As always I hope I am just another nut case with an overly active imagination and a seemingly compelling story — that is totally wrong. But, I feel compelled to tell the story even if it draws ridicule.
I've been gradually working up to the conclusion, reluctantly, that humanity is in a world of hurt from its own lack of wisdom. And that world of hurt is coming to pass a lot faster than I thought just a year ago (when I started this blog). I keep asking questions like: What does it mean that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than anybody had predicted? What does it mean that oil production seems to have peaked in 2005 and that the rate of ramp-up of alternative energy technology is pathetic compared to the scale of the need (we need something like 10,000% growth in wind power installations over the next ten years just to keep up with growing demand in electricity at current rates!)?
And now, what does it mean that we appear to be on the brink of entering a global depression? I know the economic pundits keep saying it isn't as bad as it looks. But they have been saying that for over eight years and things just keep getting worse!
So my question now is what is the plan?
What's that? There isn't one? Oh, there is one, but it basically calls for doing more of the same stuff we've been doing and crossing our fingers? Wow! That's the plan? That is the best that our great leaders have been able to come up with? Lawrence Summers is one of Obama's financial advisers. We are really in trouble.
Let me see if I can offer some new ideas.
It apparently has not occurred to anyone (maybe just me?) that this so-called recession cum depression is really a blessing in disguise. Rather than scurrying to fix the economy, as all of our elected and non-elected leaders are doing, we should be considering what the fact that it is broken in the first place means, and then fix that. Fixing the economy means, to the economic and political geniuses, getting it back to the way it was before all this mess started. And most people probably agree with that. But that means growing the GDP again. It means consumers borrowing so they can spend and buy junk. It means creating useless jobs so that people can make enough to pay back some of their debt. That is the plan and to me it sounds about as brilliant as sticking my hand in an open flame to warm it up.
No less a pundit than Tom Friedman, in his Sunday column in the New York Times (11/16/08), says that to fix the economy we need to go shopping (echoing GW Bush after 9/11)! He seems to be saying the real problem is a perception of panic not that there really is a problem. In what has to be the lamest observation yet he says, "The equity crisis made people feel poor and metastasized into a consumption crisis, which is why purchases of cars, appliances, electronics, homes and clothing have just fallen off a cliff [emphasis added]." Of course they feel poor(er). They should feel poor(er). They ARE poor(er). Friedman, like so many other formerly wise pundits just can't bring himself to realize that a growth economy is NOT a healthy economy. He and the others have thought this way for so long that they can't see that this economic downturn is a correction. It is really a reassertion of fiscal reality on a deluded populace. He describes four 'chemicals' that have been mixed as never before to create this 'toxic' brew. 1) massive leverage by everybody and their grandmother; 2) globally intertwined business interests; 3) globally intertwined complex financial instruments that no one understands; and 4) a crisis in the American 'toxic' mortgages. What he fails to note completely is the real cause of the suddenness and extent of the meltdown, the decline in net energy available to the economies of the world. We can't do as much work to create the wealth that would have kept us able to service the principal if not interest on our collective debt. Most of all we cannot afford to run a consumption-based economy any longer. Prescribing a fix based on getting back to people spending for junk is just the opposite of what is needed.
Sooner or later people are going to wake up to the fact that the financial gurus and the pundits and the social commentators who used to seem as if they knew what they were talking about no longer do.
The first thing is, you have to recognize that we are actually in the throes of what Jim Kunstler calls "The Long Emergency". Everything is breaking down. The largest institutions are breaking down. Did you ever think you would hear the words, "G.M. may have to go into bankruptcy"? AIG had to be bought up by the government. Now we're told that may not be enough. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Home foreclosures at record highs. Not enough capital to invest in alternative energies. We may not even have the capital to invest in expanding oil supplies! So when is someone going to notice that things are really turning to s**t in big way?
To be fair, I think some of the brighter bulbs, especially in the newly forming administration-elect, do recognize that there are deep and disturbing patterns of dysfunction in the economy and the environment. They vocally buy into global warming and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They fully realize that the economy is in the tank (by ordinary definitions). But, unsettling to me, they are also calling for a bailout of the 'Big Three' automakers, ostensibly to save jobs. But I think that logic is all wrong. More on that latter.
Emergencies require emergency crews taking emergency actions. Instead we have, at present, the same players who basically created this mess, grabbing what they think are fire extinguishers but are actually fuel containers, and fighting what they think is just a little fire. Put that out and then we will be back in normal operations! And they throw more fuel on the fire! (My comment about Larry Summers above.)
A better analogy would be cancer and the doctors thinking they are treating a stomach upset. Take some bicarb and call me in the morning. The reality is that we need a completely new way of looking at the collection of global crises and reframing the entire disease by finding the root causes and treating those. In the case of virtually every ill that is facing humanity right now there are several inter-linked root causes. Basically it all comes down to greedy human nature (without wisdom to mediate good judgment; remeber Alan Greendspan's incredulaty at how the markets failed to live up to his libertarian expectations?) and the propensity to use up our high-grade fuels making disposable goods and worthless services in the illusion of wealth. Now we basically think everything we've done has been good, and we just want to keep doing it. Only physical reality has caught up with us. The fuel is running out and it hurts.
OK. Analogies and such aside, what is the plan? Given the systemic nature of the emergencies (their interconnectedness), we need to think systemically and go right to these roots to effect a cure that will actually work. It will be painful. It involves people being forced out of their precious ideological hazes and into what is physically possible. Many may have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into reality. So it won't be painless. Which is exactly why politicians can't really do the job. They are always worried about the next voting cycle.
Here's a plan. It will require leadership — bravery en extremis. This will be painful for all of us, perhaps especially the wealthy. But, that is just too damn bad. We've let things go too far and so the contrast between a reasonable standard of living and what we have been spoiled by will be stark. Of course this is only an outline, a brief overview of the kinds of things I think will need to be done. The goal is to do what is necessary to salvage an acceptable level of civilization in spite of the troubles ahead. We either do this of our own volition, or nature will exact its own price and we may not like the result.
First, the economy: The overall objective will be to power down to a steady-state (no growth) economy with sufficient redistribution of obscene wealth to provide a basic fair standard of living to everyone. I make no bones about my moral sentiment on the unseemly disparity between the haves and have-nots in our society. The rich have gotten overly rich and generally on the backs of the lower and middle class workers. This, by the way includes me. I'm not obscenely wealthy. Actually I'm not wealthy at all, but far better off than most. And as soon as the mechanisms for fair distribution are in place I expect to give up a fair amount of what I have (of course my wife says over her dead body!). Just to be clear, I have no consumer debt other than my mortgage. I've always paid cash or used a credit card like a debit card, paying off the bill when it came due (allows a bit of a float as well as convenience). Even autos were paid off from savings. I've been buying small gas-efficient (mostly Toyota) cars since the 70's. So I'm a practitioner of what I preach re: fiscal responsibility!
In what follows I am thinking the overall organization of society will tend toward localization of production, food, clothing, and other staple resources. This will be the most energy efficient way to maintain any kind of economic activities. Certain activities like scientific research may be organized differently, but for now let's look at basic living conditions. So here is what I think FWIW.
For starters, forgive all consumer debt, judiciously. Bad behavior shouldn't be rewarded, but on the other hand the whole society condoned debt-based consumption, so people were just following commonly accepted practices even if they were incredibly stupid. One way to approach this might be to repossess some kinds of durable goods, like big TVs and motor boats, and recycle the materials. Banks, for their parts, should become savings institutions only. Consumers can only make future purchases on cash, not credit. If people save for that special must-have widget and they are willing to forego other purchases then, fine, they should have that choice. But they can't get it to satisfy their immediate desires by the use of credit.
The stock markets should be shut down for the time being (read this very interesting article by Michael Lewis in Portfolio.com). When (and if) these markets are re-opened they should be for marketing stocks as companies need funds and only a minor role in providing liquidity — no speculation AT ALL. Corporations should no longer be given the legal status of persons. Managers and directors need to be held fully accountable for their decisions. Businesses that do not provide essential consumer products, e.g. food, should be ramped down (again the automakers will provide an example). Laid-off workers should be provided with on-going unemployment benefits that will maintain their households as needed. They will also be provided with free education beyond whatever level they had previously attained. This education will NOT BE JOB RETRAINING! It will be general qualitative systems science and liberal arts! It will be geared to get people understanding what went wrong and what need to be done about it. And, perhaps most importantly, cease all advertising, especially that attempting to sell unnecessary products and services. Advertising has been the lubricant that facilitates minds believing they need something that they really don't. By definition advertising has become the means for getting people to buy stuff.
The monetary policy to be developed should be based on a standardized value for the monetary currency. I still advocate using an energy standard. I will be doing some additional research on the notion of using national accounts of exergy — the energy available to do useful economic work — as I have covered in previous posts and in comments on The Oil Drum blogs.
Oh yes, and taxes. There is going to be no avoiding this fact. Things need to be paid for. The aversion to tax increases in this country is sheer paranoid delusion. How does anyone think things they want get done? For free? My salary comes partially from state revenues. Do you want me to work for free? (Well some of my students might think that is what I should be paid!) Taxes will need to be levied to pay for all of the above and below. A progressive sales tax is what I favor. It will help motivate some of the above sacrifices.
Energy: Three basic actions are required. First, in conjunction with the economic issues above, we need to significantly reduce our consumption of non-essential goodies. We are already seeing some consumer electronics companies going down. This is actually a good thing from the standpoint of what is good for the whole economy even if there is some local pain (see above for what to do about job lay-offs). But this includes reductions in many sports and entertainment areas. Reducing the number of movies produced or professional football games played would actually save a huge amount of energy. Stopping production of big TVs and the newest music player and all such personal entertainment products would also help. This is going to seem like tremendous sacrifice to a lot of people. It will seem unreasonable to many, perhaps most at first. But it will happen anyway. One way we crash. The other way, we power down in some kind of planned fashion with measures geared to help those affected by job loss. Perhaps local communities can organize entertainment and sports (amateur, of course) events, like high school games.
The second, next to be initiated action needed is a massive effort to improve efficiencies, particularly building efficiencies, but all process and lighting efficiencies can be addressed. Similarly transportation efficiencies can be improved. It is important to note that improving efficiencies is tricky and cannot be accomplished overnight. Often it will involve replacement of lower efficiency capital equipment (like automobiles) which takes time and 'capital'. Something like a WWII effort to both fund and implement this conversion will be needed, hence, leadership must be strong. On the plus side such an effort is likely to provide many skilled and semi-skilled jobs. No one should expect to get rich from these 'green' jobs or businesses. After all, this is a salvage operation where all wealth is going to be much less.
These two efforts are aimed at rapid and sustained reduction of demand for energy. We should be ready and able to recognize significant reductions in the near term. Lastly, but with even greater need for a war-like effort is the need to produce an energy source infrastructure that will ultimately replace the fossil fuel sources. First among these will be the electric grid and supply. Lots has been written about the build-out of solar and wind sources, so I won't dwell on it here. But I do want to reemphasize that this is not a miracle cure for what ails us. The best we can do is work toward lowering demand substantially and match the lowered demand with alternative supplies. We will all be using a lot less energy overall and a lot less electricity particularly.
Climate: Since the major problem with causing climate change due to global warming is the emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, the above actions on energy should substantially reduce the latter if significant cuts are made quickly. Unfortunately much of the damage has already been done and due to inherent inertia in the system we can expect more climate changes and anomalies in the future. We are unlikely to avoid some significant sea level rise, desertification, weather pattern changes, etc. in the future. Which means a significant part of future energy use will be in doing work to mitigate and adapt civilization to a changed world. This kind of action will play out over a relatively longer time frame than the energy or economic crises so there will be some time to develop our responses. But not a lot. We need to be planning ahead for the necessary work, say, for moving coastal populations to higher ground. Indeed, I expect that adapting to climate change will be THE major activity of humanity for some time to come. Our whole civilization will likely be organized around that adaptation.
Nevertheless, getting off of carbon-based fuels will be the first step in keeping the impacts of climate change from destroying humanity and most of the biosphere — a great die-off. That the latter is a real possibility should be foremost on everyone's mind to add impetus to resolving the energy crisis.
Population: There remain a small number of global warming deniers, a very vociferous but declining minority (even Rex Tillerson - ExxonMobile and George W. Bush now admit that GW is real!). There is a larger majority of people who either deny peak oil, or are simply not educated enough to even understand why there is a problem. But by far the vast majority of people will deny that there is a population problem for the simple reason that everyone believes in their heart of hearts that they have the right to procreate as they see fit. And even if many people sense that there is a problem, and manage to restrict their own reproduction to, say, two children, they still will not be able to get their heads around the dynamics of population growth and its implications.
Humans have assumed that they have the right. This is curious since every creature that has ever lived on this planet has never had the birthright to procreate. They had to earn the right by out competing the competition and surviving long enough to make it count. That is why evolution works. But humans have put themselves above the biological world. They have codified their dominion over the earth and have, indeed, been very successful in being fruitful and multiplying. Only now, we begin to see that it was all an illusion.
It was not wrong to recognize our unique place in the biosphere and our incredible mental capacities relative to the other animals. We clearly are an incredibly intelligent and creative species. What was wrong was the interpretation of that uniqueness and our subsequent development of beliefs in our superiority somehow nullifying the rules of life. Indeed, we came to largely believe that our souls are immortal and therefore we can do anything we want (within the strictures of our social group, of course) while in mortal flesh without consequences in the afterlife. That interpretation and subsequent beliefs and actions were mistakes. We are not, as it turns out, so wise and understanding, and we have blundered into our current state without any foresight. We are just as subject to the rules of life as any creature. The only real difference is that whereas nature provides adequate negative feedback to control populations, we should have been self-monitoring our numbers and self-regulating our population sizes.
It turns out that in pre-agricultural times there actually were several practices that unconsciously acted to limit populations to some degree. Even infanticide has been linked with population control in some so-called primitive cultures. But these were neither strong enough, nor effective enough once agriculture became widely spread. In fact, agriculture created a new pressing need for more people to do the hard work. Slavery and agriculture probably had a lot in common. Working land also required many hands, and children were essential to farming.
Humans have developed the moral sense of inalienable rights. And, anthropocentrically, assigned such rights to ourselves. Rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which happens to include happily having children) are now assumed even though there is no such set of rights in nature. Our capacity for empathy mandates not letting others suffer so we presume that rights must be maintained. Loss of rights would be seen as causing suffering. And certainly, every individual will assert their own rights. But that is just part of our need to compete. Notice how quickly the maintenance of rights is ignored under the right circumstances (Guantanamo). We've even recently watched otherwise individualist thinking people abrogate their own rights when threatened by terrorists.
The point is that we need to carefully reexamine the notion of natural rights and especially in the case of reproduction. It is really a simple question in many ways. Do the presumed rights of the individual outweigh the presumed rights of a species? I say presumed because neither individuals nor species have any rights in nature. For those who insist that we aren't faced with this conundrum (the population problem deniers) I can only say there is more than adequate evidence that the problem is real, the threat imminent, and the consequences severe is sufficient for any thoughtful person to see the truth of it. If you refuse to look, that is going to make the pain you suffer at the inevitable loss of that supposed right all the more extreme.
Nature will disabuse everyone of the notion of rights if we don't take action.
We need to acknowledge the problem now. And we need to begin taking action soon. Because of the extreme complexity of the issue, linked with human emotions and moral senses the way it is, it isn't going to be easy to come to grips with, but we must. The biology of overpopulation is clear. And while those anti-Malthusians continue to claim that overpopulation has always been proved wrong by technology making it possible to increase without consequences, I can only hang my head in sorrow for the amount of sheer ignorance behind that observation. People have so little understanding of where technology comes from or what is even feasible. They have so little understanding of physical work or where energy comes from and where it ends up. They are guilty of evidence bias — looking for confirmation of their desires rather than reality.
A conclave of scientists, social scientists, ethicists, etc. is needed immediately to discuss the issue and work toward the most humane options for starting a reduction of the global population. There is some point of balance between the total number of people and the per capita consumption rate that will create an optimal ecological footprint for humanity. That may take decades to identify. But it does not take much to understand that we need to begin the reduction right now.
Human nature: The last area to tackle is the hardest; how to manage the human element? With all of the accumulating evidence that human beings are anything but rational creatures (c.f. Gary Marcus' latest book, "Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind" for a rundown on all of the little things that go wrong in human cognition and emotions that foul judgment!) it is clear that the reason we are failing to get to work on solving the problems is that many people don't really understand that we have problems (the cornucopians for example). Or if they do they are certain technology will come to the rescue (the vast majority) even though there is no convincing evidence that it will or can. Consider the average American's response to rising gasoline prices last summer. Rather than recognize that higher gas price was actually a good thing in that it forced people to consume less discretionary travel, hence saved oil and reduced (marginally) the imports of oil, something everyone says is a good thing, people complained bitterly. They looked desperately for someone to blame other than their own profligate consumption habits. Humans can be counted on to mostly only see the short-term situation and completely ignore the global implications. They only care what affects them here and now, and discount their own future steeply. The average human being, as I have said, is not particularly wise or even able to be very wise. And that is going to have to be dealt with wisely.
I have a strong feeling that our experiment with representative democracy is coming to an end. Sapient governance with a council of wise elders at the peak of the hierarchy and mentally qualified functionaries at all other levels is in the offing, I think. Demonstrating sapience and mental capacity is near at hand through neurological testing. Genetic markers for brain development are being discovered as we speak. It won't be long before we can identify objectively those people fit to be philosopher kings. At that time, it would behoove us to organize our governance systems accordingly. Many people will understandably feel they are loosing their freedoms if the authority of a governing system imposes restrictions on them. But it beats the alternative, a cruel, harsh nature versus a compassionate humanism guided by scientifically determined reality. Or if we just let human nature follow its instincts, a dictatorship. It is time for a revolution in human thinking, organization, and governance. Will we have the ability to see it through?
These are the things that I think need to be done. As I said at the beginning I would that this was all delusional thinking on my part. To avoid the pains that I see coming I would gladly accept that I am completely wrong. But I await someone to show me this and not just claim it to be true. Evidence seems to be on my side.
I don't envy Barack Obama one bit. He may have the intellectual horsepower to grasp the problems. He may even have the sapience to guide his decisions in these matters, so far as he can go. The real problem for the president-elect is that he is a politician first and foremost. He was elected. There are expectations for him to solve the problems in ways everyone will see as giving them what they want. And what they want is to go back to the way things were. He will never be able to do that. Not for the long term security of civilization. The fundamentals of physical reality have caught up with us. While a short-term improvement might be possible, if for no other reason than people simply perceive an improvement regardless of underlying conditions, the trend will soon reassert itself. We damned well better recognize it and start doing what reality demands.
even i hope that the (so called) doomers, that would be including mi, have gotten it really wrong and that the defect lies in our perception of the world around us.
but as you said the evidence is pointing in the other direction.
it is so frustrating when it comes to convincing loved ones. some who do not understand and some who do not want to...
another beautiful post...
Posted by: Sudeep Bhaumick | November 17, 2008 at 01:29 AM
Thank you Sudeep.
I do not really think of myself as a 'dooomer' except with regard to the current consumption-based economy and the sub-sapient forms of governance that prevail in the world. Those are doomed. Unfortunately I suspect there will be much suffering in the process. Some people who, as you point out, are unwilling to recognize reality, will be doomed.
But I am quite hopeful for humanity in general. What we are facing is a challenge and I suspect an evolutionary opportunity. I still dream of a more sapient species.
George
Posted by: George Mobus | November 17, 2008 at 07:36 AM
Great blog...
Do you consider geo-engineering to reduce warming be an option? How would you work it into your plan?
Thanks.
Posted by: Lutrinae | November 17, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Lutrinae,
Thanks for the comment.
Geo-engineering scares me a bit. First, I have difficulty calling the idea engineering since that term implies one knows what one is doing. Clearly, insofar as the modification of Earth climate, we really don't know what to expect from attempts, say, to mitigate global warming by interfering with the influx of solar energy. There is no historical practice of actual engineering (except possibly for dams, and other hydrological projects) with known results. Anything we do now would be experimental and pre-knowledge of consequences (unintended or otherwise) doesn't exist.
In my mind the only sensible thing to do is cut way back on carbon-based fuels and soon. Humans lived a long time without giant machines to do their bidding (and a really long time without SUVs). We know we can do that again. What we don't know is what dispersing large quantities of sulfuric acid in the troposphere would do, aside from possibly increasing the albedo a bit.
George
Posted by: George Mobus | November 18, 2008 at 09:44 AM
"the real cause of the suddenness and extent of the meltdown, the decline in net energy available to the economies of the world"
Hmm. I'm not so sure. OK, gas prices perhaps kicked that first domino (GM rating downgraded). But any other domino in the interknit chains of CDOs of CDOs would have done. Those "weapons of financial mass destruction" (Warren Buffet 2003) have been waiting to blow up since before peak oil. The energy problem (peak oil) will get crucial later on.
Anyhow, we (global biosystem) are quite lucky that Homo S "Sapiens" hit the wall with financial industry, i.e. crashed into abstract stuff, instead of hitting biophysical limits. So, some breathing space we got. And suddenly there's some open ears and minds to look at the really scary stuff (e.g. ponder your magnificient writings). Oh the luck! Do worry, but be happy.
Posted by: Florifulgurator | November 18, 2008 at 09:45 AM
On geo-engineering:
There is one promising carbon sequestration thing, char coal:
Pyrolize dead (and soon to decompose) carbon-rich biomass, thus harvesting some energy while also fixing some carbon that would otherwise return to the atmosphere as CO2 by decomposition. Bury (not burn) that char coal. It is very beneficial in agriculture (cf. "terra preta"). It will stay in the soil for centuries.
Problem perhaps is, it's not space-agey enough to attract Homo S "Sapiens" tech fetishism. Also, it looks movements like Vandana Shiva's aren't really aware of it yet.
I'm waiting for the wood gas hybrid car, so I can drive carbon negative...
Posted by: Florifulgurator | November 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM
As far ad debt goes, I believe we need change in our formal education. You posted some very interesting ideas in your blog posts about our education system and how we need to train students to be more than just 'specialists' in a specific area.
I've been a student ever since I moved to this country in 1994.
All the classes I have taken have to do with either preparing me for college or work (and learn English).
I would say I'm one of the lucky ones, due to the fact that I wanted to pursue an engineering major, I was forced to take Physics and Calculus. I believe those (any maybe 1 or 2 more) classes are the only ones I took which help me think analytically about my environment, and thus going beyond just job training.
Other than that everything other class had to do with preparing me for a specific job. Which leads me to my point. Students all over this country are going into huge amounts of debt because of our education system.
In our current system, students borrow money to go to school and banks give them money because everybody assumes that there is always going to be growth and most students are going to get a job in their special field, be able to make lots of money, pay back the debt and make a living all at the same time. I too have fallen into this cycle. Even though I've worked while going to Community College and the University, I had to borrow money from the government (in the form of Fin. Aid student loans) to pay for some of my undergraduate education.
This is not right, as most readers of this blog would agree, growth is not infinite.
A better way would be to treat students as 'maintainers' of future sustainability instead of trained experts in a specialized field. And any investment made in the student's education should be based on the fact that the students education will help sustain society in the future and benefit everybody. This also means the costs of education have to come down and they have to be based on realistic assumptions not the job market of the future.
Posted by: Sukhbir Dadwal | November 19, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Hi Florifulgurator.
What I meant by 'cause' is that the bubble of just about everything (prices and debt) had been artificially pumped up beyond the capacity for the flow of energy to be used for real work to sustain it. Once one part of the bubble, i.e. the housing piece with sub-prime mortgages following close behind started to collapse it brought everything down with it - the veritable house of cards of the economy. The housing crisis was, perhaps, the triggering event. But the underlying cause of the problem was the building that house of cards as if there would be adequate energy flow in the future to keep it up. When the combination of flat oil production and declining EROI hit a critical point, the whole thing imploded.
This is almost completely opaque to classical economics which treats energy as just another commodity. This is one of the reasons that dollar prices for energy are now pretty much meaningless. The price signals are not really telling us a whole lot until you realize that it is energy flow and not money flow per se that is the real currency of the economy.
I've been trying to work out the relationships in several past blogs. There are a lot of assumptions taken for granted in this one that were dealt with in previous blogs.
George
Posted by: George Mobus | November 21, 2008 at 07:27 AM
Sukhbir,
Great insight. The one thing I agreed with my long-ago economics professor on was the idea that education should be free to anyone who wants to (and has the intellectual horsepower) pursue it - similar to the European model in many places.
Education is a societal investment that has huge payoffs, if done right, in terms of creating better informed and reasoning citizen leaders. Of course we have perverted the real purpose of education to be about job skills and measure the payoff in jobs with good wages. And the 'free market' version of financing education is pathetic.
But see, our incredibly informed citizenry can only complain about the 'heavy' tax burden they have to suffer. Poor dears. We don't want to tax them anymore to support education. Let them keep their money so they can buy big screen TVs.
George
Posted by: George Mobus | November 21, 2008 at 07:36 AM
Your readiness to dispense with representative democracy gives me the feeling that I need to find a throne (non-royal!) to sit on. "Sapient governance with a council of [the] wise" was attractive to Plato and Thomas Carlysle (inter al.), but the results have been uniformly dystopian. The "Great Man" theory keeps coming back, like the smoke from a campfire that one can't escape, no matter where he sits.
Two "Great Man" types at present are Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez. I know some folks in our country see them as Great Man material (or actuality). But those of us who have grown up or lived extensively in countries so ruled recognize the dystopias they are.
Plato had ideas on how to grow Sapient Leaders. Carlysle appears to have believed Sapient Leaders (who also happen to be STRONG and MANLY) pop out of the woodwork when needed.
You suggest something like DNA blood tests (O Brave New World!) to sort folks on the basis of brains. But so much ill has been done by folks of great intellect. Virtue and saintliness, perhaps? Sir (or Saint) Thomas More, and the uncanonized but even saintlier Thomas Cranmer, both sent many people to torture and to be burned at the stake.
But I love your proposals! You are proposing some real courses of action. All I have done is find fault.
Posted by: David Ocampo G | April 18, 2009 at 05:27 PM
David,
I suggest you read the series on sapience a bit more closely. There are some important differences between what I am talking about and what you describe from history. Wisdom is not necessarily greatness. But I acknowledge your sentiment of caution. All of the things I suggest are hypotheses to be tested. Not to be followed blindly.
George
Posted by: George Mobus | April 18, 2009 at 09:39 PM