Basic Orientation
Book1: R-E Living & "Homo Rationalis"
Book2: Humanianity
Book3: Mind-Body Problem
Book4: (Future Possible Development)
Child Rearing Issues
Philosophico-Religious Issues
Psycho-Socio-Cultural Issues
The Twelve Articles
01 Our Future
02 Difference of Opinion
03 Our Anger
04 Punishing Children
05 Child Rearing
06 Our Biggest Problem
07 Evils of Justice
08 Cultural Victimization
09 Rational-Ethical Religion
10 Rational-Ethical Government
11 Global Human Zoo
12 "Homo Rationalis" Wants YOU
Relevant Autobiography
 
"HOMO RATIONALIS" AND HUMANIANITY
 
HELPING TO PROMOTE OUR THIRD EXPONENTIAL CHANGE
 

10. RATIONAL-ETHICAL GOVERNMENT



In this tenth of twelve monthly articles (available with free "textbook" at HomoRationalis.com), I continue to describe what I believe will be the ultimate maturation of our now-just-a-toddler species. We then, for the first time, will cease causing ourselves enormous pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED). We will have undergone our third exponential change, from authoritarian ethics (we should obey the most powerful) to rational ethics (we should do what will promote, not only our survival, but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future). (The first two changes were the development of language and the development of science/technology.)


Democracy is quite an improvement over the more naturally occurring dictatorship, in which decisions are made by the most powerful (dangerous). Democratic decision-making is by discussion, voting, and representation, not by dominance and submission. But do democracies obviously make good decisions? For decisions regarding your brain surgery, would you take a vote of hospital staff?


Let us imagine a government we have not yet seen, feasible only sometime in the far future, after we bring about certain changes in ourselves individually, culturally, and globally. Some sort of representation will still be necessary, but how should representatives be chosen, and whom should they represent? Optimal choice of representatives requires two kinds of knowledge about the candidates.


First is knowledge of the candidate’s "education" in the appropriate areas, provided by certified academic institutions and by on-the-job training. It is fairly easily tested.


Second, however, is "personality," a person’s basic behavioral tendencies, produced by life experience, especially child rearing. A highly educated person may still have "personality problems" interfering with rational decision-making. "Personality testing" is rather fallible. Preferably, the candidate should be evaluated by those with whom the candidate interacts on an ongoing basis, especially in a small working group (small enough that everyone knows each other, but large enough to reduce personal bias, perhaps 15-25 people). If the group also had knowledge of the educational status of its members, it could easily elect one of its members to represent itself.


So now imagine a world government consisting of a pyramidal hierarchy of such small groups, each sending their most trusted member to represent them in the next higher level group. The lowest level group would be that of the family or household, the next higher level being that of the neighborhood. Successively higher level groups would cover ever larger geographic areas, the highest level group representing the globe. Issues would be decided upon at the level that seemed most appropriate. Neighborhood groups and other low-level groups would not require much time from their members. Higher-level groups would require greater amounts of time, the highest level groups requiring that membership be a full-time occupation. A member in a higher level group would be excused from some lower level groups, those groups choosing alternative representatives.


But simply having a hierarchy of groups would not guarantee good decision-making. Their dedication to intensive friendly debate of any difference of opinion, and their extreme honoring of science, will be needed to acquire the greatest accuracy of belief, and thus to avoid mistakes producing PSDED. These groups would be exposed to the best of information and opinion from outside the groups, provided by information technology and peer-reviewed journalism.


Secrecy is purposeful deprivation of accurate belief, generally to dominate and/or disable. We believe very much in secrecy (e.g., "privacy" and "classified knowledge"). We mistrust one another because we treat each other so badly (punishment, revenge, and angry predation) and have such great difficulty understanding and empathizing with one another. When we finally stop being our most feared predator, we will truly value openness of communication, the sharing of knowledge, and the importance of everyone understanding as much as possible why decisions are made. Our children will be trained in these values and skills, which do not come naturally, in family meetings, where we will model how our species will one day operate globally. But required first will be our understanding and use of rational-ethical child rearing, described somewhat in earlier articles, and in the "textbook."


"Homo rationalis" will look to their (non-punitive) government for fairness, support, and understanding, just as children will look to their parents as allies against the problems in life.


If indeed "Homo rationalis" will have ended most human-induced PSDED, how much would you want to have been a part of bringing this about? Are you willing to study, discuss, understand, and advocate? And question your current beliefs?


To be continued….