first understand the nature of our individual internal reality, for how can the insane bring sanilty to the world? I don't believe I'm saying anything that you all don't know in the secret depth of being.

One of the notable things about winter in temperate zones is that the buds of spring can be seen on the trees in the depth of winter. The civilisation we know is now entering winter. But the buds are there within us, these are the beginings of a new reality, one we don't yet have the language to articulate. It won't be better, it won't be worse, it will simply be different. It is time to put away the old paradigms, the old time-worn toys that we like to play with are breaking and will soon be useless.

[schrodinger]

I think more is at stake here than just “democracy”. Michael has mentioned sanity, and that is probably closer to the mark. The extremely rapid pace of technological developments will eventually outstrip the common man’s ability to keep up, which will affect his happiness and his sanity. On a personal note, I find more and more of my time spent programming this or that gadget and or trying to make this gadget work together with that other gadget. It has gotten to the point where I spend more time on the gadgets themselves than on the task I set out to do in the first place, or even forgetting what the original task was that I set out to do! My flat screen TV is interfaced with a cable, a satellite receiver, a digital disk player, a stereo radio and CD player, an (old) VCR, a Sony Play station and my computer. And of course my computer is interfaced with ADSL, printer, scanner, camera, external CD drive and networked with another PC which interfaces with my HP calculator and another printer and several other devices that I switch in and out. All my finances are handled on-line to the point where I seldom handle any real cash money or pay bills in person. And of course I have two mobile phones, one of which also interfaces with my pc. One glitch in any of that sends me in near panic mode; have I lost my data or has it been compromised, can I ever recover the system? A computer crash is like a death in the family! And my set-up is very basic compared to many people. I do not use VOIP, for example, not yet anyway! I would like to do exactly as Coberst suggests; curtail the use of all this technology and just get back to basics, but there is no way I can do that . I feel trapped in all this technological mire and I am sure it is not good for my state of mental well-being. I think back to twenty something years ago, with nostalgic fondness when the most technologically sophisticated device in my home was a fax machine (I do not even own one now). We are on this road together and I do not see any turning back. Whether the technology helps carry us along, or weighs us down, is still an open question and I think only time will tell.

[scameter]

To Thomas: perhaps with the advent of globalization, the political hindrances to society can be fixed. However long that takes, which I doubt it will ever fully happen. People are too selfish and exclusivist for full globalization.

To schrodinger: I don't think that technology is even close to the capacity of the human mind, nor will it be in quite some time, especially on the level that normal people use technology. Technology is not that difficult to use; it just takes some time, and precision, which is not very hard to do. In fact, once it is done, our lives are much easier because of technology than without it. Imagine every time you wanted to hear music, you either had to play it yourself (on an acoustic instrument, not a technological electric one), or had to hire a team of people to play for you or at an event. You'd very rarely hear music. But, with a CD player and/or stereo system, as well as the internet, you can hear anything you want anytime you want for free unless you want to own it, which even then only deluxe CDs are over $20. I'd rather take a little bit of time reading the instruction manual and installing it, than hear no music at all. I think that with technology, we just have to engineer it to suit people, rather than just to see how advanced we can get stuff. For instance, I think progress in robotics and nanotechnology will be unimaginably helpful and revolutionary in the near future. Instead of having wires and modules filling up your house that are as big as six books combined, you can have a tiny computer, about as big as a computer mouse, if not smaller, do even better. And, you can have robots fix things for you that you either can't or don't have time to do. Suggesting we should go back to basic technology to me is like saying we shouldn't try so hard to make life easier and more enjoyable.

[Chan Tiger]

Chan Tiger

We were born smart enough but we weren’t born intellectually sophisticated enough to handle this high tech world we have invented.

What is the difference between “being smart” and “being sophisticated”? I would say that we can use the handyman and his tool box as a good analogy for comprehending this difference. The number and quality of the instruments in a handyman’s tool box is a measure of his smartness and his experience using those tools is a measure of his sophistication.


You seem to have missed the point of my earlier remarks. The problem is not of means, but of ends----what these "tools" should be used for. Somebody who is experienced with a wide range of tools may create or they may destroy. How we use our experience is at least as important as the accumulation of that experience, but it's something you are neglecting to address.

[coberst]

Chan


Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
--Voltaire (1694-1778)

While I was in Asheville awaiting oral surgery my companion and I settled down in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital to just ‘hang out’ for a few hours. This was a convenient and a comfortable place to sit and wander about just passing time. One is pretty well free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.

A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe in wonder at the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. We seem to be capable of developing vast systems to efficiently provide good or evil; but have not been able to completely ‘accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative’. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

This is a question that has long intrigued me. How can we be so successful in developing a technology and yet be so unsuccessful in developing the ability to manage that magnificent technology? We seem to be like the man with an ‘Arnold’ like upper body mounted on a spindle, varicose veined, arthritic lower body.

I have lately begun to formulate an answer to the question. I am not saying that I have discovered a new problem but that I have discovered how others have been struggling with this problem and that it is only now that I have become conscious of this aspect of reality. I am saying that I have discovered a problem that has worried mankind for centuries and that I have only now begun to understand the problem. I also want to be so bold as to suggest I may have a practical proposal to significantly impact the problem with a partial solution.

A certain part of reality exists for me only when I have become conscious of it. The first step of becoming conscious of any part of reality is to formulate a coherent question about it. It is possible to create solutions to problematic situations only after developing a clear understanding of the facts.

I have discovered that those who struggle with such questions have theorized that rationality can be classified into two major categories; instrumental rationality is that form that allows us to develop our technology and communication rationality is that form that allows us to deal with the other type of problem.

There are problems where the end is known and only the best means are of question. The dentist knows that I have a toothache and the problem he must decide is the best way to eliminate that toothache. The dentist is the subject and the toothache is the object. The problem exists between a subject and an object. The end is clear, eliminate the ache, the means will be either pull the tooth or do a root canal. Instrumental rationality is to determine the best means to reach a specified end.

[Michael]

Getting back to the subject in hand, one idea might be to vote it back in again.

[Michael]

or we can do what they did in 1776

just a thought....

Who will play the part of the British?

[coberst]

Evolution moves very slowly. We adapt to our environment very slowly. We survive because we do adapt. When we change more quickly than we can adapt we face problems that we have not had the time to make the kind of adjustments necessary.

The habits we acquire determine our state of mind. Our changing habits are part of this process of adaptation to our environment. Do not think of environment as being just the quality of our air or water but it is a broad term signifying the world we live in.

Consider the Credit Card as a technology that has had a disastrous affect upon our society. It is the Credit Card frame of mind that has created the financial environment that has made the present financial fiasco possible.