Comments and questions to London Futurists Future of Democracy
[ 6/12/20 ]
From Me to Everyone: 05:16 AM
Why do we accept rule?
We need to accept that all systems require boundaries for existence, and real freedom need to accept the existence of the real boundaries required for every level of sapient system in existence.
We need to value all levels of sapient individual.
We need to value the freedom of all individuals that accept the value of the life and liberty of others.
If accept the rule of these values, then we can develop cooperative systems that respect life and liberty.
From Allen Crowley to Everyone: 05:18 AM
Yes it is a balance between democracy and individual rights
From David Wood to Everyone: 05:26 AM
Many thanks for the very interesting comments in this chat window.
If anyone has a specific question for George to answer, please enter it into the Q&A window – where other attendees will have a chance to give it a thumbs up if they also want it to be answered
From Me to Everyone: 05:27 AM
To me it is much deeper.
It seems to me that a deep understanding of evolution and complexity and fundamental uncertainty actually makes clear that our survival is based on creating new levels of cooperation and freedom. Automation eliminates the idea of jobs, and actually empowers freedom.
The very idea of money, that has been such a powerful tool in the last few millennia, is now an existential level threat. We must transcend it if we wish to survive.
Distribute automated production removes the need for exchange, but not the need for social relationships.
UBI can be a useful transition strategy only, it is not any sort of long term solution.
[In Questions window]
Ted Howard (You) 05:35 AM
And I acknowledge that transition is extremely complex, and such transition seems to me to be required for our survival. Accepting this seems beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt to be required if we wish to survive. Evolution seems to be demanding a new level of cooperation. The twin tyrrannies (majority and minority) need to be avoided.
Competitive markets now seem (beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt) to pose existential level risk.
Why do you wish to retain the scarcity based system of markets when we have the automated tools to eliminate scarcity?
Why are you not examining abundance based alternatives?
[Achieved maximal upvotes – +9 – next got +6]
[Answered with a very simplistic explanation of the evolution of money, and claimed markets and competition were responsible for the innovation we experience.
]
Ted Howard (You) 06:02 AM
Innovation is not linked to markets or competition.
That is a common logical error.
[To me, the innovation we see in recent history is only loosely and indirectly connected to markets, and had much more to do with the reduction of central control and the increase of individual freedom and reduction of multiple levels of central control based on historical ways (including challenge to various levels of “Truth”).]
Ted Howard (You) 06:26 AM
New Zealand has effectively dealt with Covid, arguably better than China, and I get the thrust of your argument.
Ted Howard (You) 06:27 AM
Arohanui David and team. Agree with George we need to be the change!
