I’m not sure why, but while drafting a reply the this post I was drawn to reviewing your “About” statement that is on its own tab. I wonder, how many readers have read this statement? For me, re-reading it reminded me of one of the your goals for Stranger Worlds.
I must thank you for reading the 'About' statement, as I imagine that it has been slowly gathering metaphorical dust! I too wonder whether anyone has read it. Mostly, I think, people read an essay here that speaks to them, and then subscribe. But I find it helpful to have a statement of purpose, and what better way to commence a project aiming to collectively explore our principles for life than to state some principles for doing so...?
The epigram for this post speaks of oligarchic governments, the power of wealth, and the struggle against these powers. As nearly as I can tell from my keyhole view, this struggle has been with us since the dawn of civilization.[1] The fundamental cause appears to be a somewhat rare, but persistent, intrinsic aspect of human brain-minds. From before until now there have only been local, short-term exceptions. In our time the die is not yet cast. Around the world the battle is underway. At present, the outcome is not certain.
Note
[1] 08/12/23 ChatGPT3.5 response to: As an anthropologist and historian, is it fair to claim that since the dawn of civilization autocracy rather than democracy has been the predominate form of government? If you can, please give references. Subsequent requests of ChatGPT may give a different response.
Great to hear from you, Frank! I am inclined to concur with your analysis here. It is not that we are dealing with new social forces, merely a wealth and power disparity several orders of magnitude greater than was faced at Ur or Xi'an.
”only the recklessly ill-informed could think that our existing forms of government are not already a disaster.”
COMMENT
My knowledge (such as it is) of government processes is limited to the US. Here I see a real possibility for a shift from a creaking, sputtering democracy to an oppressive autocracy. Such a shift would be a disaster, not only for US residents, but for everyone else as well. I submit that the present situation is the result of on-going psychological, social, and economic forces interacting with traditional mechanisms of governance. Something has to give. I think it’s going to be the mechanisms of governance. In the US this implies constitutional change. In that regard, I very much doubt if a lottery system, even for the lowest level of community governance, will ever even be proposed.
Again I concur: nobody will propose sortition solutions. Although I believe they are well worth considering, the biggest barrier to acceptance is that it would require a substantial investment to even introduce the idea to the people - and those with the requisite resources have no motive to do so.
I find it interesting that you think constitutional reform to be a solution for the US - I have great concerns about what would happen if the people convened to reconstruct the constitution in the current partisan conditions that are shorn from any kind of principled stand. Rescuing the existing constitution would be a safer intermediate step, perhaps.
"Neither still could democracy consist in following an alleged consensus of experts. Indeed, to declare ‘consensus’ on any scientific issue that isn’t merely historical is to confess that you are not a scientist, but yet another charlatan burning with the hatred of democracy."
Reading Midgley's Evolution as a Religion and came across this:
"That distinguished physicist J.D. Bernal shaped it in a way which bears some relation to Day's in a remarkable Marxist Utopia published in 1929. Pointing out that things might get a trifle dull and unchallenging in the future, when the state had withered away after the triumph of the proletariat, Bernal predicted that only the dimmer minds would be content with this placid paradise. Accordingly, 'the aristocracy of scientific intelligence' would give rise to new developments and create a world run increasingly by scientific experts. Scientific institutions would gradually become the government and thus achieve 'a further stage of the Marxian hierarchy of domination'. The end result would be that scientists 'would emerge as a new species and leave humanity behind'."
Those early Midgley books are brilliant at collecting up these kinds of mythos and pointing out how ludicrous they are upon close examination. It was a genuine honour when she endorsed one of my philosophy books, and I miss corresponding with her greatly.
Except of course they give up their legitimate grounds for claiming they are being scientific as they do so. The popular formula is all too cogent when it asserts that 'science+politics=politics'.
Hi Chris,
I’m not sure why, but while drafting a reply the this post I was drawn to reviewing your “About” statement that is on its own tab. I wonder, how many readers have read this statement? For me, re-reading it reminded me of one of the your goals for Stranger Worlds.
I must thank you for reading the 'About' statement, as I imagine that it has been slowly gathering metaphorical dust! I too wonder whether anyone has read it. Mostly, I think, people read an essay here that speaks to them, and then subscribe. But I find it helpful to have a statement of purpose, and what better way to commence a project aiming to collectively explore our principles for life than to state some principles for doing so...?
AGREE #GDCagr_2: The People and Their Oligarchs
COMMENT
The epigram for this post speaks of oligarchic governments, the power of wealth, and the struggle against these powers. As nearly as I can tell from my keyhole view, this struggle has been with us since the dawn of civilization.[1] The fundamental cause appears to be a somewhat rare, but persistent, intrinsic aspect of human brain-minds. From before until now there have only been local, short-term exceptions. In our time the die is not yet cast. Around the world the battle is underway. At present, the outcome is not certain.
Note
[1] 08/12/23 ChatGPT3.5 response to: As an anthropologist and historian, is it fair to claim that since the dawn of civilization autocracy rather than democracy has been the predominate form of government? If you can, please give references. Subsequent requests of ChatGPT may give a different response.
Great to hear from you, Frank! I am inclined to concur with your analysis here. It is not that we are dealing with new social forces, merely a wealth and power disparity several orders of magnitude greater than was faced at Ur or Xi'an.
AGREE #GDCagr_Disaster – A Lottery Solution?
”only the recklessly ill-informed could think that our existing forms of government are not already a disaster.”
COMMENT
My knowledge (such as it is) of government processes is limited to the US. Here I see a real possibility for a shift from a creaking, sputtering democracy to an oppressive autocracy. Such a shift would be a disaster, not only for US residents, but for everyone else as well. I submit that the present situation is the result of on-going psychological, social, and economic forces interacting with traditional mechanisms of governance. Something has to give. I think it’s going to be the mechanisms of governance. In the US this implies constitutional change. In that regard, I very much doubt if a lottery system, even for the lowest level of community governance, will ever even be proposed.
Again I concur: nobody will propose sortition solutions. Although I believe they are well worth considering, the biggest barrier to acceptance is that it would require a substantial investment to even introduce the idea to the people - and those with the requisite resources have no motive to do so.
I find it interesting that you think constitutional reform to be a solution for the US - I have great concerns about what would happen if the people convened to reconstruct the constitution in the current partisan conditions that are shorn from any kind of principled stand. Rescuing the existing constitution would be a safer intermediate step, perhaps.
"Neither still could democracy consist in following an alleged consensus of experts. Indeed, to declare ‘consensus’ on any scientific issue that isn’t merely historical is to confess that you are not a scientist, but yet another charlatan burning with the hatred of democracy."
Reading Midgley's Evolution as a Religion and came across this:
"That distinguished physicist J.D. Bernal shaped it in a way which bears some relation to Day's in a remarkable Marxist Utopia published in 1929. Pointing out that things might get a trifle dull and unchallenging in the future, when the state had withered away after the triumph of the proletariat, Bernal predicted that only the dimmer minds would be content with this placid paradise. Accordingly, 'the aristocracy of scientific intelligence' would give rise to new developments and create a world run increasingly by scientific experts. Scientific institutions would gradually become the government and thus achieve 'a further stage of the Marxian hierarchy of domination'. The end result would be that scientists 'would emerge as a new species and leave humanity behind'."
Those early Midgley books are brilliant at collecting up these kinds of mythos and pointing out how ludicrous they are upon close examination. It was a genuine honour when she endorsed one of my philosophy books, and I miss corresponding with her greatly.
Seems Bernal was prescient (if that's the right word here)... as we witness "Scientific institutions...gradually becom[ing] the government."
Except of course they give up their legitimate grounds for claiming they are being scientific as they do so. The popular formula is all too cogent when it asserts that 'science+politics=politics'.
Sadly, being unscientific never stopped anyone from plying sciency terms and thinking themselves scientific.
There are whole industries built upon these sandy-foundations! 🤩