The primary advantage of western civilization is its celebration of the concept of philosophy set down by Plato. This concept is that we expose our internally acquired wisdom to our peers who have developed different wisdom while being equally able to participate in society. The love of wisdom of philosophy refers to a form of love that puts that wisdom on display for others to absorb, and this inherently presents a conflict between different models of wisdom. Machine learning automates the acquisition of privately-held wisdom. The next challenge is artificial philosophy to expose that internal wisdom for public dialog.
A democratic voting base is that population who has the ability to influence specific government decisions individually. A democratic republic would transfer that direct influence to the representatives. To the extent either of these exist today, that voting base is restricted to government bureaucrats with access to non-public information. Further evidence of bureaucrats being the true base of democracy is that they are largely independent of both the executive and and the legislative branch.
In the actual case, humans facilitated the fast recovery after the false alarm because even though each person is specialized in terms of what they would have been doing that day, they would also, in large part, recognize the situation by observing people around them going about their own restoration of normal life. The specialization among humans is fundamentally different from the specialization of machines in that despite the specialization in duties or goals, humans share their human identity. They will adjust their expectations and demands in part to accommodate for the difficulties they can see others going through to meet those demands. Also, people will volunteer their services in areas that they normally do not work. In contrast, the various systems within an automated economy are less equipped to cooperate with unrelated systems, either in perceiving the need to cooperate, or having the capacity to help.
My hypothesis is that men do have a tendency to prefer male voices for topics of high interest or importance, and that tendency is a consequence of the opportunity for a fruitful counterargument when we disagree. I follow more male voices than female voices, because there are many more people I disagree with than I agree with. I will listen to both sexes if I agree with them, but I will only follow men if there is a potential that I will disagree with them. It is only with other men that I can have any chance of gaining anything through argument.
These cases are often described as open-secrets. Many people in the community are aware of the information about individual cases and about the pattern of behavior, but there has been some kind of understanding that the past events are resolved in some acceptable terms, and that ongoing behavior is restrained by certain conditions. The oxymoron of open-secrets can be resolved by defining the open-part as being observed data, while the secret-part is restraints on how this data may be used in future decision making.
We need a new approach to governance at all scales in order to sustain and build upon our culture. I think a new approach is possible by recognizing that narratives are expendable. We do not need consistency of narratives over time, for all narratives at all scales from nations to individuals.
The advantage of data on read strategy is that it separates the processes of data collection from the processes of applying a schema in order to interpret the results. We can learn more easily that our prior knowledge was wrong when we get prior knowledge out of the data store.