005. To lead humanity
While I don't condone the violent actions objectors have taken towards the Watch, I also don't approve of this witch hunt. What happened to the openness the Watch claimed it would maintain? They aren't even off the ground and already they are trying to suppress negative opinions
( Read more... )
I strongly suspect that you either are human or look entirely human on the outside, Aurora.
[He has circled "numerous specialized groups would ensure that the most able people were in their position and prevent others from abusing their power"]
Their existence brought about by whom? Their members chosen by whom? Legitimized by whom? How will they define "most able?" How will they define "abuse of power?" In this system you propose, where it seems manipulation of public opinion is the way to power regardless of aptitude for leadership, intelligence, strength, or wisdom, why do you sound skeptical that someone unsuited would get through such a rigorous screening process?
One more question--or request for a definition, if you will: What do you, the populist and anti-authoritarian, consider "pushing for enough to make everyone see?"
Reply
I have faith in the people's potential, not who they are now. If given enough information upon their birth, such as an instructional manual, they would start off properly informed before they are influenced by unnecessary factors. Or perhaps allowing only those who have been here a sufficient amount of time to vote would work. Information such as a person's intentions and contributions to Edensphere are safe enough that they could be shared freely.
How does being human factor into your argument?
It's impossible for a system run by the people here to be 100% impartial; they are imperfect and moved too much by their emotions. That is why so many precautions must be taken. To decide on everything, the best way would be for those with ideas to present them, along with an argument for why their proposal is the correct one, and then allowing people to vote. If the ideas and arguments are kept anonymous, it would curb bias.
The lengths I would go to depends on the estimated gain.
-Aurora
Reply
Then, how long to cultivate this potential? I've yet to meet anyone who's been here more than a year, myself. Public opinion is--[pause, he's pinging himself here, but he continues on]--fickle, inconstant, unreliable at the best of times. In a place like this, a week could potentially bring about such a change that what was lauded yesterday is anathema to the people tomorrow. As for these proposed manuals--who will write them? Under whose authority will they be edited, reviewed, updated, and published? How will you keep partisans and other biased individuals from bribing or threatening their way to a favorable mention for themselves or a poor representation of the enemy?
You still don't understand? If I were to refer to this as analogous to the situation of men and women in Edensphere, would that help?
You favor rule of the people, yet you find them imperfect and overly emotional? I fear I do not understand. A system of rule by judges would best favor cold logic, which I infer you prefer over emotionality. If you were to advance rule of the people I would think you would champion the common man's heart and soul or some such, rather than an intellectual, logical, ultimately elitist approach.
That anonymous approach...what would happen should someone be gifted with the solution to any one problem, but not the gift of wordplay, as is common in many cases? Perhaps they could hire a skilled writer to convey their ideas, but that could only work for people of means. Conversely, a manipulative wordsmith could make even the most ludicrous of plans look feasible on paper, and should they not care to advance their own public position could easily hire themselves out. And what to do about charlatans imitating the style of more popular, etc. Edensphere residents? Since I suspect you will propose some form of committee to oversee this, I shall ask now: Formed by whom, composed of whom, overseen by whom, and answers to whom?
The estimated gain to this world, to this world's people, or to yourself?
Reply
As long as it takes; for such a delicate operation, it shouldn't be pushed any more than is necessary. I will admit that I don't know exactly how to accomplish this task, but I do think a manner exists. The manuals would be written in the most straightforward manner possible, avoiding the mention of specific people by name to avoid bias towards them and keeping descriptions for all places and jobs to the same formula and sentence count. If everyone oversaw the process, it would create an environment where bribery or other such improbable actions would be easy to spot and those who would be prone to them would avoid doing so, due to the high chances of being caught. Should they still decide go through with it, they would, as I mentioned, be noticed and stopped.
No, it wouldn't. Gender is even more trivial.
I realize it's hypocritical, that what I feel does not always correspond to what I know is right. In my mind the ideal situation is that the people are logical and intellectual, and thus their rule would be just and practical.
That is easy enough to solve. All we would need to do is impose a format for all submitted ideas, such as a concise, bullet-point style, and the predominant use of facts over poetry. People would be able to make decision based on the merit of the idea instead of how well someone can write. To avoid recognition by handwriting, all ideas would be re-written by one person before being distributed. In terms of a committee, I'm not sure. I would have to think more on that matter, but I suspect having weekly meetings in the style of a forum would be my proposal.
To myself and my people, which means by proxy this world, because we are stuck in it.
-Aurora
Reply
Leave a comment