Half of the population is above average intelligence,
and that half is better at communication...
The point is, that without active and conscious
participation you cannot affect any change;
so we have no choice but to go for democracy.
Every option has risks, this one has the
most chance. Cooperation was always the main
survivor feature of humans, more and
more wide-ranging and integrated over
the centuries, with tyranny and chauvinism
the periodical backswing.
Global conscious collectivity
seems to be the next logical progression -
hopefully, this time leaving no chance
(uninformed, left-out mass base) for
medieval reaction.
Contempt for humanity have never worked,
for sure.
Eva
>
> It seems to me you have been advocating a society with cooperative
> ownership - a variety of democratic socialism - along with large
> amounts of direct democracy. The problem is there is no guarantee
> that large amounts of direct democracy will necessarily result in
> the society you envision. It is by no means clear that letting
> people participate in the day to day decisions of government
> directly will result in enlightened policy. Not that it might
> be any worse than what we have now, but it might certainly go
> in a completely different direction than you expect. Remember,
> half the population are of below average intelligence, and there
> is a reason why the word "demagogue" is in our vocabulary.
>
> -PV
>
>
