Hi-Tech Democracy: Oxymoronic?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hi-Tech Democracy: Oxymoronic?

I spoke of a ratio of understanding because I think this ratio is a good way to quantify our degree of self reliance. The higher the ratio of knowledge to understanding the lower is our confidence in our ability to rely upon our self. The less confidence we have in our self the more to are inclined to turn to experts and dogma. We seek to let the experts make the decisions that are too big for us to make or we turn to some religious dogma.

Compare the level of self reliance of the frontier family with the modern family. I choose this association because the answer is so starkly evident.

If we continue to doubt our ability to control our destiny then we cannot continue to depend upon democracy as a practical means for government.

I think the truly important stuff in life can be gotten at even if you aren’t an expert in everything imaginable. The question then becomes: how do we arrange our life such as to retain our ability for self determination?

I think that the physical sciences might be a good focus for our attention. How can we lay persons know enough to make decisions regarding global warming, or stem cell research, or matters relating to genetic modification? We can and must because like war is too important to leave to the generals government is too precious to be left to the experts.

I think it is within the capacity of all normal humans to develop the intellectual means to make such judgments within a democratic system of government.

If a person understands the nature of the scientific method and the nature of rational thought that person can qualify him or her self to make such decisions with reasonable confidence. Any normal person can understand the scientific method and the nature of rational thought.

2

But self-reliance is the antithesis of democracy . . . or society, at the very least. I can do a few things very well (OK, let’s pretend here) but not a lot of things. Similarly, there is someone else whose skills are the reverse of mine. Through that mutual dependence, we develop strong social bonds.
You argue that as we get more high-tech, people become more reliant on demagouges or some other form of ‘expert’, and I agree. However, like you, I don’t think this needs to be the case.
The question is how the balance it. We have much more information to be processed nowadays; however, we also have much, much easier access to the information. However, as it has always been, the facts are somehow lost in translation.
Since those mistakes on the part of the general populace are inevitable, is democracy an institution worth saving?

3

X…

“Since those mistakes on the part of the general populace are inevitable, is democracy an institution worth saving?”

I am optimistic that people might be influenced into taking responsibility for nurturing our legacy if we can open up their minds. I think we should all try as hard as we can to illuminate the alternatives.