Introduction - Chapter 7/1

[HarryStottle]

Chapter 7 has become a monster. I currently anticipate it will require 5 sections. Almost a book in its own right.

can be found here. It begins the exploration of how the Universal Theory of Behaviour (see Chapter 6) morphs into the evolution of our social decision making processes. I outline our political developments from the Stone Age through to modern manipulated mankind and spell out how Authoritarianism has out-evolved Democracy.

[trilemmaman]

Well done! I particularly liked the details around Democracy's failure in Athens. I'm a little surprised you still put hope in it as an overarching possibility for peaceful and sustainable planetary decision making.

I heard an explanation by Supreme Court Justice Kennedy about 13 years ago that captured my heart and mind.
He was giving a talk to a crowd about "the Rule of Law" in the context of US government vs other governments.
The question asked: What do you think makes the Rule of law work?
His answer as I remember and jotted it down at the time.
For the Rule of Law to be most effective, it requires at least three basic elements.
1. The laws have to be made and enforce by a democratic process; People want a say regarding the laws they live under. But Democracy isn't enough. (and gave examples)
2. The laws must be applied equally to all. no one's above the law.... (I interpreted this to mean 'fair'...just...).
('now I'm really starting to like what he was saying...but it was the third element that really hooked me ...line and sinker)
3. The laws had to be protective of a certain set of inalienable rights. Rights that we have just because we are born. Not because we are white. Male. Wealthy...
He mentioned the Bill of Rights. I was thinking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And when i think of the process, discussions, vote and context in which this uncontested passage of ideals came about, I'm convinced it could become the foundation of a democratic world federation, that could prevent, and far better respond to most of the human and nonhuman threats we face now -- and into the future. (thinking Star Treks' Federation of planets...)

I'm curious to know your thoughts.

[HarryStottle]

[trilemmaman]

Harry,

Correct. I’m not so much concerned with the low caliber of voter raw material. And, I know I should be. In my world view the enforcement of human rights, access to basic education and higher education would partially remedy that problem. But as other wiser souls have said:
"there are two things I know to be infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely convinced about the former" Albert Einstein
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche
“To be well-adjusted to our world should now be considered a serious mental illness by the American Psychiatric Institute.” Bob McCormack.

It IS “mob rule” that most concerns me. And I believe a bill of rights can overrule it if we recognize human rights as natural rights…thus natural law. A background in biology leads me to believe (with little actual evidence) that many of the fundamental rights outlined in UDHR, are genetically based in humans. That fairness and common support for others like us…is genetically programed. (Empathy?) I’m confident (though no study has yet proved it) that ‘justice’ has a genetic basis in both human and some non-human life forms. If an organism wasn’t somehow aware of another taking advantage of it…it would be less likely to pass on it’s genes to the next generation.

If a human was unaware of being treated unfairly, I’m relatively confident it would be enough of a disadvantage in daily life, that his or her genetic profile would be less likely to be passed on to future generations. Amplify this weakness times a thousand generations and I’m relatively confident scientists will eventually document a genetic component for fairness…and thus eventually the legal need for justice, to prevent violent conflict.

I’m relatively confident that this effect applies to the animal world as well. How far down the evolutionary tree it goes I’m not sure but here are three personal observations that leave me thinking it exists in lower life forms.

1. Watching a “Funniest home video” segment a mother and child interaction with a Lama. The mother and child were standing side by side directly across the fence from the Lama. The child threw something an hit the lama in the face. Its head jolted back. The child then ducked behind his mother. The Lama did nothing until the child stepped back out from behind his mother. Then the Lama spit at the child.

2. My wife and I had a very loving dog to us and our young children. Only showing mild aggression around some other dogs. Never people. She would play with me but tended to avoid the kids unless they had food. I’m fairly confident of my ‘macho’ dominance in the family hierarchy (essentially the ‘alpha’ dog of our cave). But, one time I started rough housing with my children. Playfully, they screamed in wretched agony from my animalistic “claw hold” fingers digging into their arm pits. The dog growled and lunged at me nipping me with her teeth nearly drawing blood. End of play time! The dog actually looked guilty… and skulked away.

3. Watching a nature channel TV program on starfish the scientists filmed the starfish interactions in time lapse photography (to speed up the movements for us impatient TV viewers). There were essentially two different species of star fish competing for the same food source. What surprised the scientist (and this viewer) was that the starfish that reached the food source first (regardless of the size of the starfish) went unchallenged by other starfish. There could be some other possibilities than a genetic based behavioral component to such ‘fairness’ but I can’t imagine what it would be.

Scientific American Mind » March 2012 Head Lines | Mind & Brain
Infants Possess a Sense of Justice: Infants may understand fairness and sharing earlier than expected
By Lena Groeger | April 6, 2012 | 5
Well before “not fair!” becomes a staple phrase of your child’s spoken repertoire, he or she might already have a fundamental grasp of right and wrong. A study published last October in PLoS One found that 15-month-old infants could identify unequal distributions of food and drink and that this sense of fairness was connected to their own willingness to share.
To measure these moral sentiments, researchers first had the children watch movies of an actor distributing food, either equally or unequally, between two people. Most of the toddlers spent more time looking at the unequal outcome, suggesting it surprised them by violating their basic sense of fair¬ness. Next, every child picked his or her favorite of two new toys, and the researchers then asked the kids to share one of the toys. Of the infants who shared their favorite toy, 92 percent had also been surprised by the unfair outcome in the videos.

Scientists have typically thought that other-regarding preferences—which may have played an important role in the evolutionary history of human cooperation—emerge in early or mid-childhood, around the ages of seven or eight. This study suggests that they may develop as early as the second year of life and that those early moral judgments and behaviors are more closely intertwined than ever expected.

This article was published in print as "Baby Justice."
“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” Charles Darwin, 1873.

I’m wondering if your assertion that “the brain is indeed hard wired for "conformity" is at least to some degree linked to this life force necessity for fairness. Conformity certainly has a survival value as you propose. But so would fairness.
I really like your #4 “Adopt formal structures for propositions and counter-propositions”

The formal structures for any democratic proposition need to be in the form of up to 7 sub propositions:-
1 There is a problem which needs a solution (evidence)
2 There is a potential solution (detail)
3 There are potential risks with the solution and ways to mitigate them (detail)
4 There are potential costs and ways to fund them (details)
5 There are interim and final outcomes we can measure to ensure that the benefits are being achieved and the risks avoided. (detail)
6 A level of compliance is required (detail)
7 Measures to ensure compliance are required (detail)

1. Injustice (hunger, genocide, war, terrorism, easily preventable infectious diseases, rape…)
2. Enforcement of UDHR.
3. Resistance to cost of enforcement… document costs of not preventing them.
4. There is no shortage of money for wars or weapons development.
5. Collateral damage? Lowered IMR, U5MR. Fewer pandemics, bioterror events…
6. All people covered regardless of sex, religion, race, nationality…
7. Prison terms for policy makers or enforcement officers who fail to ensure universal human security.

You state “For equally practical reasons, however, we cannot permit minority Dissent to block the majority decision but it must be allowed full exposure and its objections must be answered to the satisfaction of the forum.” What if that satisfaction isn’t reached and a minority dissent isn’t justly accommodated.

You say “I too am a pragmatist. I am only interested in "what works". But my starting position is that - very obviously - the way Society is run today Doesn't Work - not even for the narrow elite who benefit most from it.” I couldn’t agree more. What does appear to work…is the number of federations in the world where human rights are actually respected and enforced legally.
You propose: “a democratic and anarchist solution not because it is inherently "nicer" (though I believe it will be) but because it is more likely to meet my primary objective of promoting the survival of our species” According to Albert Einstein and Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek’s federation of planets) your logic is weak.

You say “the ongoing failure of revolutionary politics. First is that while they can generally all agree on the nature of the Problem, they can't agree on the nature of the solution. A divided opposition can never defeat the incumbents. But secondly and more seriously the biggest intellectual failure is that they have never really appreciated the scale of the task which confronts them. They hate the system, so fine, let's destroy the system.” The system of national sovereignty reining supreme over human rights must be destroyed.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
-- Albert Einstein

You suggest “Even the consensus I advocate doesn't detect "right answers". All we can detect is agreement.” This appears to contradict your purpose of saving our species. “Saving our species” appears to you and I (and I’m hoping many more like us) to be the right answer!

You suggest that the fear of “mob rule” is “the desire to make Tyranny impossible.” I’d rephrase that to say “the desire is to prevent the abuse of minorities”. I don’t believe most Southerners or Northerners prior to the Civil war would have considered the US government a tyranny. But I’m guessing slaves would have. Most important. There’s always the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution (and I wouldn’t support a Universal Bill of Rights without something comparable), as a failsafe to any level of tyrannical government.

You state those fearing “Mob Rule” use a “constitution” to “prevent the emergence of tyranny by outlawing tyrannical practices.” That’s not entirely accurate. Our Constitution does essentially assert that ‘tyrannical practices’ are outlawed, but it provides us with the 2nd Amendment so such practices can be effectively nullified, even by a minority. The only way the 2nd Amendment can be abolished is by a super majority democratic process (a real danger). But even if passed, disarmament could never be effectively enforced not even with a Nazi like police state.

RE: Upgrade To Athenian Democracy, three changes:
It seems like deciding “who we INCLUDE in a particular decision” would be endlessly contentious just deciding who “we” is… and “who” would be included in “a particular decision”.

RE: “fully respects the ability of a minority to opt out or be compensated if their interests are impacted by a majority decision.” This is what leads to armed conflict. Who decides how much the compensation is…and who would pay it? Imagine trying to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian issue using even the most fool proof form of democracy. Enforcing human rights has a chance if there is enforcement capacity in a federation.

Regarding your “reason for optimism”. Latest studies on optimists suggest that optimists are more likely to fail in achieving their objective -- because they are less likely to see (and thus adjust for) the inevitable barriers. One may be able to anticipate many or even most barriers, but it’s that little one not anticipated (because of the optimism?) that sinks the ship. Even rocket scientists overlook obvious barriers to success (see: O-rings miscalculation on first Shuttle Disaster during launch – and the insulation miscalculation on second Shuttle disaster during reentry.)

And “persuade enough people”? That IS the chore ahead of us. And I’m ‘optimistic’ that putting the protection of a specific list of inalienable human rights above any majority vote, corporate right or national right … will attract the support of most people. And your brain power and writing skills will play a significant role.

Your list of Fact checker sites is priceless! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!