• bane_killgrind@slrpnk.netEnglish
    24·
    2 days ago

    That’s a very uneducated take, and shows that you don’t understand how access to information can be changed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

    Unbiased, well cited repositories of information are essential.

    • seeigel@feddit.orgEnglish
      27·
      2 days ago

      I agree, for the way our societies are structured.

      My point is that we could organize us in a way that history could provide additional depth but that the essential decisions could be made as well without the knowlege of history.

      • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.netEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

        That “could” is doing a lot of work for that premise. We are currently structured as an amalgam of disparate chains of systems interacting with each other in loosely defined ways.

        If you want to take the ability of sovereign entities to self determine, then sure we “could” organize in this other way.

        But we don’t have a god emperor of earth, so we will need to rely on this loose consensus instead of a dictated one.

        • seeigel@feddit.orgEnglish
          14·
          2 days ago

          Why does it have to be dictated? People can freely organize in a democratic way.

          The problem is that people may join just because it is better, without fully supporting the respect towards others that is needed in such a system.

          • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.netEnglish
            5·
            2 days ago

            Things don’t happen that way. “Can, may, could” means that there will be pockets of people that don’t subscribe to the ideology and undermine it.