Chris Hayes on elite failure
Why don’t American oligarchs fear the consequences of their corruption, and how can that be changed?
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/01/chris_hayes_on_elite_failure/
It is a bit repetitive to bring up the police state again so soon, but this is another very important article to read. Just as I discuss the ‘conspiracy’ of the elites, Glenn mentions it in his article:
…Hayes described how American elite culture is so insulated that it “produce[s] cognitive capture,” meaning that even those who enter it with hostility to its orthodoxies end up shaped by — succumbing to — its warped belief system and corrupt practices.
As I mentioned in my post I alluded to above, I am guilty of ‘cognitive capture’ already and I haven’t even reached the point where I can realistically discuss my joining the elite (at least from a monetary perspective). Soon we will have a charismatic leader (not unlike Hitler) who will motivate the masses to rise up. Even if he (or she) is promptly assassinated there will be plenty of people to pick up the slack. What is the chance that these people, self appointed, will actually be interested in the greatest good for the greatest number? What chance that, in the unlikely event they start out thinking that way that they will continue as such? How easy to fall into the elite trap where you (I) treat the population like sheeple that can be (are) lead around by their ignorances and biases?
The really horrifying thing to me is I can easily envision myself falling into that way of thinking were I to be struck by lightning (when running naked across a golf course at night; think about those odds! I don’t even golf!) and wind up in charge as a charismatic leader. Indeed, despite having spent decades considering forms of government that might be capable of being immune from corruption (none so far, btw) and given considerable thought to how to provide the greatest good for the greatest number (all due to my ‘fantasy’ of being able to start my own government as part of my project to establish human populations in space), I can see myself trivially falling into the trap of treating ‘ordinary’ people as idiot morons incapable of caring for themselves (regular readers will no doubt be well aware of my low opinion of humans (‘human’ is my favorite curse word, doanchano)). Given that the looming charismatic leader is, almost by default, going to be a con man in it to enrich him (her) self (lets do something different and have a _female_ revolutionary leader (and hopefully a hot one!)), how can any rational person (the three or four of us out there (see, I can’t help being one of those damn elite conspiracists)) expect that our revolutionary leaders are even looking out for the greatest good for the greatest number?
To add insult to injury (whatever that means), what likelihood is it that our charismatic revolutionary leader is actually educated in forms of leadership? Much more likely, whether or not a con man (woman), they really got no idea what they are doing and are forced to rely on advisers. What chance those advisers are not idiots just grabbing on to the coat tails for the ride?
Given the anti-science attitude in our country, I find it almost inconceivable that any revolution will spare the intellectual class and people like me will be swept up in the (here I go again) idiot sheeple ignorance as they attack _all_ educated intellectuals as they sweep up the Wall Street oligarchs.
Emigration keeps sounding better all the time. However, I will probably wind up getting caught out just like I did in the popping of the housing bubble; I just can’t seem to make things happen fast enough. Some days (today being one near the top of the list), ignorance really seems like bliss!
You continually mention “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Why is that a policy to be pursued? It does not seem to me that a reasonable goal is to increase the population, or even the relative welfare of the population, at the expense of all else.
For purely genetic evolution/advancement it seems to me that humans need a high birth rate coupled with a high death rate.
It may be that “learned” advancement is superior to genetic advancement. I would think that it’s definitely more timely. It would seem to me, however, that we’re lax in instituting the “selection” component.
No, I’m not advocating genocide. We already support a lot of useless people; we may as well support a lot more and keep them out of the loop.
Obviously, that sounds really “elitist,” an attitude that you decry, but it sounds very sensible to me, from the viewpoint of human advancement.
There are a lot of little details implicit in such a suggestion. Without going into them, I suspect that there are several good science-fiction novels that could be based on the various permutations of such a world. Heinlein would have a field day.
First, just to note, our society is NOT being operated in the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ it is being operated almost exclusively for the greatest good for the elite oligarchy at the expense of purt near everyone else. It is my opinion that by pursuing such a policy that everyone in society has the chance to improve their lot in life, though by facilitating vertical mobility one, of course, creates the risk that the elite can fall.
I believe I am on record in stating that we have too damn many people and that the average level of intelligence has diminished over time (if you haven’t seen the movie ‘Idiocracy’ you might find it as amusing as I did) as well as the firm belief that our society should make it easier for stupid people to kill themselves before they get a chance to breed. Having said that, if we, as a society, decree that all humans are good and deserve an equal chance at success in life (“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”) then it seems to me we, as a society, should be focused on maximizing the potential of the greatest number (without concurrently causing some minority to unduly suffer).
BTW, regarding your point of maximizing population, I am embarked on research that I strongly believe has the chance to allow global population to grow well past a trillion individuals. All with the potential, believe it or not, to _reduce_ the impact of humans on the globe.