Out of box look at Politics and its relationship to modern societal design.

[TVP Tom]

Ok. One big question I think is something all politicians and people interested in politics should ask themselves at some point in their lives.

Intro: In my definition - politics is IDEALY a mechanism which allows for the decisions made in society to reflect the wants/needs of the largest possible population of that given society. I am of the opinion that for a variety of reasons politics in general, globally, no longer achieves this function. But that is not the point of this thread and I’d rather discuss YOUR opinions and ideas than mine

The setting: You are the "ruler" of a planet just discovered. Its geography and resources are identical to that which we have on earth now. The population is 8 billion of mixed age group who have no prior conditioning (no values, expectations, culture). The technological power and scientific knowledge is also identical to that which we have today.

The question: You have to create a society (including resource distribution methods, education, culture etc.) which will provide for the human condition globally. What I mean by "human condition" can best be summarised in the following image:


Notes:
. Any complaints with the picture provided regarding an explanation of the "human condition" are relevant arguments.
. Bear in mind all the technological capabilities of the human race - i believe this to be an important aspect.
. All ideas, no matter how controversial, should be discussed in a scientific and objective manner with regards to criticism.
. NO ASSUMPTIONS about how society 'should' be run shall be made. Should you make a claim for example "competition is needed to drive a monetary economy" THEN support with evidence. "Because it's common knowledge" is NOT evidence.

 

[Andalublue]

Intro: In my definition - politics is IDEALY a mechanism which allows for the decisions made in society to reflect the wants/needs of the largest possible population of that given society.

That's a definition of utilitarian ideology, not of politics in general. Politics is nothing more and nothing less than the theory and practice of decision-making. By imposing this utilitarian assumption from the get-go you are seeking to restrict any solutions to only those you find acceptable.

The setting: You are the "ruler" of a planet just discovered. Its geography and resources are identical to that which we have on earth now. The population is 8 billion of mixed age group who have no prior conditioning (no values, expectations, culture).

These 8 billion people are not human if they have evolved and developed without values, expectations or culture. They must be robots, hence they don't, and never have had, need of these things, hence you're never going to impose them artificially. These are not things which a third party creates and supplies to humans, they are the result of the history of the interaction of myriad human lives.

The question: You have to create a society (including resource distribution methods, education, culture etc.) which will provide for the human condition globally.

Your premise is so flawed that it really doesn't merit consideration.

 

[TVP Tom]

That's a definition of utilitarian ideology, not of politics in general. Politics is nothing more and nothing less than the theory and practice of decision-making. By imposing this utilitarian assumption from the get-go you are seeking to restrict any solutions to only those you find acceptable.

I understand this point - however i was not "imposing" my assumptions i actually had the intention of stating them. This thread was created to discuss societal management as a whole and possibly the part politics plays in that, regardless of my opinion of politics.

These 8 billion people are not human if they have evolved and developed without values, expectations or culture. They must be robots, hence they don't, and never have had, need of these things, hence you're never going to impose them artificially. These are not things which a third party creates and supplies to humans, they are the result of the history of the interaction of myriad human lives.

Let me start by stating that the purpose of this section of my post was to highlight that when thinking about creating this society, you do not have to account for the current values/expectations of any current population. That simply at first, the humans you are managing will react to your society based on their genetic material alone (which will naturally vary). The idea is completely hypothetical but one i think necessary to state, given the restrictions societal design can have if say you have a population of violent individuals due to a previous environment which bread violent behavior.

Your premise is so flawed that it really doesn't merit consideration.

I think instead you misunderstood my premise. I believe this thread is still relevant.