MrPopo wrote: Right, that's why we have politicans who spend all their free time educating themselves on the issues they are responsible to vote on.
Oh wait...
Are you implying that all politicians are scientists and engineers? In current system politicians are selected because they are popular. Popularity can be bought. Current politicians are not given the jobs because their skills are superioir, they are selected because they have more money to give to ad campaigns, they have better connections, they look better than their opponents and they know what to say/lie to people to make them like them.Technocracy is a form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.[1]
On the large scale of things, their money is only useful when they keep on investing it.So because you don't see their contributions as worthy enough you get to decide that you can take most of their income and spend it on what you consider to be worthy pursuits. As arbitrary criterea go, this one's pretty terrible.
Organized and selfish people who are being paid to put that money on a good use, whose jobs are being constantly monitored and who might face a life time in prision if they misuse their power.You do realize that organized group is just a collection of selfish and short sighted people.
So if all systems are flawed by default, it's better to have an imperfect system where the ultimate purporse is to serve a very small minority of people than to have an imperfect system where the ultimate purporse is to serve mankind as a whole, even if it means that the top one % of people who already have it better than any one else might have to share? Society is a group of people acting together, and it's not a law of nature that most tax payers are willing to support a system which directs all the resources to a small elite forever.Everything slides into decadence and corruption because that's just how people are. There is no force in nature that can stop it.
An armed nation can't be oppressed by it's own government. Transparency makes sure that any one can check that the tax money is really going where it's supposed to be going. No need for conspiracy theories and talks about The Man, problem solved.Right, transparent autocracy held in check by civilian militias. I can see no contradiction there.
Unless the mindset is that people from third world countries are genetically inferioir, then the same methods that worked with current first world countries should work on them. Like I said, most first world countries wouldn't have any population growth with out immigration.Oh, is that all? I thought it'd be hard.
In order to achieve that, you must eliminate the problems in third world countries that keep them from progressing. If they cant become economically self-sufficient and weed out things like war and corruption, then they cant make progress.
You can read online why exactly our current method of foreign aid is actually harming third world countries more than helping, and why many third world economists would want us to stop giving them it.
Yes. What happened to that decadent human nature? That corrupt human nature that has been causing wars and killing people for thousands of years for the personal gain of the few?I'm pretty sure you just implied that at some point the industrialized nations will engage in the largest organized genocide since WWII if the world population grows too large.
So you are saying that those rich people, who shouldn't be forced to share their resources at the current moment to prevent a scenario like this from happening, will just gladly start sharing with the poor once things start to look bad?
