Your views on how to reboot democracy (1)
Laura Spinney’s article proposes the use of randomly selected citizens’ assemblies to harness the creativity of the crowd to generate good solutions to public problems. The idea is a return to Athenian democratic principles, using new decision-making processes and new technology to shift governing decision-making closer to the general public than it is in current, rather distrusted systems. (5 October, p 32)
But citizens’ assemblies haven’t been convincingly representative so far. Random invitations to the public to participate (“sortition”) have usually led to only a single-figure percentage accepting, reducing the initial value of random selection. Moreover, the representativeness of assemblies as “mini-publics” has relied on selection by criteria such as gender, age and initial views on subjects to be considered. But there is little evidence about what criteria truly maximise representativeness.
We need to properly test the validity and reliability of potential new democratic processes.
Your views on how to reboot democracy (2)
There is no doubt that implementing the ideal of citizen participation is very challenging, but it is a shame that the country with probably the most effective system of direct democracy wasn’t examined: Switzerland. The requirements for such democracy to work as mentioned in the article can all be seen in Swiss culture and its educational system. That this brings benefits should be clear from the fact that this small country has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Your views on how to reboot democracy (3)
There is no need for digital technology to create true democracy for the people, by the people. Money corrupts politics. Make it illegal for vested interests to give money or anything that costs money to politicians before, during or after a term in office and watch those whose only interest is to enrich themselves run for the hills. A responsible, public-spirited group will take their place and politics will repair itself.
Your views on how to reboot democracy (4)
I favour the idea of a lottocracy because it would, in effect, eliminate those career-politicians who have rarely or never had a real job outside politics and so haven’t experienced what it is like to actually have to work for a living. Some may also be subservient to their rich donors. Because of this, we end up with an “oligarchy” under the guise of a democracy.
Do we make reality? Maybe, maybe not (1)
I don’t buy the idea that “we make reality”. I believe subatomic entities exist independently of us and that these entities oscillate and interact with wave-like properties. However, the equations we use to describe these interactions are human-made, so it is at this point that we create our own reality. (12 October, p 40)
Do we make reality? Maybe, maybe not (2)
The idea that there is no objective reality puts the “observer” centre stage. But what constitutes an observer? Much of quantum physics avoids this issue, implying that only humans qualify. Surely it is arrogant to think that only we can be observers?
If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that making humanity in any way central to an idea sooner or later proves to be wrong. When does an entity stop being an observer 鈥� a cat can clearly be one, but can a bacterium, a grain of sand, a proton? Daniele Oriti’s ideas come close to panpsychism, which posits that consciousness in some degree is fundamental to entities.
Do we make reality? Maybe, maybe not (3)
Oriti, a theoretical physicist, says that “we have to embrace the fact that we make reality”. That might come as a shock to scientists, but not to poets and novelists: they have always thought it obvious that reality inheres not in the common phenomenal world, but in the perceptions of that world in individual minds.
Do we make reality? Maybe, maybe not (4)
If we make reality, are we part of reality or not? If we are, do we make ourselves 鈥� and all our thoughts, theories and so on? And if not, why not?
My frenemies seem to be following me
David Robson’s piece on “frenemies” set up an intriguing question in my mind. Why is it that people I would really like to see again rarely cross my path, whereas those I would prefer to avoid appear everywhere I go? Some kind of negative attraction at play, perhaps? (19 October, p 40)
Here's to revelling in the mystery of the cosmos
Leah Crane’s article about seeing Saturn through a telescope as a child and being inspired to love space was fascinating. It called to mind philosopher Bertrand Russell, who, although an atheist, freely admitted to the immense mystery of the cosmos: “We know very little, and yet it is astonishing that we know so much, and still more astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power.” (12 October, p 44)
No shock that pyramids were an ancient favourite
Many thanks for the Flint Dibble interview. It is no great surprise that multiple cultures would independently develop pyramids. We humans have a natural affinity for high places, probably dating back to spotting predators or enemies as well as a desire to be closer to the sky. (19 October, p 37)
A pyramid is a simple structure that can be built without the fancy lifting technology required for a tower, and can be made intrinsically stable. An ancient project engineer could demonstrate project feasibility to the ruling elite using a model comprehensible to any child.
Water from air: the Incas got there first
The idea of extracting drinking water from the air, as deployed in a Florida children’s hospital after recent hurricane disruption, isn’t new. The Incas, living in mountainous regions too high to get rain, channelled dew into cisterns and may have used fog fences to collect moisture that was hanging in the atmosphere. (19 October, p 10)