[yor_on]

you won't avoid this choice. Not making one is the same as choosing one.

[yor_on]

Making the wrong one this laboratory will be closed to us and our current environment, in wait for something new and sentient to come.

[yor_on]

It's still a nursery, and it's still about emergence's.

[yor_on]

and I can promise you that I've read a awful lot of books, too many actually and with very few of them keeping my interest.

[yor_on]

I know, you might be thinking of the 'culture' series by Iain Banks. I'll agree on the culture being a sort of example of a sane species, well, in some manner, but it builds on 'infinite wealth'. That's your  game in a nutshell. Infinite planets, infinite assets and resources, and infinite wealth. Everyone becomes a millionaire. Otherwise I recommend them, most of them anyway, not for their preconceptions but for their humanity.

It's not your future though. As it looks today you might not have one.

[yor_on]

So why doesn't anything change? Well, I'm not sure. Some of it might be blamed on the idea of the 'market' reconstructing itself. It only do that if it sees a profit in it. Then you have the way your politicians and other decision makers 'make believe', in form of studies, 'pledges', 'conventions' and assembly's. Talking and and writing signatures on a paper which real value only should be in the toilet.

and what your scientists misinterpret, into that 'something is done'. Took them decades to see through that one and some of them still believe that with more studies this will change.

[yor_on]

Then you have yourself and your wallet.
Your job that might disappear.

and everyone knows that sharing isn't part of this game, but civil unrest might be, and you voting for someone else next time. A new 'leader' for you to follow.

[yor_on]

Everyone looking out for themselves and nothing real happening.

[yor_on]

then you have beliefs, traditions, values, ideals, hierarchies and peer reinforcements, etc. It all adds up to a game that has a lot of stagnant momentum.

[yor_on]

And corruption, friendly deals between peers, closed door politics. What your papers tend to hail as a brilliant solution for 'getting something done'. You sure you have a democracy?

[yor_on]

I don't think you have a democracy. Though I think you could get one, if you wanted and demanded it. One built on equal votes, no weighting, transparency and fair information. At least here in Europe. As for USA, Russia, China, Brazil? I'm still waiting for how it will look there, and it's also connected to education and information.

[yor_on]

Otherwise, you not wanting a democracy, the only thing to hope for would be 'enlightened leaders', willing to make unpopular decisions. Decisions that will hit your wallets, increase inequality and without sharing.

it's not a good recipe for a change. It should lead to civil unrest and repressions.

[yor_on]

It's the game, all of it is about your game.

[yor_on]

If we assume that a real democracy is possible, what would it do to your market, and your profits? It depends on how you vote naturally but let's assume you agree to share, and to ban.

things that wasn't 'profitable' for the market will suddenly show itself to become so. Prices will raise but as you share what you have you at least knows that everyone is in the same boat. A little like a war might force you.

[yor_on]

And you changing your infra structures built on this principle of sharing will mean less cars, modern technology and better designs. Less pollution, better housing standards. If you then also start to look to your 'geopolitics' I'm pretty sure that your arms sales no longer would raise. Transparency is the word here, and with that no more 'backroom' deals.

[yor_on]

And your educational system should see a change, and with that less conspiracy theories. Your politicians would disappear, making themselves available to the society in other functions. Your hierarchies would still be there but with a lot less influence on the national decision making. The same would be true for your industries etc.

[yor_on]

There should be a limit to any real democracy. A party of ten, knowing each other and voting amongst themselves, isn't the same as when ten millions vote, people that don't know each other. The bigger system should by its very nature make for a fairer vote. It should be impossible to keep a hierarchy going amongst that many, especially as the results of the voting will be anonymous.

By that I mean 'blame games'


syntax

[yor_on]

The only thing you should be able to blame it on will be a real democracy making itself heard. And doing so you will fall into the category of an extreme, as the vote went against your wishes. And if you arm yourself, wanting to 'correct' it, you definitely becomes an extreme.

[yor_on]

A real democracy will work this way. You don't need to be a extreme to vote differently but once you take to arms, or manipulation, you become one. Democracy builds on a majority's wishes. That's the way the new game is set up, and the only way you will make a change. Not by fighting it but by understanding.

[yor_on]

It would shrink your wallets, at the same time as I expect it to be able to correct the worst examples of inequality we see. We wouldn't be the same in it, there would still be class differences but they would belong to different 'peer groups' unable to use it for national decisions. It's not perfect in any way, but it would be a lot better than what we have. Assuming you would want it.

I also think that this is the only way we will get anything done about global warming. I don't need more blame games, or wars.