If top of the society is immoral psychopaths with power, and most of the society is composed of people with good intentions, then there is not much hope for “beta uprising” until things go way beyond point of recovery, because powerful psychopaths will not let their power get taken away.

Not sure if this is just evolutionary biology, but this cycle of psychopaths at the top has been going on since when, at least ancient Egypt. And in all these thousands of years, the system that enables this cycle got way more reinforced than it got dismantled.

So is it maybe better idea to put benevolent people’s energy towards designing and preparing a new societal system that will have built-in mechanisms for preventing corruption and malevolence? “prepare” as in get ready to implement for when the current messed up system is about to grind to a halt and collapse? Well, it would be best to figure out how to go full Benevolent Theseus™ by replacing parts of currently failing system with the corruption-proof ones.

What are some resources related to this topic? Recearch on societal dynamics, designing political systems, examples of similar revolutions that already happened, etc. Post any links that you consider relevant

  • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don’t think climate change is real, so now I think you’re stupid and you think I’m stupid and it’s he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl. The thing that fixes this is a definition of “stupid” that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

    • darq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I still think you are talking about something else?

      Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don’t think climate change is real, so now I think you’re stupid and you think I’m stupid and it’s he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl.

      In reality though some people are right and some people are wrong. The person who talks about vaccines as just “shooting ourselves full of mercury and viruses” is either stupid or malicious. What they think of me doesn’t matter, because this conversation is about how I should treat this hypothetical person.

      And that was the point I made. Ultimately it doesn’t matter if they are stupid or malicious, I should treat them the same way. Because their intent doesn’t really matter, their actions do.

      The thing that fixes this is a definition of “stupid” that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

      That is not how language or communication works…

      People who are thought of as stupid, rarely agree that they are stupid. Same goes for malicious, to be honest.

      • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly. So we can’t just “Treat stupidity as a type of malice”, because nobody can agree on what is and isn’t stupidity.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alright I don’t know who you are talking to, but it’s very clearly not me.

          • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Alright, from the very words of your own comment:

            At some point, does it matter?

            in direct response to my comment

            Who decides what is stupid and what isn’t?

            Yes, it does matter. If you want to “Give people the resources to educate themselves”, you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn’t good education; in order to “Give them the benefit of the doubt, once”, you have to have a criteria for when they’ve stopped being stupid.

            • darq@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nobody decrees who is stupid or not. That’s a judgement everyone makes for themselves.

              If you want to “Give people the resources to educate themselves”, you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn’t good education; in order to “Give them the benefit of the doubt, once”, you have to have a criteria for when they’ve stopped being stupid.

              No. I don’t.

              When I hear people talking about climate change like it doesn’t exist, or has “concerns” about transgender people existence, or something like that, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just ignorant. I’ll be willing to talk to them, and maybe explain some of the misconceptions they might have.

              But if they aren’t willing to listen, then they… Are either stupid or malicious. But the difference isn’t meaningful. They act exactly the same, either way.

              They don’t have to agree me thinking they are either stupid or malicious. It literally changes nothing if they disagree.