I am under the impression that a time will come when the human species shall no longer rule this planet, be it from us following the ways of the dinosaurs or the forces of nature becoming overwhelming for our existance.

Now between now and then is there an ideal system that may ensure that the resources are distributed equally, knowledge is dispersed indiscriminately , human life( and animals and fauna, for that matter) span is prolonged (not only for those who are in countries that are more scientifically progressed). What are your take on capitalism, has it failed or has it been abused? Do humans have a better system? Or is this the beginning of the end of the great Homo Sapiens? Should we just embrace what we have and enjoy this life knowing that in a few generations after us there shall be no human life in this planet?

To those who are in the field of science: Is there any hope of human survival even after some great nature disasters that are emminent in the future?

Views: 894

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@H3xx (I like your ideas and your writing. I nitpick because it might generate more.)

 the only way for a mass of people to govern themselves

I think this represents a fundamental problem with the way government is perceived. We don't need governing. People need to think of government, not as their boss, but as several service providers with a three or four-year contracts. We are THEIR boss! I view government as having two major functions - control and service. Both are needed to a degree, but the more service the better; the less control the better.

I've been wondering if PURE democracy is now possible. I'm talking NO elected officials - just administrators. EVERYTHING could be decided by popular vote. Not many people would be interested in participating in huge detail except, perhaps, in regard to "pet" issues. The few who were truly interested in specific details could decide those issues. "Should We Invade Iran?" might attract quite a number, while, "Should we extend the water main an extra kilometer out of town?" not so much.

@Steve Armitstead Is this anarchy?

Would this limit or even eliminate that dangerous religion called patriotism?

I think this represents a fundamental problem with the way government is perceived. We don't need governing. People need to think of government, not as their boss, but as several service providers with a three or four-year contracts. We are THEIR boss! I view government as having two major functions - control and service. Both are needed to a degree, but the more service the better; the less control the better.

Humans do need governing, in the same way that parents govern children. We do need police and military, but we need a way to govern the government. I wholeheartedly agree with your analogy that the government should be seen as service providers. That is the very reason why our president is addressed as "Mr." and not "His Majesty" or  "My Lord." The constitutional congress argued long and hard over this subject, and finally settled on the title "Mr." so as to identify the president as a public servant, rather than a leader.

I've been wondering if PURE democracy is now possible. I'm talking NO elected officials - just administrators. EVERYTHING could be decided by popular vote. Not many people would be interested in participating in huge detail except, perhaps, in regard to "pet" issues. The few who were truly interested in specific details could decide those issues. "Should We Invade Iran?" might attract quite a number, while, "Should we extend the water main an extra kilometer out of town?" not so much.

The purpose of having elected officials is to simplify the process. By taking this system away, it would create a bureaucratic nightmare in which millions of people would be arguing over points, and doing very little. The Checks and Balances system is very effective in this, but is, I fear, a bit out of date. It would be easier and much more effective to patch this system, rather than tear it down and try to put something else in it's place. It's the reason why Linux has so many different kernels, but they all run on the same operating system, GNU. GNU was an attempt, albeit a successful attempt, at recreating the wheel with the Unix operating system. It took several years and many many failures to achieve success. The democracies that are in existence today are like Linux, and the original GNU democracy was created by the ancient Greeks. But, to try and recreate democracy into something different, but functionally identical would result in many many years of bloodshed and tears before we achieve something successful, but it would all result in something resembling what we already have. That process can be bypassed by fixing the problems that we have already identified.

I would suggest that a new check be applied to the current checks and balances system. A public check, in which a public, popular vote is applied to any law that passes both congress and the presidency, and if the voters pass it, it then becomes law, if not, it is sent back to congress, with a public inquiry or poll attached that can be collected during the public check vote. This would allow voters to voice their opinions and suggestions, leaving their name and address so as to be able to call in the most promising voters to elaborate on their suggestions.

My vision of what our government should be relies heavily on public education, and as it stands, is not possible, as there is a war being waged on public education, and attempts are being made to dumb down the populous. That however would be another thread all together. But there is no reason why we can't have the most intelligent population on the planet. That's where Atheism comes into play. we need to educate our children, not indoctrinate them. Because it's pointless to fix the world for their sake, without leaving them the manual on how it works.

It is a simple observation that if something is broken, but has worked effectively for hundreds of years, then it can be fixed and updated. There's no need to replace it.

I do think that we have got stuck into thinking democracy is the status quo we have now; that's where I think anarchistic thinking comes in - to help us see that democracy could be so much more than we have now. Coops, mutuals, trade or students unions, social movements, voluntary and community groups can all help to further a better democracy without bloodshed and violence; but that presupposes that counter-movement groups and/or the State don't employ violence to suppress the citizens of that democracy.

So much for democracy. That's not what we have here.

Nice. I like the "public check" though it's a compromise.

To me, though, the most fundamental change must be to get money out of politics. Make it simple. If an elected official accepts so much as a cup of coffee during his term of office, a crime is committed - by both the giver and receiver. This would wipe out corruption in a single stroke. The revolving door disappears because lobbying (as an industry) disappears. I think a single term would be important, too. There should be no such thing as a career politician. They should just be civic-minded individuals willing to give up a few years to serve the country. And they shouldn't be virtually required (by the system) to spend MOST of their time and effort on re-election rather than the business at hand.

The purpose of having elected officials is to simplify the process. 

Actually the purpose was to allow a semblance of democracy to function AT ALL. For example, the Electoral College only existed because the states' decisions had to be carried to Washington on horseback. With the advent of technology it has just become possible, for the first time in history, to have a large-scale democracy.

"millions of people would be arguing over points"

That's happening right now - as I type. A set of simple rules regarding how bills are drafted, introduced, and voted upon, could allow the chaos to continue until voting time. I don't see a problem. Only those that WANTED to participate in detail would do so.

"but has worked effectively for hundreds of years, then it can be fixed and updated"

Another way to look at the same circumstances is that it is broken BECAUSE it's hundreds of years out of date. All your more "minor" changes would probably require the Constitution to be rewritten anyway. Why not aim for the ideal?

If an elected official accepts so much as a cup of coffee during his term of office, a crime is committed

Sounds good to me, as long as I'm the guy paid to watch for and document his coffee consumption.

Agreed wrt Electoral College. It has screwed up enough elections already!

That's happening right now - as I type. A set of simple rules regarding how bills are drafted, introduced, and voted upon, could allow the chaos to continue until voting time. I don't see a problem. Only those that WANTED to participate in detail would do so.

I'd like to see that set of "simple rules". I believe it's easier said than done. I thing it was John Adams who was afraid of a minority of passionate idiots (say, like today's Tea Party) pushing way too much on special interests or idealisms. There's only so much participation most people can invest in before being overloaded by several whacko groups.

As for our constitution, the first step might be to elect a president who promises to motivate people and states to coalesce a constitutional convention with a fairly well, predefined agenda. Or maybe just let Texas secede, which they might actually do if we let them take the name "America"?

Several LOLs

...the Electoral College only existed because the states' decisions had to be carried to Washington on horseback.

That's exactly what a Catholic nun told the class I was in.

I filed her explanation in long term memory and a few years passed before I thought about it and realized that the actual vote totals in the states can be carried to Washington as easily as the EC vote totals.

With that explanation discredited, some time in electoral politics persuaded me that the EC's true purpose is to make sure that we the voters don't choose our presidents and vice presidents.

...when I became a man I put away childish things. 1 Cor. 13. 11.

I've been wondering if PURE democracy is now possible. I'm talking NO elected officials - just administrators. EVERYTHING could be decided by popular vote. Not many people would be interested in participating in huge detail except, perhaps, in regard to "pet" issues. The few who were truly interested in specific details could decide those issues. "Should We Invade Iran?" might attract quite a number, while, "Should we extend the water main an extra kilometer out of town?" not so much.

@Steve Armitstead Is this anarchy?

@MikeLong  Your key point is having no elected officials, but a public vote on all issues; well, it sounds very much like the basis for an Anarchistic society to me.  As I said earlier, there are different streams of Anarchistic thinking, many are not mutually exclusive. Anarchy simply means 'no leaders', so it is a very simple idea, but also very broad in the possible implications. Social anarchism, the largest school of thought in anarchism, does not believe in private property (but respects personal property), but I think anarchism is still valid if only applied to political and public life. However, that may not be enough to sort the ills of the World in preparation for the future.

Would this limit or even eliminate that dangerous religion called patriotism?

For me, yes, anarchism is humanistic and non-violent.  However, some (mainly older ones) are revolutionary, which is also anti-national, but I don't see as justified. I believe lasting change for humanity will come by gradual change and human growth through things like reform and education. 

The question of this is, "What is perceived to be human ? "

No it isn't. When speaking in terms of government, the question of humanity refers to any sentient animal capable of communicating and participating in a community. Wolves have their own government, and Homo Sapiens have their government. And if we ever meet any other sentient species that we can communicate with then we can safely categorize them as human in the eyes of the law. We're speaking of politics, not biology.

I think a beneficent dictator might be preferable to anarchism. A beneficent dictator is beneficent by definition (LOL) whereas anarchism can go wrong in so many ways. 

RSS

Forum

Ear-piercing a baby

Started by Simon Mathews in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by Simon Mathews 1 minute ago. 7 Replies

Torture Report release today

Started by Unseen in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Pope Beanie 1 hour ago. 129 Replies

My Grandpa died last week

Started by Physeter in Small Talk. Last reply by David Seidman 3 hours ago. 8 Replies

Why do we tolerate this?

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Pope Beanie 7 hours ago. 25 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Virgil 9 hours ago. 202 Replies

Blog Posts

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 Comments

Finally, a cool billboard in Arkansas!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 8:21am 2 Comments

Atheist Sites

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service