In this blog site, I frequently discussion my own fantasy government that I called a dedomenocracy. One key feature of this government is that instead of asking the population to democratically choose policy, it asks the population to demographically define how to measure the greater good. When some future crisis occurs, what does the population prioritizes and what is the population willing to sacrifice. In such a government, I can not imagine that we would agree to sacrifice our younger people (and especially not our young women) for the benefit elderly people (and especially not old men). We do not live in a dedomenocracy.
The events of recent months suggest that a government by only young voters could itself prevent the country from moving forward. In this case, the young are accepting an argument for immortality and it appears likely that they will bring this into our government. I don’t see any good coming from this objective. We cannot achieve immortality. Even if we could, the objective likely will distract our attention from other government priorities.
Eventually the current protests will dissipate, and we will still have a problem of a population of young people who sense they are not getting the same deal for their lives as their parents or grandparents received. A good part of that is that they are not as healthy as their ancestors were at similar ages. Some of that unhealthiness was due to over-medicating their youths whether from excess use of mood medications or from excessive vaccinations that save lots of lives from one cause at the expense of vaccine injuries that rob them of the lives they could have had.
The freeze dance game is an analogy of what lock down subjects to young people. In that game, someone plays music that everyone enjoys dancing to. When everyone starts getting well into their dancing, someone stops the music and everyone must freeze in their position. Anyone who continues to move is taken out of the game, even if that movement involves catching ones balance. When translated to real life, it is most hazardous for the younger generations.
The continued obsession on COVID19 is shining a bright light on this very fundamental fact: we are asking the young to sacrifice their future calendars for the sole sake of preserving the future calendars of the retirement-age group. Eventually, that light will shine on the massive qualitative difference of those calendars.
The trolley problem we faced was that leaving this disease take its course would put at risk the lives of people who are mostly elderly or dealing with other conditions. We chose to follow a different path that puts at risk the lives of the younger generation either through premature death or a greatly degraded quality of life than they would have if the choice had not been taken.
Our panicked government locked down non-essential opportunities that most benefit the younger populations. The same government already has decided on a similar trade for a future vaccination program that will primarily impact the younger population and may not even apply to the older population. We are frighteningly close to risking sterilizing our next generation to get this vaccine out. We may have already made that decision with the first imposition of the lock-downs.
Another advantage of the dedomenocracy is that it would allow more vigorous future-tense science of making risk based decisions. Like for present-tense science, this is a subtle consequence of how the dedomenocracy would operate. The dedomenocracy only enforces rules for the short period of time that the population expresses an urgency for such action. This gives the population to opportunity to decide that when the urgency is over.
Much has been made of the difference between rural and urban voting preferences with the implication that we need balance between different sub-economies within our country. I think this inevitably overlooks the differences between younger and older voters where there is a benefit to give more attention to the younger voters at the expense of the older ones.
The agile approach would subject an eligible worker to a couple weeks of intense training and testing to meet the requirements so that the worker can be available to work in a short period of time. The resulting contract will be between the client and the corporation that will take a cut of the hourly rate and then pass the remainder to the worker. The worker would be paid uniformly for the education and the assigned task.