We could restore debates by an analog to a fight to the death. The defeated in the debate would have to kill his presence in social media and then build a new presence with a new identity. Lacking such finality in a debate allows a person to return to the established fortress of his channel with its established subscriber base, and within weeks resume content as if the debate never occurred.
another idea for democracy based on super-majority voting instead of simple majority of representatives chosen in many cases by plurality votes. In such a government everything requires a super-majority of the vote, such as 80% of the vote.
In doing so, I’m satisfying my fatherly instincts by contributing to the human hive rather than to my biological offspring. Even if I had children, it is almost certain they would not have benefited as much as the unrelated people who happened to be in the right position for me to influence.
This interpretation presents a problem in that the first amendment is a single statement that contradicts itself. People have a right to attempt to persuade others, while the others have a right to never be persuaded.
The assumption is that the initial condition of the fully automated economy and government is ideal in terms of a modern middle-class experience for everyone with a guaranteed income and free entertainment. It can only get worse from there. Humans offer nothing to improve the future of the automation. Inevitably, they will segregate into groups. Those groups will strive for improvements of their condition where their best opportunity is at the expense of other groups. The automation will adapt.
I think this daily expense account is more realistic than a basic income to provide for the basic welfare of the unemployed in a fully automated economy. It is also helpful to illustrate how dismal this state of affairs will be. The expense account is a daily ration, and a cot in a shelter. But the shelter will have plenty of available virtual-reality head consoles.
The above video presents four eras of human communication from an evolutionary perspective where there was a long time when humans only gestured and grunted, then there was a long time when humans spoke but did not write, then a long time when people wrote. The useful information is the progression of information content possible with each era. The unnecessary information is evolutionary explanation. For this discussion to work, there doesn’t have to be a specific period of time when human culture flourished with illiterate people fluent in verbal languages. There are clearly expansions of content starting with gestures, then adding verbal languages, then adding written languages. The Internet era allows us to publish and retrieve information separately from the story-telling.
Clearly there are better philosophies that introduce morals, charity, cooperation, restraint, human rights, etc. Unfortunately, they don’t ever fully refute the default philosophy of the martial arts. As implied in the video at the top, sometimes these elevated philosophies come into conflict in a way that must be resolved by the default philosophy of martial arts.
Our admiration of the martial arts is a result of our respect for the strength of its underlying philosophy.