How To Fix A Corrupt Country?

I stumbled on a Quora’s question “How do you fix a corrupt country?” and so I decided to give my two cents on Quora in regards to how I think such a country could fix its problems.  Well, I will quote myself fully right after the break.  Nonetheless, you can also visit Quora for this specific answer too, but you may have to go through countless other answers that were given to this same question.

Here I quote myself:

When a country is being weakened by a weak leadership or a weak governance structure — having both would be a disaster — such a country needs to find a way to exert law and order so everyone in the country could recognize a corruptive behavior isn’t acceptable. When people are actually supportive of a measure against such corruptive behavior, the government could slowly gather strength through the recruitment of a strong leadership to carry out the enforcement of rules and regulations to curb the corruptions.

I think many forms of corruption could be very subtle too, and so corruptive agents could actually thrive in almost all governments — doesn’t matter what form a regime is actually practicing. For example, a democratic country is relatively poor, and so such a country will not be able to have strong leadership even though it got a democracy. Without a strong leadership, things tend to slip in and out between cracks, and so the corruptive agents could easily use such opportunity to do corruptive things out in the open.

In a dictatorship regime, corruptive agents in the position of power would be unchallenged since there won’t be enough checks and balances to curb such power. If a dictatorship regime got a weak leadership, the country could experience widespread corruptions that go unchecked. A good thing about the dictatorship regime is that if a country got a strong leader who actually cares for the people, such a leader could use the absolute power to weed out the corruptions really fast and effective. Basically, there are pros and cons to a different form of governance and style of a particular government.

I think to fix a corruptive country, the most important things are to find the right leadership and enhance or rebuild a governance structure so the country could thrive on rules and order. As long the rules and order are making sense and the people could feel safe, then other good things may come eventually. For example, a strong economy is a must for a leader to keep the people happy and healthy. When people are happy and healthy, they tend to do the right things and be supportive of the government. With strong support from the people, the government could exert enforcement to weed out corruptions without much of any opposition. Heck, when a government is being loved by the people, the government could take a lot more risks to achieve its aspirations.

I’m curious anyone else thinks this is the right approach to fixing a corrupt country?  Please leave a comment or two in the comment section if you agree or disagree with my suggestion.  Thanks.

Advertisements

I Think It’s Stupid To Think That It Takes Only 98 Healthy People To Sustain A Human Species

So, I’d just finished reading “How many humans would it take to keep our species alive? One scientist’s surprising answer” article and I was amazed that his answer is just only 98 healthy people.  Afterward, I scratched my head in doubts.  Obviously, these 98 people would band together to produce more offsprings so the population could grow larger.  Also, we could imagine that these 98 healthy people are the sole survivors of the planet earth since an apocalyptic event had wiped everyone else off the planet earth.  So, is it true that it would take only 98 healthy people to start the new seed of a lost civilization for generations to come?

I don’t think it is possible for 98 healthy people to redevelop a lost population/civilization!  In my opinion, if an event that could wipe out 99.999 percent of earth’s healthy population, how could we be so sure that the other 98 healthy people would last?  Furthermore, a much smaller group of people is going to be more susceptible to extinction since any number of unfortunate circumstances could reduce this small group into an even smaller group.  Of course, you can argue that these 98 healthy people are special since they survived the apocalypse and got a very good protective shelter such as they’re escaping the planet in a very capable spaceship.  Then again, the universe is so huge which harbors all sorts of danger — how could one know that these people would survive through one generation?

Of course, you could argue that space is very safe for a generation of people who travel in a very capable spaceship to begin a repopulation program which could last for generations to come.  Here I begin to doubt even more!  How could anyone know how long a spaceship would last?  Unless you have a crystal ball, I don’t think you could really know how long a spaceship would last.  I imagine a spaceship got some moving parts and all sorts of things that could go wrong at any moment.  I also imagine that space is a very lonely place, and so these 98 healthy people could suffer all sorts of depression.  It takes only one crazy depressive person to dwindle this group into a smaller group.  Thus, extinction is very near and dear!

I don’t like how one would think it takes only 98 healthy people to repopulate earth or sustain human species because this would encourage the crazies to believe that the other 99.999 percent of earth’s population is dispensable.  My argument is very real for the reasons I stated above.  Basically, I don’t think 98 healthy people could sustain a human species for there are too many variables that could dwindle this small group.  From human emotions to outside variables, any one of these variables that turn negative could greatly reduce this small group.  My answer is that I don’t believe 98 healthy people could actually sustain a human species!

Could Yes Also Mean No? Oh, The Realm Of Probability and Possibility!

I don’t usually think in a mathematical sense but I rather think in a philosophical sense… I think!  Anyhow, I love to wonder about the realm of randomness and probability from time to time.  It’s intriguing to me when I think about how large is the universe; it seems to go on endlessly without a border in sight like how earth got its own boundary.  Thus, I would think — could we ever calculate the possibilities and the probabilities of each possibility and the possibilities of each probability within our own universe?

The universe is so large and so we may not know where it would end so there could be a beginning of something else.  Multiple universes?  We don’t know really!  But I guess scientists out there got their own mathematical formulas and scientific theories to provide them some basics of a foundation to provide many inputs into a computer model so we humans can simulate a known universe.  Nonetheless, what we don’t know may not allow us to calculate what we want and wish to know — that is the beyond!

Quantum computing is gaining innovative developments each day.  This could allow us to have a much more powerful mean to calculate whatever.  I guess we could simulate a known universe in a quantum computer with more ease than how we’re doing with the traditional computer technology.  The question is, can a quantum computer help us sprinkle the probabilities and the possibilities of what is known and what is only a guesswork into our computer models so we could arrive at a point where we may discover more about our own universe?

I even question on the rigidity of theories and known facts because I think to go beyond one must take a risk in traveling the unknown seas — in a time when we have no idea and not a clue of what would lie ahead.  Could the rigidity of theories and facts prevent us from developing more knowledge?  Nonetheless, we cannot just simply enter a magical element into a well-developed computer model to simulate what we truly want to know about the universe, right?

But to think a fish cannot fly could be right on earth, it could be wrong on another planet when everything could fly!  Of course, I truly do not know if there is such a planet.  This is the magical element I’m talking about!  Thus, entering the probabilities and the possibilities of what if as if how we explored the unknown seas back in time.  Right now, our new unknown seas are the new boundaries and borders and stuff within our universe.

I also think if such magical element could help us discover more about the universe, could it allow us to calculate the probabilities and possibilities of a possible future — giving that we’re knowing some known facts and theories that would be married to a magical element or elements?  I guess the quantum computer technology could really help us here.  I skim some texts on probability through the web and they describe probability as events with yes and no such as 1 and 0.  Nonetheless, I question this as I ponder a fish could fly.  Why?  Sometimes, could yes also mean no?

Can The Universe Itself Be A Smart AI According To Some Higher Being’s Design?

In the last blog post “Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?” I surmised that the universe (our universe among many others) could have been expanding and contracting according to how it got fed with external energy — where such force would have to wander outside our very own singularity.  Without such external nursery of energy, I surmised that our universe is like a quantifiable fish aquarium.  Nonetheless, we all know that even a human being could be intelligibly randomized things at will — thus I think according to the universe we’re sentient beings are the AI (artificial intelligent).  How about let me surmise some more and say that — what if the universe itself is a higher artificial intelligent force in which it could randomize things at will to expand and contract according to circumstances?

We human beings could only see the results of why the universe is expanding and contracting according to our very own whatever theories — but why would the universe do such a thing?  What’s the point of expanding or contracting?  Expanding to create more empty space for what?  Contracting is like a suicidal attempt of killing itself off so the existence of the universe itself would cease to exist.  Furthermore, perhaps the universe itself is like a smart TV or fishbowl/aquarium in which it was designed by a higher being.  This way the purpose of expanding and contracting won’t be the burden with which the universe has to carry.  This burden could be carried by the designer of the universe.

At this point, I think it’s more like a philosophical thinking than anything concrete on this matter, but it’s so intriguing nonetheless.  In my opinion, philosophical or not, it’s rather important for us sentient beings to dig deeper into our origin.  After all, if we could not remember how we’d come into being, then we would forever aimlessly forget about our root and forever lost — wandering in a dark forest (Three Body Problem’s sci-fi trilogy second book is also titled as The Dark Forest).  I think only when we could figure out our true root of how we’d come into the existence, it is then that we could evolve to be something greater.  Perhaps in such a quest, we could discover new technology to bring us to new heights; we could grow into even more capable and intelligent sentient beings.

House versus Whales!

Let’s say a casino is the house and the gamblers are the whales!  The house knows what bait whales love, and so the house would always, in the end, trap the whales.  Nonetheless, among whales, there may be a cunning whale whose ability is to appease the house so the house baits would become foods instead of traps!  Do you think when the house is too confident in its own trap system, the trap system would actually be a trap for the house itself?

Perhaps, the house would always win in the end, but a cunning whale knows the house’s gameplan too well to be caught in the house’s traps.  If the cunning whale isn’t out for blood then the house would always win without knowing it got siphoned from time to time.  Now, if the cunning whale is out for blood the house shall collapse!

I think when a system is too rigid without evolving and a system is too arrogant sometimes could overlook details that would lead to the breakdown of a system.  Furthermore, when a system is appearing to function too well, such a system could lead to a belief that the system is perfect!  The system owner may never realize that their perfect system is also the weakest link to their wellbeing.

The perfect system’s owner would always think that the system is so perfect that there could be no trouble, but I think only a troubled system could be paranoid enough to be self-aware so it could improve over time.  When a troubled system becomes perfect over time, the owner of once a troubled system may, too, become content by the system and would not employ out of the box thinking to improve the system further.  This is when the new owner of a new perfect system would make mistakes.

In conclusion, I think the house may become a big loser when it fails to realize that it needs to continue to devise new tactics and strategies to beat the game!  Of course, whales are whales and so they would take the baits willingly.  Of course, a cunning whale would never be caught in such obvious traps!

Creative Thinking: We’re Just Some Experiments

Countless theories are filling the void of the emptiness we feel whenever we try to think of our origin.  When did we arrive?  How did we first exist?  How on earth had we survived but not the dinosaurs?  We know the dinosaurs existed for sure as we have dug up so many dinosaurs’ skeletons in our backyards.  We then ponder on how the dinosaurs were killed off.  What had killed off the dinosaurs but left us alive?  Or, did we come after the existence of the dinosaurs?  So on and so on we go, and we go off the rail with theory after theory, unsure of ourselves how on earth we really had come about to exist here on earth.

If I remember correctly, one theory suggests that a sizable enough chunk of space rock such as a meteor could have created a large enough impact on earth’s past to wreck so much havoc on earth’s past ecosystem, thus in the process, the monstrous size of the dinosaurs was the death-knell that killed off the dinosaurs.  Basically, the dinosaurs could not sustain their lifeforce while the earth’s ecosystem was in tattered.  Not enough foods were around to sustain the predators like the dinosaurs!

Whatever the theory may be, a meteor or an asteroid, diseases or God’s will, we would never be sure how the dinosaurs were extinct since we weren’t there to witness the hellish catastrophe.  How did we come into being?  It seems the whole human race is still having an amnesia because we don’t remember how we had come into being!

To play this guessing game, I like to suggest the most outlandish, on the par with sci-fi spirit, theory.  Imagine when the earth was still at its most primitive stage.  The dinosaurs were roaming freely.  They would feed on smaller preys and humans weren’t around at all.  Of course, I could imagine how ugly such a scene could be to see a dinosaur gnawing, crunching away on a live human, but luckily I think we weren’t around at the time when the dinosaurs roamed as kings.

My theory suggests an alien race descended onto the planet earth, killed off all dinosaurs, spared the more harmless cockroaches and few other harmless animals so the food sources could lay intact and the earth’s ecosystem could survive to nurse the next king of the planet.  The aliens then would create an out of this world experiment by planting human seeds at our most primitive stage to see how the whole planet earth would develop thereafter.  Perhaps, in the future, the aliens would then revisit our planet earth to check on their amazing experiment.  Would the whole human race survive or die off?  They could make a bet to each other while they’re making their way here on their super cool spaceship.

If anyone is making a movie, I think my theory is rather cool for such a prospect.  Don’t you think so?  Anyway, I think my theory seems to be way cooler than other theories that try to explain how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans came into being on the planet earth!  Of course, my theory is way outlandish and got no proof to back the claim up, but how could you disprove that my theory is wrong when all other theories are just mere theories too.  Remember, we weren’t there when things got really ugly!