Let's discuss this but please no politics and no conspiracy theories

[Castout]

It's a lecture clip and may take a while but you don't need to watch all just see until the two tables appear which I forgot in which video but certainly not the first.

First part


Let's discuss this without delving into politics or conspiracy theories.

Specifically how do you perceive the problem.

Given the option on the right side of the two tables which do you prefer to choose? And why?

Can you think a better solution to the problem discussed in the video

Or do you deny there will be a problem and if so why?

[Skybird]

Nice find. It's always stunning me how little understanding there is in public of the exponential function when it comes to economic and environmental issues, and population growth.

It is implications from problems like this, and the implications, that led me to believe that voting in elections should not be considered a basic right, but a privilege for which one has to qualify by proving some basic knoweldge, as well as correct memory of political decisions and consequences of the past legislation periods. I honestely believe that uneducated or stupid people should not be allowed to vote, and that voting just by habit is counterproductive for demcoarcy - because by that people are contributing to increasing damage - and they do not even realise it.

You need a licence to handle explosives. You need a licence for dealing with drugs and poisons. But these can cause only local, small disasters if handled wrong. when you fly airplanes above the heads of the people below you, you nevertheless must fulfill a yearly minimum or must undergo frequent checkups of your pilot skills to show that you still are qulifified to do so without putting some local people at risk. In Europe at least, you need licences and need to show frequent use (Germany) when owning pistols or guns. But when potentially influencing the fate of a whole nation or cultural sphere - then no qualification needs to be proven at all...? And sentiments and traditions are allowed to distort any reasonable decision finding on whom to give power...?

Not popular to think that way, I know. But if our ways of doing things and having elections is so perfect and correct, I wonder why our current and future problems are constantly growing, and why we fail to find solutions, but contribute with our best effort and intention to even increase these problems and delay solutions. That politicians aim at getting the votes of those who do not know it better or unscrupulously vote for their own advantage and accepting the disadvanatge of others, should be considered as one of the major reasons.

The lack of understanding for the exponential function, is just a variation of another problem: that is not not looking sufficiently ahead into the future, or ign oring any future that lies outside one's own lifespan. And it seems the latter is one of the main drives of contemporary economic policies.
-----
Just watched the first part, maybe I will watch the others as well over the day.

[Betonov]

Halfway trough, very interesting. The problem is not in the problem itself, it can be fixed by alternate energy sources, (dare I say it) population growth control or even space colonization... But there is a lack of probibly the most rare resource on the planet: Willpower. We have the money, we have the manpower, we have the brainpower, but people are to conserned with who will win the next american/britain/german/ethiopian idol and who's nailing britney spears.

That's the simple fact that forces me to agreee with Skybird:

It is implications from problems like this, and the implications, that led me to believe that voting in elections should not be considered a basic right, but a privilege for which one has to qualify by proving some basic knoweldge, as well as correct memory of political decisions and consequences of the past legislation periods. I honestely believe that uneducated or stupid people should not be allowed to vote, and that voting just by habit is counterproductive for demcoarcy - because by that people are contributing to increasing damage - and they do not even realise it.

Even if it is the total opposite of what I believe in, but the general population is not, shall we say interested in their future beyond the next weekend. We can teach them in school to be more active, and more foresighted but that smells of political indoctrination or we can have the media do more to make people acutally think, but the free press will suffer (even more than today).

Solutions are many and made by smarter people than us at subsim and even an average joe can come to a worldsaving solution, but smart people are not running our countries. An dpoliticans are quite content with the sheep... khm I mean the masses that are easily satisfied with a carrot while leading them to the slaughterhouse. As long as their's a TV in the slaughtering block thats shows Britain/Slovenia/Kazakhstan has got talent.

P.S. never mentioned any parties or systems, political names or doctrines soooo, I think my post passed the no-politics rule (I hope)

[Castout]

Only there's one flaw to that suggestion Skybird that is who decides just who are qualified to vote and who don't. And to have representative voters is not something new actually. It had been done in countries such as ours then where only the members of the legislation voted on who was going to be the acting head of state. And the only reason to that was that because it is SO MUCH EASIER to control and corrupt those few members of the legislation than risking losing due to unpopularity with the whole members of the nation.

The current people's voting in democracy is done basing on the assumption that the general population is expected to be able to pick the personality that they think would be best to represent them as their leader.

Because one who is out of power cannot influence the whole people of nation other than out of personality power and that it is expected that the shown personality which is the basis from which the people elect their leader is genuine which is why relying on census, mass approval or mass judgment become important and that the public(people) are able to scrutinize the candidates past lives and political performance and decisions again relying on census of opinion of the general population.

In the end in the event when a bad leader is elected democratically it falls on the responsibility of the people who elected him or her AND the system which MUST allow leadership change constitutionally whether through next election or lawful dismissal.

That is still far more fault proof than handing the voting to a select few who are easily intimidated, corrupted and eventually controlled. More often than not bad leaders are elected out of failed and abused democratic system rather than misjudgment of the people.

As with Germany electing Hitler(as example) to me it wasn't a fault as Hitler then was really popular to the people of Germany as far as I know. In the end the fate of a nation must be put into the hands of the very people who have the greatest stake in that nation i,e the citizen of that nation.[non political as it refers to historic event]

But I can see the point which you made the basis of your argument. The fault doesn't lie with the system however imo but with people's attitude or rather lack of it or ignorance or indifference to political process in his or her country. That can only be remedied through long term political education and social enlightment. More often than not political apathy when prevalent in a society is the direct result of the loss of trust to the democratic system itself which is often abused and made a mere tool to gain legitimacy for the ruling party or dictatorship.