We Can Marry Democratic And Authoritarian Values Into One!

The above video tries to explore the idea of marrying Democracy and Meritocracy values into one system.  In real life, currently, we do not have a system in which both values could be incorporated in a balance manner.  For an example, in the West, Democracy is being valued more, thus the systems lean toward mediocre leaders with greatest popularity.  In the East, the opposite case mostly occurs.  Still, there probably are situations that smooth sailing does occur for the West, and bad sailing does occur for the East.  This is a luck and bad luck happenstances.  For an example, the people in the West might just pick the best leaders by chance, thus the system could be run by the most popular leaders who are not mediocre.  In the East, bad luck could occur, thus the system could have corrupted, mediocre leaders who hold the positions of power and don’t want to relinquish such powerful positions — thus they become unpopular for sure.

The luck and bad luck happenstances are the unexpected elements, thus these things are beyond the control of the system.  What people want are the system that can be configured in a way that ensures the highest chance of electing the best leaders that could run the country in the best manner if possible.  Unfortunately, electing is more of a popularity contest than electing the best leaders.  Why?  Election is about who got more votes, and thus in theory anyone could be running for a position to get votes.  Strangers vote for each other — it’s more about who appears to be the most competence gets the popularity — thus getting the position.  In the Meritocracy system, a pretender who could keep the act together might also appear to be competence, thus fooling the previous leaders who vouch for his or her promotion.  Still, the Meritocracy system is built to ensure the highest chance of picking leaders according to meritocracy values.

When marrying Democracy with Meritocracy, we’re running into a direct conflict.  Democracy encourages the priority of voting while Meritocracy encourages the priority of strictly observing/testing before a promotion.  Thus, in reality we don’t see any system which distributes equal powers to Democracy and Meritocracy.  In China, I think some local regions do have elections, but it’s obviously one party state — so there is no true election at the very top.  So the true dilemma is how are we marrying the Democracy and Meritocracy together?

I have an idea!  Why don’t we have a constitution that ensures a house of Democracy which governs by election, but the house of Democracy is there to examine the performances of the most popular leaders who had gotten the positions through the voting process.  After the leaders’ terms are up, they need to be either promoted to longer term positions according to their performance-report-cards, but if their performances are poor they could be demoted or even be impeached.  Once they got promoted to longer term positions they could move into the house of Meritocracy.  Still, even once they reach the house of Meritocracy, more examinations must be done to ensure that the leaders within the house of Meritocracy are truly excellent.  If they’re just pretending to be excellent at their jobs, they could still be impeached within the house of Meritocracy.

Well, I think the idea I suggest above could be tested out for the case of marrying Democracy and Meritocracy together.  It’s like the people got to participate in a popularity contest before the real leaders could eventually be recognized.  Such a system does provide layers of examinations of our leaders so they could not take it easy and get so corrupted such as becoming lazy in serving people, involving in corruptions and scandals, and so forth.  What do you think?

Advertisements

Nationalism Vs. Globalism, Where Does This Lead? Probably to a Nowhere!

Globalism seems to be getting a bad rap lately, because locally people are suffering from global competition.  Jobs from a global market either had already been moved to another part of the world in the name of efficiency in cost and whatnot or will be replaced by market elsewhere that is more competitive.  So, locally, people are not feeling good at all about global aspects.

We’re seeing many people try to promote local brand, local ideas, local culture, and local anything over anything global.  Of course, it’s not a bad thing to promote local culture, ideas and whatnot, because these things are essential for a local life-force.  Nonetheless, when we become too extreme in promoting local over global agenda, we may create an atmosphere that would lead to a road of violences and not of solutions.

Imagine how the Nazi or similar groups came about or will be created because of such extremism.  Basically, I believe that the Nazis were not only Hitler’s henchmen, but many of them were believing in a movement of a pure race mentality which believes in purity and superiority over other identities.  So, in Hitler’s time, if you’re a Jew, you would be considered the lowest scum of all scums on earth, thus Hitler did try to wipe out the entire Jewish identity from the planet earth.

The Nazi mentality would seem making sense for the Nazis, but on the outside most people would not agree, because such a movement promotes senseless killing and senseless violence.  Thus I think anything that is taking too extreme may do more harm than good.  So, in these days, many people are promoting local brands over global brands, and it’s not really a bad thing.  Nonetheless, I think we should do this on a scale that makes sense — by not overdoing it.  If not, we may promote a form of extremism that will only incite a bigger conflict eventually.

Imagine a scenario in which we would close off our border, stop trading with everyone else globally, and try to create a self-sustain nation in which we believe that would stop global competition and bring better economic prosperity for people within our nation — this looks a lot like North Korea now.  But we all know that North Korea isn’t doing very well economically for a very long time.  Actually, North Korea had been poor since the conception of its whole political body.

Just right next door, China, once was as poor as North Korea, but now this neighbor known as China has become the largest economy on earth in term of Purchasing Power Parity measure and many people suggest that China will become the largest economy on earth in nominal GDP term sooner than later.  The neighbors cannot be any differ in term of size and economic prowess, because the gap between the North Koreans and the Chinese seems to be the size of a galaxy — an exaggeration of course but relevant nonetheless.

China achieved all of their success not by closing down borders, stop trading, and try to be self-sustained like North Korea, but China opened and continues to open up just the right amount of space for foreign trades, investments, cooperations, and whatnot.  So, I think China did think about how to face the challenge of global competition before they opened up their economy just right which had allowed them to be where they are today.

For countries like the United States, we’re facing a challenge of cost efficiency, and so our products are more expensive to export.  Perhaps we should think about closing our door with just a right amount of space but leave the door open just wide enough to stem the outflow of jobs — creating enough breathing space for people within the country to survive and thrive and compete.

Nonetheless, such a solution is only for short term treatment, because in the future our technologies may be so disruptive that the technologies we will employ will take away all of our jobs.  When such thing occurs, no matter how many borders you close down, how many trades you stop from occurring will not be able to keep jobs at home.  So, the solution won’t be available in the basket of creating jobs for the people, but the solution would be in the basket of how to support a society in which people will no longer work for a living, on a global scale.

What is the solution?  At the moment, I don’t think any single solution would be satisfactory in answering the AI taking away jobs question, because we’re not actually suffering from a total domination from a machine overlord just yet.  Instead, we’re seeing machines slowly take away jobs from various people in various sectors.  Eventually though, the Artificial Intelligence would get so smart that it would take away most jobs from the people.

If AI is inevitably going to take away most of our jobs, we should steer the course of such a trend to benefit the humanity.  After all, we’re the humanity!  So, I suggest that we should employ smart machines to create the abundances that we need to free us all from basic necessaries, and this would allow us to focus on living better.  We then would probably question ourselves what would we do if the smart machines do all the jobs.

Will we become so bored and mindless that we rather die young than live too long?  Nonetheless, in the future we may have technologies that would extend our lifespan.  But there is a possibility in which we as the humanity as a whole would try to explore the next frontier which is the universe itself.  Maybe the smart machines would get us to be so free that we would venture out into the farthest space within the universe to explore and question not only our origin, but the universe itself — and have a better chance at doing this than ever before.

Anyway, after watching “Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide | Yuval Noah Harari” TED Talks video on YouTube, my brain starts to question a lot more about our future.  This brief essay is the result of my watching of this video.  The video is right after the break.  Enjoy!

A World of Tomorrow Will Not Embrace A Racist!

When people try to turn everything into a racist thing, it becomes so obvious and distasteful.  What worse is that such behavior can only divide up people into them versus us mentality and such behavior would not solve any problem.  As the world is getting evermore connected as we speak, there is no going back to the caveman era whence you could just draw a border around your cave without being fear of being discovered.  Nonetheless, when you are so obviously being a racist, it’s worse since you’re instigating one ugly hatred (a caveman idea indeed).  Basically, the world of tomorrow will not embrace you if you’re a racist.  Why not?  Imagine this (but it’s a reality so don’t try to imagine too hard) — not all, but some foods (e.g., fish, pork, chicken, beef) you eat may also be prepared by another country with people who do not speak English and with different skin colors.  It calls product chain I think.  The chains of products that get around the today markets are quite complex and skin color tolerant.

I’m ranting on about skin deep because I’m watching a YouTube video which shows that a woman demands for only a white doctor in a Canadian clinic.  If she doesn’t like any other doctors with any other colors unless the doctor’s skin color is white, then she should have made it less obvious even though she is a racist.  Nonetheless, she makes it so obvious that as if her demand is a statement in which it’s a promotion of racism which could divide people up in an evermore connected world.  It’s a dangerous thing to do!

Remember Rwanda?  Even people with same skin color could kill each other enmasse, and yet today we’re seeing people who are trying to divide people up according to skin deep beauty.  Furthermore, history has shown that civilizations rise and fall, and none shall stand forever.  Thus, each civilization may harbor a people of a majority that comes with a specific skin color.  Never make racism so obvious, because you never know if your group would decline into the abyss and the opposite would be otherwise for the people with a skin color that you hate.  I don’t have to say more, because you would know it won’t be easy for any group to have to kowtow to another group ever!  Put yourself into the shoes of other people so you can be a better person and a more constructive self for the world.  The world is large, and history is very generous to different parts of the world according to the tides of time, and without a decent mind and a tolerant doctrine, no such group of people can ever grow into a more prosperous and wise civilization.

Anyhow, for goodness sake, this is the 21st century, it’s time for people to be evermore united and stopped all the hatreds.  Even with different beliefs in religious matters, people should be more tolerable.  Racism, of course, should be recognized as a caveman practice, because it’s full of hatreds and a tool to divide the world up into groups.  Some people even act as if the world is so mysterious that wars happen all over.  Well, duh, because there are people with mentality of us versus them and skin deep racism.

Back to the topic at hand, imagine if your child is about to die for whatever ailment and you want to be choosy about which doctor you need according to your skin deep bias; you must be insane — your child will die without any proper medical procedure.  I’m sure even an average doctor with a skin color that you don’t like knows more about medical procedures than you will ever do in your whole life.  While you’re playing with the devil, your child could be whisk away by the reaper himself.  So, I think it’s not OK for you to be a racist when it comes to the people who could save your children’s lives and probably your own life.  To be wise, I think you should avoid inject racism into the services that you urgently need such as a doctor that you need, a cook that you need, and so forth.  Otherwise, besides you’re being a racist, you could very well be a stupidest person in the world.

Take my advice and you should be fine in the world of tomorrow.  Don’t be so hateful and the world of tomorrow may embrace you in a big way.  Go 21st century!