Modern democracy needs regular and active involvement of citizens

[myata]

It cannot operate in the centuries old frame of dancing a democracy ritual once in so many years followed by complete detachment and delegation of all decisions to the enlightened ones. That creates the setting and platform for the entertainment, circus style politics with the inevitable downfall experienced countless times throughout the history. Except this time, it can be different because the dictators have worked out and perfected the technology of a permanent control over the society, that is not limited in time. It may only take one episode for the democracy to fall and remain a brief episode in the history of tyranny, suppression and control. North Korea, Iran, Russia, China you name it. It's no coincidence and neither, historical aberration.

Change, adapt or perish: this is the one law of evolution. Modern democracies must find a way to keep the involvement of citizens at most or all times, in a responsible and reason-based process of coming to important and critical decisions. Or, they (may) will degrade and perish. Circus democracy is only a step away from the slip into tyranny. The lessons of history are very clear in this regard.

Edited September 9 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

Huh ?  18th century and ancient democracies were a better model, and our current practice needs to reintegrate aspects of those.  The same factors that streamline consumer society have been applied to democracy and it's not working anymore.

[myata]

If citizens are not involved in the function of democracy regularly, routinely and meaningfully, they inevitably begin to see it a service, shop and/or entertainment and not as a matter of their direct and essential responsibility. This setting cannot last indefinitely. The progression goes from entertainment, to circus and on to some form of tyranny/dictatorship or oligarchy.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

If citizens are not involved in the function of democracy regularly, routinely and meaningfully, they inevitably begin to see it a service, shop and/or entertainment and not as a matter of their direct and essential responsibility. This setting cannot last indefinitely. The progression goes from entertainment, to circus and on to some form of tyranny/dictatorship or oligarchy.

Would that have happened in the 18th century ?  "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is the book that addresses this in depth.

[myata]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Would that have happened in the 18th century ?

Many things were different back then. Conventions and traditions worked for example. The time has moved on and there's no turning it back. Modern democracies have to find ways to involve citizens in a responsible and meaningful participation in democratic governing or face a very real possibility of extinction.

Because where a large segment of citizens have abandoned, or don't care about: reason; integrity; responsibility and accountability of their governments, democracy will part and no miracles could keep it in place. There are no such miracles. The price of a slide to circus democracy is its degradation and in the end, demise.

[herbie]

Partly correct myata.

However many will think active participation is clicking a button on their phone or computer or emailing their worthless opinions to some data collection service.

Get off their asses and go to a constituency meeting? Attend a townhall and see who will reveal actual policy? No way man, The Masked Singer is on......

[myata]

56 minutes ago, herbie said:

However many will think active participation is clicking a button on their phone or computer or emailing their worthless opinions to some data collection service.

Get off their asses and go to a constituency meeting?

There's some truth to it, much time was lost in coasting, while the reality of life was changing at unprecedented pace. The place and involvement of citizens has to evolve with the reality of their lives not at the last resort possible and if the stars align. There's nothing wrong with the technology if it's serving the right purpose and the citizens are interested and involved. And in the opposite direction, we're bound to run into the old tried and trodden bread and circuses thing, it's only a matter of time, not if.

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Amusing Ourselves to Death"

There was an experiment with rats, where having learned to press the lever that released a dollop of sugar they couldn't stop doing that until it lost all sense and was doing them harm, still couldn't stop. Animals, who humans originated from evolved in a natural environment where scarcity was common and abundance, rare.  Continuous, ongoing abundance of everything confuses and baffles them to the point where the entire system based on rational perception of the reality may fail. Look I have this button and if I need anything I'll just push it again and then, more. Is there a quicker way to extinction?

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Animals, who humans originated from evolved in a natural environment where scarcity was common and abundance, rare.  Continuous, ongoing abundance of everything confuses and baffles them to the point where the entire system based on rational perception of the reality may fail. 

1. Well, that's for sure.  Our cognitive functions, and our social functions for group measure evolved to thrive in a certain framework which we can't recreate anymore.  There need to be aspects of competition, cooperation, leadership and followship in balance.  

A society that lies to the consumer in order to get their attention and their business is a bad breeding ground for citizenry.

[myata]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A society that lies to the consumer in order to get their attention and their business is a bad breeding ground for citizenry.

Well the status quo is running into the wall. And the clearest symptom is the descent of all kinds of guru, idols and shamans. After all the attempts and trials, at times hard even desperate we're back to the drawing board again.

[herbie]

You're touting the benefits of technology without realizing the reality of how it gets used in a modern capitalist society. Like thinking it's more convenient to scan and bag your own stuff at the store. Like blindly acceptiing decades ago that the bank machine that doesn't require training, cost hourly wages and benefits, coffee breakes, maternity leave etc "cost them so much" you been paying added trabnsaction fees.
And my point remains that democracy is real participation, not some half assed nuisance you hand over to SyNet to deliver some Black Mirror version of a democratic system with all that's risks and flaws. You bloody well know your name, address, SIN and how you voted will be stored 'in the cloud' and sold to the highest bidder, intentionally or by hackers.

[myata]

11 hours ago, herbie said:

And my point remains that democracy is real participation, not some half assed nuisance you hand over

I can agree that genuine, meaningful and involved participation of citizens is needed for democracy to keep running, rather than some quick and superficial surrogates.

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, herbie said:

You're touting the benefits of technology without realizing the reality of how it gets used in a modern capitalist society. Like thinking it's more convenient to scan and bag your own stuff at the store. Like blindly acceptiing decades ago that the bank machine that doesn't require training, cost hourly wages and benefits, coffee breakes, maternity leave etc "cost them so much" you been paying added trabnsaction fees.
And my point remains that democracy is real participation, not some half assed nuisance you hand over to SyNet to deliver some Black Mirror version of a democratic system with all that's risks and flaws. You bloody well know your name, address, SIN and how you voted will be stored 'in the cloud' and sold to the highest bidder, intentionally or by hackers.

I don't think we blindly accept technology, the value is apparent to anyone who has eyes. 

Perhaps true democracy would spread the benefits more equitably.

[herbie]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think we blindly accept technology

Say that next family reunion when 12 grandkids are sitting silently on their phones with the cousins they haven't seen in 3 years. Or the lady standing in a crowd talking loudly to someone who's not there. Or the Boss that texts or emails off hours and actually expects you to instantly respond.

Of course it's a natural progression of Alexander Graham Bells telephone, but tech advances are seldom monitored for societal disruption, that's just the most blatant example.

Teach kids to manage money when banking is just waving your watch, worry about online bullying etc, people who expect their Tesla to drive them through rush hour, porch pirates... etc  etc  etc

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Say that next family reunion when 12 grandkids are sitting silently on their phones with the cousins they haven't seen in 3 years. Or the lady standing in a crowd talking loudly to someone who's not there. Or the Boss that texts or emails off hours and actually expects you to instantly respond.

Of course it's a natural progression of Alexander Graham Bells telephone, but tech advances are seldom monitored for societal disruption, that's just the most blatant example.

Teach kids to manage money when banking is just waving your watch, worry about online bullying etc, people who expect their Tesla to drive them through rush hour, porch pirates... etc  etc  etc

Still, it's not blind acceptance.  Lots of people are aware of the pitfalls and mitigate it.

Your post strikes me as griping against change.  The wheelbarrow had its pitfalls too.  McLuhan pointed out that technology arrives in time to solve the problems that it starts causing and if you think about it, it makes sense.  Social media arrived to solve the problem of information hoarding and lack of access to good information.  Now look how good we have it  

[herbie]

Not griping against change at all. Read any of my post history and you can see my complaint is how others can't or won't.
This one's how many of them do accept change. Blindly, unaware of what is simply sold to them, without the faintest or totally wrong knowledge about what's changing.

When I was a kid people paid me to hook up their stereos - 4 speaker wires was too confusing
Installing landlines, had a lady simply rip the jacks off the wall, glue them somewhere else in the house and call in screaming that they didn't work.
These days panicking over having to click the Settings button on a phone, WTF a 'menu' is on a computer, believing spy satellites in orbit can see up their skirt, without the slightest clue how a car, a computer or a dishwasher works. Holding up a checkout line yakking on a phone, never so much as touched the Cruise Control button on all cars made in the last 40 years - and FFS I could wear your ears out with tech related examples.

FFS I must be an elitist, cuz I worked on two STV initiatives the were just too hard to figure out for a lot of people, spent thousands changing accounting systems and software and back again for those same dummies who thought TWO taxes were better an simpler than ONE, and I sure as hell don't want to see democracy cater to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

1. Not griping against change at all. Read any of my post history and you can see my complaint is how others can't or won't.

2. This one's how many of them do accept change. Blindly, unaware of what is simply sold to them, without the faintest or totally wrong knowledge about what's changing.

 

1. Well you don't seem thrilled about self checkout machines for example.

2. There's a sweet spot in between...

[TreeBeard]

On 9/10/2024 at 4:05 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Well you don't seem thrilled about self checkout machines for example.

Why should society embrace a change that makes more corporate profits but employs less people?  Where are those cashiers now?  Was there a plan to deal with the fallout?  Of course not.  How is more profit for Sobeys better than less people with money to pay for rent and food?

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why should society embrace a change that makes more corporate profits but employs less people?  Where are those cashiers now?  Was there a plan to deal with the fallout?  Of course not.  How is more profit for Sobeys better than less people with money to pay for rent and food?

Our co-op voted for self checkouts to speed things up. The argument about increasing corporate profits didn't enter into the discussion. It was all about the crowds of customers, mostly tourists, clogging checkout aisles.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Our co-op voted for self checkouts to speed things up. The argument about increasing corporate profits didn't enter into the discussion. It was all about the crowds of customers, mostly tourists, clogging checkout aisles.

Fair enough for a small and busy grocery store.  The motivation can be different.  But Sobeys motivation isn’t the same as your co-op.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Why should society embrace a change that makes more corporate profits but employs less people?   

The technology is only part of the problem.  The real problem is social.

 

Or are you anti wheelbarrow? 🤔

Society is bad at sharing the spoils of technology... Therefore, let's not introduce new technology. 

 

🤔

[TreeBeard]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The technology is only part of the problem.  The real problem is social.

 

Or are you anti wheelbarrow? 🤔

Society is bad at sharing the spoils of technology... Therefore, let's not introduce new technology. 

 

🤔

I don’t think the technology itself is a part of the problem at all.  It’s 100% social policy. 
 

Is it appropriate to point out the issues of automation and to potentially delay some of its implementation until there is a social solution to the issues that it causes?

When someone “hates” self checkouts, is it the technology they hate or the consequences of not having a social policy in place to alleviate the suffering caused by its implementation?

 

Edited September 20 by TreeBeard

[herbie]

Your six year old can handle technology just fine. The entrenched old farts in govt and Head Office can't.

Private space missions dreaming of Mars and Moon colonies that can barely make the ISS in 50 years of trying.
Billions into self driving cars as if we'd rather be clients than drivers.
Streaming services that devolved into cable "packages"
Web apps and self checkouts that make you do the work instead of employees.
Speaking of web apps, the sheer number that don't f*cking work but some senior manager bought them without even having a user test them.

Common sense isn't.
Especially when those lacking any at all proclaim they're the ones with it.

[eyeball]

On 9/24/2024 at 3:20 PM, herbie said:

Web apps and self checkouts that make you do the work instead of employees.

It's not a burden and often quicker,  especially if I need to ring certain things through separately for tax purposes.

I read about stores in China where the cart is the checkout. You just push it up and down the aisle and scan everything you put into it. It debits your account and you head straight out the door to the car when you're finished. 

[herbie]

Did you get a discount or get paid? Then you're effectively scabbing. Quicker and more convenient can be accomplished with more cashiers.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, herbie said:

Did you get a discount or get paid? Then you're effectively scabbing. Quicker and more convenient can be accomplished with more cashiers.

You're not focusing in the right place.  If it weren't a monopoly, the operational savings would eventually result in lower prices.  That's economics...