Your ideal state of mind is an individualistic one, correct?
With willingness to compromise when necessary.
Can we say that it is often the crowd psychology that spoils well-intentioned social systems?
Take democracy. It drifts toward populism because of the if-you-say-so kind of laziness in us.
Sure, laziness is to blame for everything. By the way, when is the last time you cleaned up your place?
It's not only populism and fascism that the crowd psychology leads us to. Bank runs, too, are caused by it. Any kind of run is nasty, because it is the expectation of a big enough group that creates the real phenomenon.
Runs can be over sugar, rice, petro---anything people believe would be very scarce.
Crowds are responsible for fads which are all about following the so-called trend-setter without thinking much. It has also contributed to the making of winner-take-all societies. Think about the contracts that sports players, singers, kiss-and-tell authors sign. We value the very few as if there were an abyss between the top and the rest.
How can we avoid such undesirable consequences of our innate nature to follow the leader? In other words, is it possible to make even the most thinking-averse ones to think on their own?
I'm afraid some of us are die-hard followers, but I know a way to make the majority of us think more. It is direct democracy.
Like the one practiced in Switzerland? I suppose your line of thought is that we act only if the consequences are dire.
To some extent, yes. But unfortunately, if we think we have no power to influence the system or our daily lives, we turn apathetic and do not exercise our rights to participate in politics. That is, we may cease to act, even when our action can prevent dire consequences to fall upon us. Eventual depletion of petro may be one such instant.
Let me rephrase it then. We would act only if we know that our actions have real consequences on our everyday lives.
Yes, we are much more likely to take action, if not doing so would inconvenience us tomorrow. Our mental capacity is so limited that we need direct feedback to feel responsible for what we do. Consider hazardous waste, for example. As long as it is taken to a far away place, we do not think much about its treatment and effects on the environment.
Waste that is hard to treat is often shipped to developing countries, because they are in need of cash.
And only when the toxic material makes its way into the food system in the developed countries that people who generated it start worrying.
As long as you don't see, hear, or smell, anything goes.
Sadly enough, that is our natural behavior. It is one of the reasons why gated communities are not a good idea. They allow the rich to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but it is the rich who have the power to make changes so that gated communities would not be necessary. Some are opposed against universal health care, because their family and friends do not need it.
If it is about people whom you could not relate to, you care much less.
The same with income redistribution. If you don't know anyone suffering from bad luck of having no father and an alcoholic mother, you think it unnecessary.
What about the case of parents dying in a car accident and no relatives with the financial means to take care of the children?
You know, a single, alcoholic mother was simply one of the myriad possible cases...
I know another one. Political refugees with no linguistic skills to survive in the host country. Or losing your limbs while working in a factory, or...
The first world is dependent on the low prices of primary resources and simple manufactured goods from the third world. Not all, perhaps, but the vast majority who are employed by such industries work in dismal environments for a pittance. And, that is a big contributing factor in the affluence in the first world. The consumers in the developed countries, however, do not see the abhorrent labor condition or the absence of proper waste treatment; it encourages them to be careless and wasteful about what they purchase.
Anything cheap is good, although they are made possible by underpaying for labor and material.
The important point is that all of us on the globe are connected and support each other in one way or another. You may not be interested in Amazon Rainforest, but we all benefit from its mere existence as natural wonder, not to mention its biodiversity and function as a carbon sink. We owe to the people of the Rainforest for the knowledge of plants and animals unique to the area.
I heard that many companies have turned to the forest as a hunting ground for new drugs.
We have called the enlargement of the definition of human beings as progress. We have managed to relate to more and more people, even if we do not share the same biological attributes---such as skin color and gender---or beliefs and life styles.
If you are incapable of sympathizing with types of people whom you have never met or come in contact with, such as starving babies in Darfur...
Or, if you cannot treat the person whom you despise with basic respect, you are going against what civilization should be. Given the latest gross wealth of the world, universal health care is possible and sufficiently progressive tax systems are musts.
After all, it's a piece of cake to be nice to people whom we know and like.
A socially formal system for supporting the disadvantaged allows us to be more business like, compared to reliance on informal support system, such as extended families.
A formal system is more convenient, though, because there would be cases in which we have to say 'no more support' due to abuse.
At the same time, it is inconvenient, because there would be occasions in which we would like to extend support, but bureaucracy does not permit it. Getting back to the issue of direct democracy, it will make us more aware that nobody but ourselves are responsible for government actions.
We often accuse governments of their abuse of power, including corruption.
In some countries, people with the most resources have decided unilaterally to govern others. In such cases, we cannot say that the masses are responsible for what the government does. But, if you claim that democracy is working well...
It's a generic 'you,' I hope!
Of course, ahem! If you think your country is governed by well-working democracy, you are responsible for the body that you happen to elect.
It's a generic 'you,' I hope!
I told you so! You are responsible for government actions, under either type of democracy, but I am sure that the point would be driven home better in the case of direct democracy.
Our government is not 'them,' but 'us,' so to speak.
Most of the time, people complain about certain government decisions but do not do anything to change the situation. If we were truly serious about it, we would take to the streets.
Ah, your revolutionary streak, again. But you know, we can't be out on the street everyday.
That is one of the reasons why student protests are powerful. They have the time to engage in protests and not much of a job to lose.
For people whose daily bread depends on how your boss views you...
Direct democracy to the rescue!
With willingness to compromise when necessary.
Can we say that it is often the crowd psychology that spoils well-intentioned social systems?
Take democracy. It drifts toward populism because of the if-you-say-so kind of laziness in us.
Sure, laziness is to blame for everything. By the way, when is the last time you cleaned up your place?
It's not only populism and fascism that the crowd psychology leads us to. Bank runs, too, are caused by it. Any kind of run is nasty, because it is the expectation of a big enough group that creates the real phenomenon.
Runs can be over sugar, rice, petro---anything people believe would be very scarce.
Crowds are responsible for fads which are all about following the so-called trend-setter without thinking much. It has also contributed to the making of winner-take-all societies. Think about the contracts that sports players, singers, kiss-and-tell authors sign. We value the very few as if there were an abyss between the top and the rest.
How can we avoid such undesirable consequences of our innate nature to follow the leader? In other words, is it possible to make even the most thinking-averse ones to think on their own?
I'm afraid some of us are die-hard followers, but I know a way to make the majority of us think more. It is direct democracy.
Like the one practiced in Switzerland? I suppose your line of thought is that we act only if the consequences are dire.
To some extent, yes. But unfortunately, if we think we have no power to influence the system or our daily lives, we turn apathetic and do not exercise our rights to participate in politics. That is, we may cease to act, even when our action can prevent dire consequences to fall upon us. Eventual depletion of petro may be one such instant.
Let me rephrase it then. We would act only if we know that our actions have real consequences on our everyday lives.
Yes, we are much more likely to take action, if not doing so would inconvenience us tomorrow. Our mental capacity is so limited that we need direct feedback to feel responsible for what we do. Consider hazardous waste, for example. As long as it is taken to a far away place, we do not think much about its treatment and effects on the environment.
Waste that is hard to treat is often shipped to developing countries, because they are in need of cash.
And only when the toxic material makes its way into the food system in the developed countries that people who generated it start worrying.
As long as you don't see, hear, or smell, anything goes.
Sadly enough, that is our natural behavior. It is one of the reasons why gated communities are not a good idea. They allow the rich to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but it is the rich who have the power to make changes so that gated communities would not be necessary. Some are opposed against universal health care, because their family and friends do not need it.
If it is about people whom you could not relate to, you care much less.
The same with income redistribution. If you don't know anyone suffering from bad luck of having no father and an alcoholic mother, you think it unnecessary.
What about the case of parents dying in a car accident and no relatives with the financial means to take care of the children?
You know, a single, alcoholic mother was simply one of the myriad possible cases...
I know another one. Political refugees with no linguistic skills to survive in the host country. Or losing your limbs while working in a factory, or...
The first world is dependent on the low prices of primary resources and simple manufactured goods from the third world. Not all, perhaps, but the vast majority who are employed by such industries work in dismal environments for a pittance. And, that is a big contributing factor in the affluence in the first world. The consumers in the developed countries, however, do not see the abhorrent labor condition or the absence of proper waste treatment; it encourages them to be careless and wasteful about what they purchase.
Anything cheap is good, although they are made possible by underpaying for labor and material.
The important point is that all of us on the globe are connected and support each other in one way or another. You may not be interested in Amazon Rainforest, but we all benefit from its mere existence as natural wonder, not to mention its biodiversity and function as a carbon sink. We owe to the people of the Rainforest for the knowledge of plants and animals unique to the area.
I heard that many companies have turned to the forest as a hunting ground for new drugs.
We have called the enlargement of the definition of human beings as progress. We have managed to relate to more and more people, even if we do not share the same biological attributes---such as skin color and gender---or beliefs and life styles.
If you are incapable of sympathizing with types of people whom you have never met or come in contact with, such as starving babies in Darfur...
Or, if you cannot treat the person whom you despise with basic respect, you are going against what civilization should be. Given the latest gross wealth of the world, universal health care is possible and sufficiently progressive tax systems are musts.
After all, it's a piece of cake to be nice to people whom we know and like.
A socially formal system for supporting the disadvantaged allows us to be more business like, compared to reliance on informal support system, such as extended families.
A formal system is more convenient, though, because there would be cases in which we have to say 'no more support' due to abuse.
At the same time, it is inconvenient, because there would be occasions in which we would like to extend support, but bureaucracy does not permit it. Getting back to the issue of direct democracy, it will make us more aware that nobody but ourselves are responsible for government actions.
We often accuse governments of their abuse of power, including corruption.
In some countries, people with the most resources have decided unilaterally to govern others. In such cases, we cannot say that the masses are responsible for what the government does. But, if you claim that democracy is working well...
It's a generic 'you,' I hope!
Of course, ahem! If you think your country is governed by well-working democracy, you are responsible for the body that you happen to elect.
It's a generic 'you,' I hope!
I told you so! You are responsible for government actions, under either type of democracy, but I am sure that the point would be driven home better in the case of direct democracy.
Our government is not 'them,' but 'us,' so to speak.
Most of the time, people complain about certain government decisions but do not do anything to change the situation. If we were truly serious about it, we would take to the streets.
Ah, your revolutionary streak, again. But you know, we can't be out on the street everyday.
That is one of the reasons why student protests are powerful. They have the time to engage in protests and not much of a job to lose.
For people whose daily bread depends on how your boss views you...
Direct democracy to the rescue!
Posts
