Democracy -and Further
We Americans are generally pleased and even proud of our democracy. Regardless of serious differences in our opinions -'life-style and the quality of life', for example, we remain generally dedicated to our natural rights and freedoms, something to say
about the government and the right to vote accordingly. There must be something right there because, clearly, our Constitution and free-enterprise democracy has led the way into the future for many, many countries, and it continues to do so today.
We know, however, that democracy has its limitations. It cannot, for example, typically respond adequately or quickly enough to situations that cry for such response. And, more or less contrarily, it even sometimes appears to be highjacked without
explanation for reasons well within our understanding.
How many of us really understand then, that what is not unambiguously qualified is not knowledge but opinion? -And if it comes from officialdom of some kind, it's probably 'crafted for our digestion' in addition -so how did this situation come
At the top of the food chain, early man had nothing to do but 'Go forth and multiply' -a 'brand new world his for the taking'. And little by little then, as 'knowledge' developed, life became both easier and more complex. Lean-to's and tenting gave way
to more permanent settlements.
And military and economic power, in time, often became prosperous city-states of aristocracy and slavery.
Man didn't know much about how he had become what he was, but he did have opinions about 'how things were' and 'how they should be'.
It was only a matter of time and circumstance then, before some 'fifth-century-BC Greeks hatched democracy' -'Everyone equal and the right to vote'.
But it was a democracy of 'wealthy-but-equal intellectuals' and a working population of variously voting or non-voting 'free(d)men', and slaves.
Science and technological advances have now greatly enriched our lives. But we remain stuck at 'Multiply -the world ours for the continued taking'.
Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology and Democracy
Consider first that 'knowing' man -H sapiens, evolved with an intrinsically underlying neonate ignorance. He learned and evolved, in other words, out of primitive observation and sometime serendipity.
And what did he learn then? He learned and evolved -natural selection working, how to better facilitate his existence. Nor did he know what nature of organism he was or what the nature of his knowledge. As life became easier then, it also became
more complex. He made higher-order observations and conjured up -circumstantially and ignorantly, 'reasonable' explanations for what he thought he understood. It was opinion however -not science, but the whole worked and it evolved, and
institutionalization followed in time too. -We call it free-enterprise capitalist democracy.
Science, then, evolved and developed precisely out of such process -but with more refined observation -and successively more knowledgeable conjecture too. 'Better knowledge', therefore, intrinsically lags behind the demands and routines of
life in general. And virtually all government and economy so far then, operates out of exactly such institutionalized existence, interaction and opinion -science lagging behind.
From at least the early 60's there has been a steady ramping up of scientific literature on the worsening environmental health of the planet. Scientists, however, are generally true scientists only in their respective laboratories -mathematicians at their blackboards likewise. Away from their labs then, they are Christians and Jews and Republicans and Democrats and other such non-scientific denominations of belief. And they too then, have a stake in this free-enterprise democracy -and opinions too -much, that is, as it has ever been so far.
The scientization of government is inevitable. Because of opinion and belief however, it is not easily argued how the further evolution of government and economics might best take place: In this free-enterprise democracy, 'some are more equal than
others'. 'Best well-being in a best environmental health of the planet' will continue to fail, then, until science actively engages legislation. There are scientists who are well aware of this situation -they are out there.
Desperately needed, in other words, is a science-based commission studying exactly this continuing evolution -or at least a conference call by such scientists -they are out there.