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

[–] azureskypirate@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It makes sense. Technology has made workers much more effecient since the 1970s, yet weekly hours worked have not fallen. It might be worth it to have the option to work less, in other words, to increase HDI a lot for a little less GDP.

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

Yeah most countries have been seriously lacking on the HDI and environmental impact aspect of what I consider to be the best optimization for human wellbeing. Production is amazing, more food, better medicine, more efficient energy sources but it has to be for a reason, not just to do it. Of course capitalism tries to quantify this through market demand but unfortunately people and governance are easy to game if one has enough capital aka people can be convinced either directly or through ignorance to support markets that are harmful to their wellbeing and the environment.