>
> The objective is minimize human suffering. Thus, the highest priority is
> given to preserving our life-support system. Those scientists (probably
> mostly ecologists) who understand the system best would be selected by their
> peers. Probably no more than, say, 2000 altogether including religious and
> cultural leaders.
>
There are often opposing theories when
there is insufficient data. Your scientists will
have hard time to decide who "understands the system
best". In the present structure there would be
vast material interests involved in decisions,
thus there would be the same behind the scenes power-
brokering as it is now. What would be different?
What would make the decisions bounding on powerful
corporations? You forgot to mention - to guarantee
the executive power of your meritocrtats, there has to be
a strong, never withering police-state.
>
> Democracy could play a role in how people chose to meet explicitly mandated
> objectives. For example, suppose a bioregion were directed to reduce water
> consumption by a certain amount. The people could decide whether they
> stopped watering their lawns or washing their cars to meet that objective.
>
in other words, when the decision is irrelevant, than we can
have "democracy", just as the present time...
A bit more trust in humanity is needed. Provide
the physical and intellectual conditions with high
expectations, and you'll get a positive outcome.
The opposite is the reality. All elites treat the people
with this same contempt. People who think they are
"better" cannot "represent" or do their do-good things
for others.
Eva
> Jay
>
>
