The odd thing is usually the "Well why don't we do the correct thing?" dumbasses just go for some sort of technocracy where the experts (TM) are in charge.
How do those experts get decided? Listen, that's for other experts to figure out, I just want shit to work.
The existing experts are able to define what expertise is for the incoming potential experts. It’s a pure meritocracy where merit is defined by those already in power. Tying this to money, prestige, and power will have no unintended consequences.
The Romans almost pulled it off, for a couple centuries at least. The emperor of Rome would name his adopted son as successor, but usually this “adoption” would take place well into adulthood of the adoptee, and usually after they had displayed their talent and abilities, i.e. like Mao “adopting” Deng or something.
And it only took one emperor to screw it up. Marcus Aurelius - of Gladiator fame and favorite of chud pfps everywhere - named his bio son Commodus as his heir. And kinda like how the movie shows, Commodus was pretty fucked up. From then on emperors often chose their bio kids as successors with the expected results.
Imagine knowing that voting is dumb when people can just vote for bad things and also knowing what good things actually look like and then saying that instead of a materialist restructuring of the human condition around collective good instead of capitalism, she breaks out an argument that was kind of off-putting and weird when Socrates did it.
Which lord? Cause uh, Becky's doin' coke if she thinks I'd allow some Bronze Age storm god from a desert that has nothing to do with me establish who's gonna 'rule' me lmfao.
Isn't Elizabeth Bruening a Catholic? She already has a dumb theocracy run by a goofball in robes and it sucks ass. "hey what if the Vatican ruled the whole world" wow what a concept, guess they'll give anyone a Pulitzer these days huh
Humans are naturally fallible and even smart ones are prone to snap judgment on partial or biased information or emotional entanglement
So let's create a decisionmaking AI - we can teach it how to govern fairly and it will make the best decisions
But wait, any AI we create is naturally going to be programmed with our limited point of view in mind and may end up making a weird choice due to a programming flaw or edge case it wasn't trained to handle
So what we do is create two more AIs, with slightly different parameterizations and randomized training scenarios
The three AIs will act as checks and balances on one another
We can even try to embody different aspects of how humans approach problems and make decisions, using something like Jungian archetypes to help choose among difficult tradeoffs
The fuck does she mean "ideally the lord"? There are other options that are almost as good as the lord!? Don't throw away the idea just because God hasn't picked an absolute monarch, this cadre of witch doctors is actually very close to God, you won't even notice the difference!
It's an elective monarchy like Poland, where the monarch is chosen by the lords.
It would be hilarious to see Liz Bruenig as a philosopher-queen ruling under the constitution of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where everybody is a lord and any lord can veto legislation.
What we do is we have a school, let's call it philosophy school, and anyone can join it!
This philosophy school teaches a philosophy to everyone that makes legislation in society commits to.
These people come out of philosophy school and then spend some of their time listening to the concerns of the people in their district and some of their time solving those problems, perhaps around tables where other members of the philosophy school also weigh-in with ideas.
People with the most experience sit at higher up tables in the hierarchy and make more widespread decisions together.
These people regularly sit around a very large table and choose a core leadership group who make the most importantist of decisions and set the overall direction of the group.
lol, it would be fun to replace the names with people from the end of Rome and/or the Dark Ages (sorry, I know it's not the best term, but I feel like it makes the point better)
Plato and his consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Yeah, I'd love to live in a state with a wise stalinist leader who directs all production to a humane end. It's not real and we need to account for the limits of authoritarian rule (she's right in the first half of the tweets ofc, we shouldn't fetishize democracy), her "solution" is just idealism.
Hmmmm, you say the consequences of Plato have been a disaster, but have you considered that without him an image of an AI gender-detecting robot deciding a plucked chicken was a man wouldn't be incredibly funny?
Edmund Soon-Weng Yong (born 17 December 1981) is a British-American science journalist and author. In 2021, he received a Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for a series on the COVID-19 pandemic.
Not only was his covid reporting excellent - he seems like a very guy guy and a mensch. Uh, oh - I hope he doesn't end up milkshake ducking me.
The Lord doesn't have a great policy track record tbh.
First he created all humans in his own image and then decided that he doesn't like them, which is a huge self-own. He then killed them in a huge flood which is basically the first genocide.
When people tried to unionize and build the tower of Babylon, he mixed up their languages so that they can't communicate with each other (common union busting tactic).
I don't think this guy should choose our philosopher-monarch
I can get on board with that. The Lord prefers to be called Lucifier, and has picked me. There is literally no argument for your god over mine, without appealing to popularity. Which is a bit ironic 🤔