Asklemmy

54932 readers

229 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

What do you think about a political system fundamentally built around the scientific method with the primary goal of optimizing the HDI, GDPPP, and environmental impact? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 days ago by Zephyr@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

That is all policies and political structures are testable and tested to see their effect on those three (or other suggested) factors. If a policy doesn't reasonably work then it's simply not continually employed. I'm curious to see what factors others think ought to be used.

It seems most political systems now were built without science in mind and utilize it as an afterthought to help develop legitimacy for policies individuals want. Generally politics across countries seems deeply emotionally driven and not fact driven. That is people have a feeling that an idea is a good idea and then they cobble together whatever they can to support that point without any unified measure of good or better. Ideally it ought to be the other way around, fact or evidence informed policy generation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It seems you are referring to a technocracy. This could be an efficient means of managing capitalism but it does not remove capitalism. Political systems are subordinate to their economic base not the other way around. A technocratic system that scientifically negates the consequences of capitalism will not come about because it would be unprofitable. The capitalist does not want to address the consequences of their actions so the emotional/cultural appeal keeps us feeling politically engaged while actually doing nothing. They cannot investigate and solve the worlds problems without incriminating themselves.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Yes but no. The concept doesn't infer a measure for policies and political structures. I guess one could categorize it as a subset of the concept. This idea is we literally just test ideas and see their influence on the wellbeing of the people and the society. No matter the political structure, system, or idea the data will be there to collect at least for what was tried. It's up to people to use the data to infer their decision making. Of course they're free not to or to test and ensure they never really know if their system is optimal.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh that is already being done its just that human wellbeing isn't the goal and the process of efficient management isn't public facing

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yes although we don't really play around with political structures that much. They may as well be infallible religious doctrine. Also most definitely the goal currently isn't developing the best society.

[–] RiceMunk@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Isn't that already happening, to varying degrees?

Lots of data is being collected, analysed, and published by various parties about how this or that policy is affecting things, but said research is also easily subverted by talking heads to cherry-pick their favoured points, or just generally drowned under inconsequential noise.

It's kind of why "I did my research" is a meme about stuff like antivaxxers sticking horse medicine up their butts instead of representing some sort of enlightened political decisions makers.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Kind of, it's an afterthought to the system at play. Let's say for the US, we're really not experimenting with structures, like what would adding a fourth fundamental branch of government and splitting the power of the executive do as it seems lately the fed and executive branch has gotten overly powerful.