Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

How can we stop the slow degradation of the social fabric, which leads to civil war?

The four main causes of the degradation of the social fabric are:

   •   

the excessive increase in inequalities,

   •   

the proliferation of jobs that are not directly useful,

   •   

the loss of confidence in the elites,

   •   

and the rise of 'to each his own truth'.

The excessive increase in inequalities corresponds to an excessive concentration of the means of production. This concentration is made possible by the excessive size of companies (formerly, in a mainly agricultural society, by the excessive size of estates).

The proliferation of jobs that are not directly useful corresponds to the Parkinson's law not taken into account, therefore not fought, which leads to an increase in social tensions through the growing pressure of those not directly productive on the productive.

There loss of confidence in the elites results from the low quality of their decisions in terms of rigor of reasoning and of conformity to the general interest.

The rise of 'to each their own truth' is a greater fragmentation of beliefs linked to the arrival of weakly regulated social networks which amplifies the work of undermining started by opinion journals. Historically, the stability of the social fabric was not achieved by a struggle against beliefs, but by the attempt to impose one, often through religion. However, such a solution is no longer applicable since the second revolution of humanity, namely the technological revolution. Indeed, the modern scientific method which caused it also tends to discredit any belief constructed for political purposes.

To restore the social fabric, it is necessary:

   •   

To limit production entities to a reasonable size.

   •   

To fight head to head with Parkinson's law, by periodically refocusing each production entity on its reason for being.

   •   

To put in place a mechanism ensuring greater quality of collective decisions.

   •   

To fight against beliefs.

The book From capital to reason describes a social organization that covers these four points:

   •   

Production entities are limited to around a hundred people.

   •   

They are audited periodically to ensure their suitability for their purpose down to the smallest detail.

   •   

A concept of strategic rating is put in place, allowing:
To better select who will be entrusted with collective decisions, and to check their quality.
To make each individual aware of their effective abilities to conduct the analysis leading to a quality collective decision, that is to say not based on beliefs.

Comment

In terms of the four causes mentioned for the progressive deterioration of the social fabric, the first (excessive increase in inequalities) corresponds to the feeling of injustice, the second (proliferation of jobs not directly useful) to excessive hierarchical pressure, and the other two ( loss of confidence in elites and rise in power of 'to each their own truth') correspond to the feeling of lack of confidence.
The loss of confidence in the elites corresponds to the loss of objective confidence, linked to their unsatisfactory mode of operation, and the rise of 'to each their own truth' corresponds to the loss of subjective confidence, linked to the rise of beliefs to the detriment of reason.

Go deeper

Regarding the proliferation of jobs that are not directly useful:
'What does Parkinson's law teach us?'

Concerning the loss of confidence in the elites:
'Why do humans reason massively wrong?' And 'What conditions must be met to produce serious reasoning? Problem solving.'
'How to make decisions consistent with the general interest?'
'Why is trust an essential and scuttled component?'
'Are our policies worse than their predecessors?'

Concerning the notion of beliefs:
'Why is all belief dangerous?'

And finally, regarding the proposed solution:
'What is important for living well together?'
'What social organization would allow us to live in harmony?'

 

2022-06-29 15:01:54 Cyril Fighting against beliefs AND disinformation

"La méthode scientifique tend à discréditer toute croyance"...
Le scientifique le plus brillant et intellectuellement honnête reste limité par la qualité des données sur lesquelles il appuie son raisonnement.

Le "chacun sa vérité" évoqué n'est pas seulement lié aux croyances, mais également à la distorsions des faits, voire à la création de faux faits (fake news).
Un raisonnement, même scientifique, ne garantit rien si les prémisses sont fausses.

Cet article de Fakir mets bien en lumière à la fois la difficulté d'éviter les manipulations de la vérité, et les compromis que nous faisons plus ou moins consciemment en tant qu'individus :
https://www.fakirpresse.info/moi-journaliste-fantome-au-service-des-lobbies

Sur la majorité des sujets sociétaux et politiques, la première bataille est celle des faits, que peu sont en mesure de vérifier. Plus subtil encore que la distorsion : la sélection. Je pars de ma conclusion, et je ne retiens que les faits - éventuellement vérifiables - qui me permettent de démontrer ma conclusion.

J'ai l'impression qu'établir ce que sont les faits est souvent plus difficile que d'évaluer la qualité de l'analyse qui part de ces faits...

New comment

From:

Message title:

Message :