why would anyone believe the world is likely to become more democratic and fairer with all that data, massive amounts of data, moving around the internet at the speed of light, or near the speed of light

that is not human, nothing like humans

I was thinking about financial transactions also, commerce and all

why would such a machine system of interconnectedness, moving so much information so quickly improve the situation for humans, why would it be likely to, likely to keep doing that as it moves more and faster

transition said:

why would anyone believe the world is likely to become more democratic and fairer with all that data, massive amounts of data, moving around the internet at the speed of light, or near the speed of light

that is not human, nothing like humans

I was thinking about financial transactions also, commerce and all

why would such a machine system of interconnectedness, moving so much information so quickly improve the situation for humans, why would it be likely to, likely to keep doing that as it moves more and faster

Freedom House makes annual detailed r eports on the levels of civil rights and political rights in each country. It is worthwhile checking out. Their charts indicate a significant decline over the last decade, with more countries trending towards lower political freedom, including the United States.

dv said:

transition said:

why would anyone believe the world is likely to become more democratic and fairer with all that data, massive amounts of data, moving around the internet at the speed of light, or near the speed of light

that is not human, nothing like humans

I was thinking about financial transactions also, commerce and all

why would such a machine system of interconnectedness, moving so much information so quickly improve the situation for humans, why would it be likely to, likely to keep doing that as it moves more and faster

Freedom House makes annual detailed r eports on the levels of civil rights and political rights in each country. It is worthwhile checking out. Their charts indicate a significant decline over the last decade, with more countries trending towards lower political freedom, including the United States.

And Australia.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

transition said:

why would anyone believe the world is likely to become more democratic and fairer with all that data, massive amounts of data, moving around the internet at the speed of light, or near the speed of light

that is not human, nothing like humans

I was thinking about financial transactions also, commerce and all

why would such a machine system of interconnectedness, moving so much information so quickly improve the situation for humans, why would it be likely to, likely to keep doing that as it moves more and faster

Freedom House makes annual detailed r eports on the levels of civil rights and political rights in each country. It is worthwhile checking out. Their charts indicate a significant decline over the last decade, with more countries trending towards lower political freedom, including the United States.

And Australia.

waggles hand back and forth

Not so much.

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Freedom House makes annual detailed r eports on the levels of civil rights and political rights in each country. It is worthwhile checking out. Their charts indicate a significant decline over the last decade, with more countries trending towards lower political freedom, including the United States.

And Australia.

waggles hand back and forth

Not so much.

Australia is doing well, relatively speaking, still among the highest echelons in civil rights and political rights

dv said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

And Australia.

waggles hand back and forth

Not so much.

Australia is doing well, relatively speaking, still among the highest echelons in civil rights and political rights

Depends who you believe. A lot of professional scientists and academics complain of coercive influences.

Rule 303 said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

waggles hand back and forth

Not so much.

Australia is doing well, relatively speaking, still among the highest echelons in civil rights and political rights

Depends who you believe. A lot of professional scientists and academics complain of coercive influences.

I’m not saying it’s 100/100.

Some well informed opinion about the internet and democracy here…
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/21/concerns-about-democracy-in-the-digital-age/

e.g.

Kevin Gross, an independent technology consultant, commented, “Technology can improve or undermine democracy depending on how it is used and who controls it. Right now, it is controlled by too few. The few are not going to share willingly. I don’t expect this to change significantly by 2030. History knows that when a great deal of power is concentrated in the hands of a few, the outcome is not good for the many, not good for democracy.”

A longtime internet-rights activist based in South Africa responded, “Whether the powers of states and tech corporations can be reined in effectively is the current struggle. The genie is out of the bottle and it does not bode well for systems of democracy that have already been undermined in Western states. A state of global cyber war now exists and is likely to persist over the next decade. The oligopoly of state-supported tech companies, whether in the U.S. or China, will be difficult to break. It is trite to differentiate between a Google or an Alibaba – both received substantial state support from their respective governments – the Googles by failure to apply antitrust law to prevent monopolization, the Alibabas by state protection against competition in China.”

Why democracy at all?

It is inefficient and wastes resources.
The only advantage I can see in democracy is that the touting for votes forces openness. Openness oppresses secrecy and corruption. And corruption leads to failure.

> massive amounts of data, moving around the internet

This results in something like a denial of service attack on the human mind. you have to think about this from a meme’s point of view. Memes don’t care a damn about honesty, morality, or anything human other than longevity and procreation.

> why would such a machine system of interconnectedness improve the situation for humans

It wouldn’t. The information passing around the internet is aimed at making people angry. Angry people respond by quickly quoting other angry people, and so the memes replicate. Fiction and stupidity make better memes than truth and intelligence. Disasters make good memes, so the internet communication and media coverage favours, and creates, disasters.

mollwollfumble said:

Why democracy at all?

It is inefficient and wastes resources.
The only advantage I can see in democracy is that the touting for votes forces openness. Openness oppresses secrecy and corruption. And corruption leads to failure.

Democracy doesn’t really force openness of itself, that’s more a function of separate systems for government, law enforcement, and distribution of information.

The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Why democracy at all?

It is inefficient and wastes resources.
The only advantage I can see in democracy is that the touting for votes forces openness. Openness oppresses secrecy and corruption. And corruption leads to failure.

Democracy doesn’t really force openness of itself, that’s more a function of separate systems for government, law enforcement, and distribution of information.

The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

> The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

Not agreeing with that. In Rome, Emperors were replaced rapidly. In one year there were six Emperors. Limited time in power is not a specific feature of democracy.

In addition. Rapid replacement of a corrupt regime in a voting democracy typically means the replacement of one corrupt power with another.

But I do get your point.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Why democracy at all?

It is inefficient and wastes resources.
The only advantage I can see in democracy is that the touting for votes forces openness. Openness oppresses secrecy and corruption. And corruption leads to failure.

Democracy doesn’t really force openness of itself, that’s more a function of separate systems for government, law enforcement, and distribution of information.

The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

> The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

Not agreeing with that. In Rome, Emperors were replaced rapidly. In one year there were six Emperors. Limited time in power is not a specific feature of democracy.

In addition. Rapid replacement of a corrupt regime in a voting democracy typically means the replacement of one corrupt power with another.

But I do get your point.

It’s not the limited time in power that is the key benefit, it is that those in power have some incentive to work for the general good, and to expose their political opponents failure to do that.

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Democracy doesn’t really force openness of itself, that’s more a function of separate systems for government, law enforcement, and distribution of information.

The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

> The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

Not agreeing with that. In Rome, Emperors were replaced rapidly. In one year there were six Emperors. Limited time in power is not a specific feature of democracy.

In addition. Rapid replacement of a corrupt regime in a voting democracy typically means the replacement of one corrupt power with another.

But I do get your point.

It’s not the limited time in power that is the key benefit, it is that those in power have some incentive to work for the general good, and to expose their political opponents failure to do that.

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

So you are saying that Trump is non-democratic?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

Not agreeing with that. In Rome, Emperors were replaced rapidly. In one year there were six Emperors. Limited time in power is not a specific feature of democracy.

In addition. Rapid replacement of a corrupt regime in a voting democracy typically means the replacement of one corrupt power with another.

But I do get your point.

It’s not the limited time in power that is the key benefit, it is that those in power have some incentive to work for the general good, and to expose their political opponents failure to do that.

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

So you are saying that Trump is non-democratic?

Not so far, no.

His opponents spend a great deal of time exposing his failures to work for the common good, and it is quite likely that he will be voted out quite soon.

What happens then remains to be seen.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It’s not the limited time in power that is the key benefit, it is that those in power have some incentive to work for the general good, and to expose their political opponents failure to do that.

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

So you are saying that Trump is non-democratic?

Not so far, no.

His opponents spend a great deal of time exposing his failures to work for the common good, and it is quite likely that he will be voted out quite soon.

What happens then remains to be seen.

fair. He’s a loose cannon.

The Rev Dodgson said:

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

so altruism doesn’t exist

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

so altruism doesn’t exist

Is that a statement or a question?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> The fundamental reason that democracy is a good thing is that if those in power deviate from working for the general good so far that it becomes obvious to the majority, then they will have only a limited time left in power, and no other system offers that benefit.

Not agreeing with that. In Rome, Emperors were replaced rapidly. In one year there were six Emperors. Limited time in power is not a specific feature of democracy.

In addition. Rapid replacement of a corrupt regime in a voting democracy typically means the replacement of one corrupt power with another.

But I do get your point.

It’s not the limited time in power that is the key benefit, it is that those in power have some incentive to work for the general good, and to expose their political opponents failure to do that.

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

So you are saying that Trump is non-democratic?

stacking the branches and hacking the [checks and] balances, are well within the rules of “democracy”, so, of course not

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

So you are saying that Trump is non-democratic?

Not so far, no.

His opponents spend a great deal of time exposing his failures to work for the common good, and it is quite likely that he will be voted out quite soon.

What happens then remains to be seen.

fair. He’s a loose cannon.

they lose their canon

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It’s not the limited time in power that is the key benefit, it is that those in power have some incentive to work for the general good, and to expose their political opponents failure to do that.

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

So you are saying that Trump is non-democratic?

Not so far, no.

His opponents spend a great deal of time exposing his failures to work for the common good, and it is quite likely that he will be voted out quite soon.

What happens then remains to be seen.

i’d happily say he’s less democratic than maybe is optimal, I mean the basics of compartmentalizing different aspects of service administration performed by government have been diluted by appeals to populist kingdickery, and he hasn’t in an unsubstantial degree contributed to the siege mentality that plagues the country

I mean if someone said as a joke he works for the Russians, is a plant, I wouldn’t take it literally but would agree it’s quite possibly the sort of accident that could happen, inadvertently, you know discerning primary motives fromapparently unintended consequences is not a straightforward business given the low level of abstraction in that field of that sort of personality

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not so far, no.

His opponents spend a great deal of time exposing his failures to work for the common good, and it is quite likely that he will be voted out quite soon.

What happens then remains to be seen.

fair. He’s a loose cannon.

they lose their canon

Clive Palmer’s words are non-canonical.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

so altruism doesn’t exist

No, I’m not saying that altruism doesn’t exist.

But altruism is rarely an effective way to get into positions of power and stay there, and even when it does work, the next leader is unlikely to have the same attribute.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In non-democratic systems the only incentive is to cement their positions of power, and dispose of those who might contest it.

so altruism doesn’t exist

No, I’m not saying that altruism doesn’t exist.

But altruism is rarely an effective way to get into positions of power and stay there, and even when it does work, the next leader is unlikely to have the same attribute.

isn’t that why monarchy is good, altruism is genetic

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so altruism doesn’t exist

No, I’m not saying that altruism doesn’t exist.

But altruism is rarely an effective way to get into positions of power and stay there, and even when it does work, the next leader is unlikely to have the same attribute.

isn’t that why monarchy is good, altruism is genetic

History would suggest that the genetic component is pretty small.