Why democracy is dumb

[FAST6191]

This is already flawed as a basic concept because every government does this. They set what the subject matter is for the nation because they were influential enough to be elected to lead the country. They genuinely have a fondness for staying in power and convincing the population that it is the correct path.

What do you expect? You have to build a foundation to your concept by setting what the subject matter is. Tons of websites started as one thing and are a completely different sector or business venture today.

While I have a fondness for seeing philosophies of the past that led to successful empires, I find that to be a waste of time for future applications because the greatest empires of today are failing and they are more advanced than anything in an old book.

Population size is the biggest hindrance to those old philosophies. They weren't imagined for the world's size today.

So I take it you found a side of the top down vs bottom up idea (elites, "the cathedral", X is downstream of X where X is politics or culture, great men of history, NPCs, maslow's hierarchy... being concepts pondered in that one). Each have compelling notions in them, and more generated as we understand more about psychology and genetics but can't get to anything like settled for me.

Rigid systems will probably fail but not sure what that has to do with this. I would advocate for the pick and choose approach as well, if we are continuing with the quasi military/martial arts idea then jeet kune do would be the thing to point at.

As far as genuine fondness... so I did engineering in school. Ratios of males to females was about as skewed as you expect. The female contingent had three broad categories -- the hyper ra ra I can do anything a man can do set, the STEM is where the money is at set and the vanishing few that actually liked it/were just as likely to be pulling something apart to see how it worked as any man there (which was basically every man there). I felt sorry for the former two groups actually for while they could do the up until 2am design sessions, labs and whatnot they still got to lag behind the others that did it because they felt a genuine drive to do it. Something similar applies in games and discussion thereof -- you could memorise the list of times, dates, top 100 by genre/console/mechanic/region generally, earliest examples of mechanics, hidden gems and whatnot and effect something like useful responses but if you are up against one that does all that "naturally" (never mind actually plays things, hacks things to be better, figures out modes of play that are fun/makes their own fun and is generally inclined to get up and do it all again the next day) you are most likely going to lose, doubly so if the naturally one grabs in this case enough game theory to explain the underlying mechanics and logic/rhetoric to do the argument thing (sadly a somewhat lacking skill in the modern world).

Population size... still seems to be enough land, especially if more optimal uses are found. To that end we are probably still in the water production, food production and maybe energy production limitations just like they were ? thousand years ago. Most philosophies that survived into the written word being way above the human biological limit of Dunbar's number/nothing beyond the horizon/can't count past three.

 

[Creamu]

This is already flawed as a basic concept because every government does this. They set what the subject matter is for the nation because they were influential enough to be elected to lead the country.

A stable government will set the subject matter as an expression and realisation of its people.

They genuinely have a fondness for staying in power and convincing the population that it is the correct path.

In this case they are failing at their most basic function. If a government detaches itself like this from the populus it is on a path of selfdestruction.

What do you expect? You have to build a foundation to your concept by setting what the subject matter is.

The foundation is its people and land.

Tons of websites started as one thing and are a completely different sector or business venture today.

They are plastic to the enviroment.

While I have a fondness for seeing philosophies of the past that led to successful empires, I find that to be a waste of time for future applications because the greatest empires of today are failing and they are more advanced than anything in an old book.

Empires rise and fall, history is not a development of constant progression. We are not more knowledgable and intelligent than past civilisations in every way, not at all

Population size is the biggest hindrance to those old philosophies. They weren't imagined for the world's size today.

Population size of people that have historically shown to build and uphold civilisation is not cause for this concern. The growth that is build on systems that are not selfsustaining will be taken care of by nature.

 

[SAORIxMEGUMIN]

So I take it you found a side of the top down vs bottom up idea (elites, "the cathedral", X is downstream of X where X is politics or culture, great men of history, NPCs, maslow's hierarchy... being concepts pondered in that one). Each have compelling notions in them, and more generated as we understand more about psychology and genetics but can't get to anything like settled for me.

Rigid systems will probably fail but not sure what that has to do with this. I would advocate for the pick and choose approach as well, if we are continuing with the quasi military/martial arts idea then jeet kune do would be the thing to point at.

As far as genuine fondness... so I did engineering in school. Ratios of males to females was about as skewed as you expect. The female contingent had three broad categories -- the hyper ra ra I can do anything a man can do set, the STEM is where the money is at set and the vanishing few that actually liked it/were just as likely to be pulling something apart to see how it worked as any man there (which was basically every man there). I felt sorry for the former two groups actually for while they could do the up until 2am design sessions, labs and whatnot they still got to lag behind the others that did it because they felt a genuine drive to do it. Something similar applies in games and discussion thereof -- you could memorise the list of times, dates, top 100 by genre/console/mechanic/region generally, earliest examples of mechanics, hidden gems and whatnot and effect something like useful responses but if you are up against one that does all that "naturally" (never mind actually plays things, hacks things to be better, figures out modes of play that are fun/makes their own fun and is generally inclined to get up and do it all again the next day) you are most likely going to lose, doubly so if the naturally one grabs in this case enough game theory to explain the underlying mechanics and logic/rhetoric to do the argument thing (sadly a somewhat lacking skill in the modern world).

Population size... still seems to be enough land, especially if more optimal uses are found. To that end we are probably still in the water production, food production and maybe energy production limitations just like they were ? thousand years ago. Most philosophies that survived into the written word being way above the human biological limit of Dunbar's number/nothing beyond the horizon/can't count past three.

Population size isn't just about the space. Societal structure wasn't prepared to serve this many people. It is so much more complex than just finding the space for people, although that is important.

 

[SAORIxMEGUMIN]

A stable government will set the subject matter as an expression and realisation of its people.

In this case they are failing at their most basic function. If a government detaches itself like this from the populus it is on a path of selfdestruction.

The foundation is its people and land.

They are plastic to the enviroment.

Empires rise and fall, history is not a development of constant progression. We are not more knowledgable and intelligent than past civilisations in every way, not at all

Population size of people that have historically shown to build and uphold civilisation is not cause for this concern. The growth that is build on systems that are not selfsustaining will be taken care of by nature.

A stable government that always follows its people's wishes doesn't always align with the best government for their needs. What I imagine a future government needs is to set the subject matter to be the realization for the people that have yet to realize the subject matter being put forth is what they need expressed.

The collective average intelligence of people will probably not lead to the best solution, that is not to say that every citizen doesn't need to be heard or have participation.

We are more knowledgeable. History is the collective knowledge of its past. More intelligent is another thing entirely, though we can do more with the same intelligence due to our understanding of the collective past. Unfortunately I believe we are in a place where past historical records won't lead tot he future solution we need.

Just as new scientific discoveries propelled previous eras, we need something like that. Future thinking.

Growth in population size for resources is one thing. It is the societal structure for the size that governments weren't prepared for.

 

[Veho]

Imagine you have a kindergarden.
You allow the kids to vote on what they want to do, what they want to eat, when they want to go outside, when (and whether) they want to clean up after themselves, whether they really have to wipe their ass after going to the toilet (or if wiping one's ass is a conspiracy by Big Paper), everything.
Leave them like that for a week.
I forgot where I was going with this.

​

 

[Creamu]

Imagine you have a kindergarden.
You allow the kids to vote on what they want to do, what they want to eat, when they want to go outside, when (and whether) they want to clean up after themselves, whether they really have to wipe their ass after going to the toilet (or if wiping one's ass is a conspiracy by Big Paper), everything.
Leave them like that for a week.
I forgot where I was going with this.

​

You were telling us why democracy is not a viable option for anything,

 

[Creamu]

I have a question:

What would you call the system GBAtemp staff operates under?

 

[Veho]

I have a question:

What would you call the system GBAtemp staff operates under?

The Illuminati.

 

[FAST6191]

I have a question:

What would you call the system GBAtemp staff operates under?

Flat(ish) meritocratic survivalism.

The buck ultimately stops with the red boys but if you have a seat at the table, one you only get for the mad skills and stability/endurance, you get to talk as an equal. Your job is to be there in the next 5 years, preferably having grown, and weather storms whilst not losing sight of the goals various strong and weak both near and far.

Aka how most small companies doing specialised tasks, special forces teams, long standing forums, criminal organisations and such survive.

 

[Veho]

I'll add to the confusion somewhat by quoting the governing philosophy of the forum:

"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made mod should on no account be allowed to do the job."

 

[Creamu]

The Illuminati.

Are you emplying there is a secret society behind it all. Are they adherents of Vulcan and Saturn?

Flat(ish) meritocratic survivalism.

So no secret society nepotism.

The buck ultimately stops with the red boys but if you have a seat at the table, one you only get for the mad skills and stability/endurance, you get to talk as an equal. Your job is to be there in the next 5 years, preferably having grown, and weather storms whilst not losing sight of the goals various strong and weak both near and far.

Interesting. The red boys are they vulcans or why is there a association with the color red?

Aka how most small companies doing specialised tasks, special forces teams, long standing forums, criminal organisations and such survive.

Got it.

"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made mod should on no account be allowed to do the job."

Who wrote this?

 

[Veho]

Who wrote this?

Why would that matter?

 

[Creamu]

Why would that matter?

It would be interesting to know what school of thought that is.

Alexander the great was able to conquer so much territory only in part by his military victories. The arguably more critical advances were achieved by diplomatic means. In fact, alot of territory was won by convincing rulers to let themselves be overtaken without a fight, because they simply lacked the will to hold their position. If you exculsivly select for rulers that have no as Nietzsche would call it 'will to power', you risk failing in cultivating strong resistance in the long run.

Another issue is, that you don't really exclude people who seek to get this position. You are simply implementing rules that favors certain types of cognition. You won't get people that are straight forward and have will to power, but you will get mercuriall types that have will to power. Apart from that you will get those who do not have will to power.

 

[x65943]

It would be interesting to know what school of thought that is.

Alexander the great was able to conquer so much territory only in part by his military victories. The arguably more critical advances were achieved by diplomatic means. In fact, alot of territory was won by convincing rulers to let themselves be overtaken without a fight, because they simply lacked the will to hold their position. If you exculsivly select for rulers that have no as Nietzsche would call it 'will to power', you risk failing in cultivating strong resistance in the long run.

Another issue is, that you don't really exclude people who seek to get this position. You are simply implementing rules that favors certain types of cognition. You won't get people that are straight forward and have will to power, but you will get mercuriall types that have will to power. Apart from that you will get those who do not have will to power.

Creamu bite the bullet and expose yourself to a little emf and use google

 

[Creamu]

Creamu bite the bullet and expose yourself to a little emf and use google

But why use goolge if there are countless better options?