In my original post on The World's Dilemma, I pointed out why on account of our human nature and the structure of the system we have, the world is always going to be kind of fucked up, and will require a constant source of checking and feedback. This doesn't mean however that we should be dejected and accept failure. Far from it. What does bother me about the world today is that, despite it probably always going to be fucked up (as long as the constraints remain true), it is SO far from being the system it could be. Let's forget perfection, and just talk progress. We could have it much better, we can have a much "smarter" system in place, both globally and locally. How to get it going practically is a tricky problem, that I sadly don't have a general answer to. But what I do have some insight into is what needs to happen in order for us to have a better, smarter system.
1) Education : The most pressing problem, and at the heart of the whole dilemma, is that people are simply too uninformed and apathetic, but not quite in the sense that most people think however. By uninformed, I mean that we simply don't know the bigger picture well enough, and this is simply not promoted as far as our education is concerned. We arenot sympathetic enough of our differences, or aware enough of our broader similarities. That seldom gets into the equation, and understandably so. We live pretty insular lives, comforted into a system that seems, for the most part in those areas we access... fool-proof and fail-safe, even in times like these where global instability is just a probable event away, and the system may be crumbling in front of your very eyes. Even in times like these, most people simply look around them and notice most of the following - the roads are still around, their house is around, the people they care about are alive and ticking, and things seem to be going on just as "usual". At least most of these things are going on at the same time, but seldom all. In any case, the picture our uninquiring minds will paint in circumstances like these, is to just go on. But even when a lot of these things AREN'T going on right, the other aspect of our present system kicks in. The other aspect is that it makes us think that it is too big for us. That's what I mean by apathy... a subconscious belief that "it" is too big, rather than a voluntary, conscious process of not taking any initiative. Surely, we can't alter the way things are. We are just piddly ants in an enormous ant colony, and the ones running the colony can squash us without the slightest effort should they choose to. Surely, there is no simple way to alter the system, which has been rigged up in such a way so as to prevent any obstacles we piddly workers might try to come up with. Well, sure... that is partially true. But they are not invincible, if that is the belief, which it often is. There is a certain amount of concentrated and coordinated work required, but it is most certainly possible. It just is that people can't see this. They simply can't see the coordinated process, and so they don't do anything... or a very deep level. This is why revolutions pick up so well. It gives them that faint glimmer of perspective that makes them see change just an inch away. It all becomes real. But it is ALWAYS real... we just don't take the time to see it, and realize it.
So this is what I see broadly lacking on an individual level. The solution then is to somehow get people not only more informed, but also to understand their significance in altering events in society. The two basic themes I just addressed are easy enough to achieve. The hard part, is getting people to agree on what the solution ought to be. There unfortunately is no simple way to come out with a "societal" right and wrong. People will generally infuse into the societal solution, their own views and ideas, and this will often be restrictive in terms of the bigger picture of needing a system that caters to the masses, ensures individual rights, that honours the dignity of human life, and so on. The idea that things must be "as consistent and right as possible" needs to enter the conversation. This will sometimes involve not having the right solution as far as many things you are concerned with is involved, but it will be the right thing if you take the pieces of information of the broader society you belong to, and the global picture, into account. The understanding of "consistency" and "empirical evidence", is something that will be tricky to make people get. Even smart, informed people, sometimes don't get the significance of these two things in leading up to a "correct" conclusion in all contexts, including social and societal. (correct in quotes since it is only the most correct thing you can get for a set of facts, and not necessarily THE correct thing). The rules of logic for mathematics is easy, because there is no confusion about the objects being dealt with, the axioms, and the rules of the game. With people, there is ambiguity throughout. But it is my belief, that should we know a) what the constraints of ourselves and the societal system (at a given time) are, b) what conditions this system ought to satisfy for the people in order to result in an efficient society that is maximally beneficial, and c) where the people and the society are functionally at a given point in time; ... should we know these three things with little ambiguity, AND be informed and proactive.... then a common-ish (a good majority) solution can be acquired by the people. We can then have some sort of uniformity in opinion.
2) Explicit self correction mechanisms in every societal system : Again... hard for me to generally formulate. Every system that we will come up with will be based on a sweeping generalization of reality. It will also be at a point in time, rigid. This in turn will guarantee not every issue will be handled in the "right" way in society. The system itself, were it perfectly followed in an uncorrupt way, will lead to issues due to it being rigid. So, a method of allowing...iterative changes to the system, adding and taking away things as we go along and learn over time, is pretty essential. But the fact that systems are corrupt means that there must be a better way to check on the people running the system itself. This again leads us to point number one - education. An informed and proactive public will add pressure to any system. It may originally be democratic in its ways, in which case the correction mechanism is implicit in the system (however it may not be thoroughly exercised, as in present times), OR it may not be, in which case it never is too late to start a revolution and force democracy onto it. I addressed a part of this point in the post Pubeocracy not too long ago.
Broadly speaking then, getting the public "educated" in the sense I mentioned, and having the system equipped with self rectifying democratic tools, is fundamentally what is needed. Each country obviously comes with their own little goofy issues. In addressing these problems on the level of the system (modifying laws, introducing regulation, starting institutions, etc) they have to be introduced in as much as possible, a simultaneous and consistent way. It will be hard to introduce such things perfectly, and there will always be glitches, but we presently have a shitty global system, and the local scenario is pretty shitty for most countries. In all of this, I have my fears that people will never get "honest and real" when asked to make public decisions, and will always seem to address their self interest first. It's because of this that "education" for me is so important. It gives the hope of character development for a great many people. It equips them with ways to handle obstacles in their way, to think and be independent ... to be individuals. A world with a majority of people like these WOULD be better. I haven't run a simulation on this... but I'd be very interested in what society a sociologist running a program with people characterized the way I have, will come up with. I'm pretty sure it would validate my view, and in any case it is worth a shot from the standpoint of our race. The only question then is.... "How does one practically achieve this informed, individual filled society, from a system that is hell bent on leaving people as ignorant and foolishly content as possible, so that the ones running the show can capitalize on their interests?" . This is the Catch 22 situation I alluded to in my original post. The solution required to fix the system cannot be practically acquired from the system itself in the present time ... save perhaps for a technological or sociological revolution. Perhaps that is why the internet has caused a slight hiccup here and there, and will continue to do so ... at least until those idiotic laws in the works get passed.
1) Education : The most pressing problem, and at the heart of the whole dilemma, is that people are simply too uninformed and apathetic, but not quite in the sense that most people think however. By uninformed, I mean that we simply don't know the bigger picture well enough, and this is simply not promoted as far as our education is concerned. We arenot sympathetic enough of our differences, or aware enough of our broader similarities. That seldom gets into the equation, and understandably so. We live pretty insular lives, comforted into a system that seems, for the most part in those areas we access... fool-proof and fail-safe, even in times like these where global instability is just a probable event away, and the system may be crumbling in front of your very eyes. Even in times like these, most people simply look around them and notice most of the following - the roads are still around, their house is around, the people they care about are alive and ticking, and things seem to be going on just as "usual". At least most of these things are going on at the same time, but seldom all. In any case, the picture our uninquiring minds will paint in circumstances like these, is to just go on. But even when a lot of these things AREN'T going on right, the other aspect of our present system kicks in. The other aspect is that it makes us think that it is too big for us. That's what I mean by apathy... a subconscious belief that "it" is too big, rather than a voluntary, conscious process of not taking any initiative. Surely, we can't alter the way things are. We are just piddly ants in an enormous ant colony, and the ones running the colony can squash us without the slightest effort should they choose to. Surely, there is no simple way to alter the system, which has been rigged up in such a way so as to prevent any obstacles we piddly workers might try to come up with. Well, sure... that is partially true. But they are not invincible, if that is the belief, which it often is. There is a certain amount of concentrated and coordinated work required, but it is most certainly possible. It just is that people can't see this. They simply can't see the coordinated process, and so they don't do anything... or a very deep level. This is why revolutions pick up so well. It gives them that faint glimmer of perspective that makes them see change just an inch away. It all becomes real. But it is ALWAYS real... we just don't take the time to see it, and realize it.
So this is what I see broadly lacking on an individual level. The solution then is to somehow get people not only more informed, but also to understand their significance in altering events in society. The two basic themes I just addressed are easy enough to achieve. The hard part, is getting people to agree on what the solution ought to be. There unfortunately is no simple way to come out with a "societal" right and wrong. People will generally infuse into the societal solution, their own views and ideas, and this will often be restrictive in terms of the bigger picture of needing a system that caters to the masses, ensures individual rights, that honours the dignity of human life, and so on. The idea that things must be "as consistent and right as possible" needs to enter the conversation. This will sometimes involve not having the right solution as far as many things you are concerned with is involved, but it will be the right thing if you take the pieces of information of the broader society you belong to, and the global picture, into account. The understanding of "consistency" and "empirical evidence", is something that will be tricky to make people get. Even smart, informed people, sometimes don't get the significance of these two things in leading up to a "correct" conclusion in all contexts, including social and societal. (correct in quotes since it is only the most correct thing you can get for a set of facts, and not necessarily THE correct thing). The rules of logic for mathematics is easy, because there is no confusion about the objects being dealt with, the axioms, and the rules of the game. With people, there is ambiguity throughout. But it is my belief, that should we know a) what the constraints of ourselves and the societal system (at a given time) are, b) what conditions this system ought to satisfy for the people in order to result in an efficient society that is maximally beneficial, and c) where the people and the society are functionally at a given point in time; ... should we know these three things with little ambiguity, AND be informed and proactive.... then a common-ish (a good majority) solution can be acquired by the people. We can then have some sort of uniformity in opinion.
2) Explicit self correction mechanisms in every societal system : Again... hard for me to generally formulate. Every system that we will come up with will be based on a sweeping generalization of reality. It will also be at a point in time, rigid. This in turn will guarantee not every issue will be handled in the "right" way in society. The system itself, were it perfectly followed in an uncorrupt way, will lead to issues due to it being rigid. So, a method of allowing...iterative changes to the system, adding and taking away things as we go along and learn over time, is pretty essential. But the fact that systems are corrupt means that there must be a better way to check on the people running the system itself. This again leads us to point number one - education. An informed and proactive public will add pressure to any system. It may originally be democratic in its ways, in which case the correction mechanism is implicit in the system (however it may not be thoroughly exercised, as in present times), OR it may not be, in which case it never is too late to start a revolution and force democracy onto it. I addressed a part of this point in the post Pubeocracy not too long ago.
Broadly speaking then, getting the public "educated" in the sense I mentioned, and having the system equipped with self rectifying democratic tools, is fundamentally what is needed. Each country obviously comes with their own little goofy issues. In addressing these problems on the level of the system (modifying laws, introducing regulation, starting institutions, etc) they have to be introduced in as much as possible, a simultaneous and consistent way. It will be hard to introduce such things perfectly, and there will always be glitches, but we presently have a shitty global system, and the local scenario is pretty shitty for most countries. In all of this, I have my fears that people will never get "honest and real" when asked to make public decisions, and will always seem to address their self interest first. It's because of this that "education" for me is so important. It gives the hope of character development for a great many people. It equips them with ways to handle obstacles in their way, to think and be independent ... to be individuals. A world with a majority of people like these WOULD be better. I haven't run a simulation on this... but I'd be very interested in what society a sociologist running a program with people characterized the way I have, will come up with. I'm pretty sure it would validate my view, and in any case it is worth a shot from the standpoint of our race. The only question then is.... "How does one practically achieve this informed, individual filled society, from a system that is hell bent on leaving people as ignorant and foolishly content as possible, so that the ones running the show can capitalize on their interests?" . This is the Catch 22 situation I alluded to in my original post. The solution required to fix the system cannot be practically acquired from the system itself in the present time ... save perhaps for a technological or sociological revolution. Perhaps that is why the internet has caused a slight hiccup here and there, and will continue to do so ... at least until those idiotic laws in the works get passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment