One World

22) Demon-cracy

Posted 3rd June 2016

In 20 days, the adults of the United Kingdom will vote on whether or not to remain in the European Union (having joined in 1973). There are politicians and business leaders across the country and around the World trying to persuade the UK population to vote one way or another. I may be wrong, but I suspect most of these voices are coming from a position of self-interest, rather than a genuine concern for doing the best thing for all people in Europe. Similarly, and again I may be wrong, but I suspect most people ask themselves when deciding which way to vote what is in their own personal (including family and close friends) best interests and vote accordingly.

However, there will be some who will vote according to what is the most humane option e.g. which option will ease the suffering of refugees and the pressure on their host nations; Afford the greatest protection to the environment and human and animal rights; Offer the greatest chance of a lasting peace for all nations; Etc. They will forego the promise of adding to their already relatively comfortable position if it means a great many people they don't know are lifted out of real suffering. Like I say, perhaps you suspect, as I do, such people are few and far between. Instead, I suspect that, given the option of helping the lives of desperate people or ensuring their own comfortable way of life isn't put at risk, they'll choose the latter. Given the option of cleaner air for everyone or having a polluting car and objecting to the building of a nearby wind farm they'll choose the latter. And, generally, they will choose the option which offers the most benefit to them individually with only secondary, if any, regard for how detrimental that option may be to others.

I don't know which way to vote on June 23rd this year. What do I know about the complexities of the political/business/environmental/etc. inter-relationship between Britain, the EU, and the rest of the World? Seemingly clever people from both sides of the argument are passionately trying to persuade the people of the UK about the merits of either staying or leaving the EU. Are they being totally honest? Are they presenting the facts in a way that is biased to their preference, like a prosecution or defence lawyer? The experts are arguing about which option is best for Britain i.e. directly appealing to the selfish nature of individual voters – few are saying which option is best for the planet as a whole.

It seems to me that the politicians and electorate alike, generally, have a less than moral agenda. They are mostly acting/will act out of personal self-interest. Now, it is completely understandable that parents will single-mindedly do what is best for their children, this is seen by many as admirable, whereas if a single person votes according their self-interest this may be labelled, by some, as selfish, and 'only out for him or herself'. Whatever – but a decision that affects a large group may not be best made by that same large group as most in the group don't think about the interests of the group, only of themselves as individual/individual families.

Consider a young family: if the children were allowed to vote on the important decisions that affected the whole family, they may vote to stay up late, eat ice cream all the time, to stay off school etc. Instead, the parents set rules which are based upon doing what is in the long term best interests of their children. The parents make decisions that the children are too uninformed and immature to take responsibility for. Also, whilst the children may fight with their siblings over a toy and act selfishly, the parents love all their children equally and ensure each child is well nourished, nurtured and sustainably happy. The parents are consistent, and are with the children through their development. The parents also enforce corrective discipline when necessary.

The latter example of a young family is, presumably, obvious to you, and probably ingrained in you from your own upbringing and perhaps aligns with your own conclusions as a parent. It works – you, hopefully, raise well balanced, healthy, happy and educated children.

I put it to you that, whereas parents may be sensible and wise in family administration, the global population as a whole behaves similarly to young children who are free to vote on choices affecting the whole family, with little reference to what is best for their siblings, the family as a whole, or their own long term interests.

This tendency in humans is highlighted by the national lottery: most people would love to win the lottery. Sure, they'd give some money to friends and family, and maybe some to an individual charity. Then, with the remaining large amount of money, they'd enjoy a comfortable life. If they shared the money with the World they'd go back to their life of struggling for a living, so they choose to be richer than everyone else, and have a comfortable life while many other people continue to struggle to make ends meet.

'The Blues' and 'The Browns'

Imagine a country where there are two main political parties: one which represents blue-eyed people, and one which represents brown-eyed people. 'The Blues' promise to heavily tax everyone with brown eyes, and distribute the treasury to the people with blue-eyes, and vice-versa for 'The Browns'. Now, 51% of the population of this imaginary country has blue eyes. Consequently, 'The Blues' win the national election, and the 51% who have blue eyes begin to profit by the large taxes paid by the brown-eyed people. Over the years, the blue-eyed people become progressively richer, and the brown-eyed people become progressively poorer. It is as if the brown-eyed people are the slaves of the blue-eyed people.

This seemingly ridiculous hypothetical scenario highlights, I think, a tendency of democracy: the largest group has its representatives democratically elected, who then act in the best interests of their supporters, thus profiting upon, or marginalising, the smaller groups. Like the largest gang dominating and subjugating smaller gangs.

This harmful system prevails because most individuals think as individuals: doing what is best for themselves first, and others second (if at all).

Of course, the young parents in the previous example (above) would not have allowed this to go on i.e. where their children form two gangs and the larger gang picks on the smaller gang. Instead, they would step in and take over, and do what is best for all their children: steering them away from selfishness and towards becoming caring individuals. In the same way, democracy doesn't work because it is being played out, not by informed people in selfless debate over what is best for everyone for all time, but by a disjointed semi-ignorant mass of (competing) individuals who mostly act selfishly. However, in the long-term, this behaviour is counter-productive to them as individuals as it impoverishes the World as a whole and all humans become losers.

Given the immaturity of humanity, what the World needs is a substitute parent, a guardian. I would imagine a robot/computer, programmed to care for everyone and do what is best for humanity as a whole, is best suited to the role.

By the way, I'm also selfish. However, I realise that to get what I want, to live on a happy, peaceful and balanced Earth, I need EVERYONE to get what they need: a happy, peaceful and balanced Earth.