Setting aside that making sense of things Trump suggests is pointless: one method would be a blanket order that telecom providers turn off access in a targeted area. I expect in America some portion of people would still figure out how to get connectivity, but cutting off 80% of internet access would still be very disruptive.
Not sure if this is where you’re going with this, but some pro life advocates view contraception that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg as an abortion (and hence murder)
Also there’s that documentary where the group that organized it was kind of cult adjacent. They weren’t scientists first. Still very interesting and impressive they did what they did.
You’re right, better schooling is important. What do you think are the obstacles to getting it? Why isn’t it happening already?
Does seem like there’s a loop of misinformation means less effective democracy, and less effective democracy allows for more misinformation. Seems like better democratic systems are called for, like ranked choice voting, but also better news or education outside formal public school.
I also think overpowered interests (ie. rich people) can veto education on subjects that most people would benefit from. So maybe one thing is better limiting the accumulation of outsized wealth or power?
The “we” thing is a good point, and even as I was writing this was thinking about the post the other day where someone was like “how can we get more redditors to lemmy” and a bunch of people were like, “we don’t want that.”
I’m thinking about anyone interested in the subject. There’s never going to be universal interest in some philosophical project, and there doesn’t need to be in order to have a positive impact. So I’m thinking of people who do have an interest in the sort of meta issue, how things “ought” to be.
I’m interested in practical, testable ideas, and at the same time I think there needs to be a philosophical underpinning to any type of project nurturing “beneficial” ideas, because otherwise how do you evaluate what’s beneficial?
My philosophy is that existence is desirable, continued existence is desirable, and ever more elevated ways of existing. So going from “anything existing,” to life existing, to animals, to conscious beings. The basic nuts and bolts are important then - is there enough food to live, is something going to kill me, and we’ve for the most part got these down (although not at a systemic level to eliminate homelessness, universal healthcare, etc). But I don’t think we have any kind of grasp on long term sustainability - we’re in serious environmental peril, the existence of any nuclear weapon is a threat, biological weapons, decline of democracy, even something like an asteroid impact.
So when talking about an ecosystem of ideas, for me at least its about ideas that will avoid or mitigate larger threats which are difficult for any individual to address.
This is good. Are you aware of any places explicitly doing solutions journalism? (I’m sure there are, more just interested to find places I’m not aware of)
This reminded me of “The Problem with Jon Stewart” which while not perfect seems like a move in the right direction. It just got canceled, and the article I had seen suggested it was because Apple had concerns over some of the subjects (ie, didn’t want to piss off china and have its operations in china highlighted, and didn’t want focus on AI which it may be using).
So then what are the conditions which would allow for more solutions journalism? Off-hand I’d say employee owned entities (or less optimally operations with wealthy patrons willing to give them leeway) would mean they’re less likely to be shut down. I suppose seeing examples of it being successful would inspire more individuals or groups to move in that direction.
A 57% majority of Americans say the government should ensure health coverage. Of course then 53% say the system should be based on private insurance, which is contradictory.
Another factor to consider here is people don’t vote directly for policies. They vote for legislators who then decide which policies are a priority, and can interpret for themselves, right or wrong, what it is their constituents voted them in to do.
Ah, so a referendum is a direct vote by the population on a given issue - for example a lot of states have passed recreational marijuana referendums, in my opinion at least because a lot of lawmakers didn’t want to to be seen as supporting it, but you can’t get blamed if the public approved it directly.
I’m not aware of any state level referendums on universal healthcare (which doesn’t mean that there haven’t been any) and there isn’t a national level referendum. (Although in googling this to confirm that I found an interesting article about implementing a national referendum)
With the Medicare for All Act it’s been introduced as a bill, but as I understand the process it first needs to be reviewed by a committee and voted out of that committee before the senate or house can consider it to possibly hold a vote. Then it needs to do the same thing in the other chamber of congress. So you can imagine that’s a lot more convoluted process than a referendum, and while voters may ask their representative to pass it, plenty of opportunities for legislators to say, “oops, some technicality or person who’s not me has stalled the process.”
I think if it started to get bigger the other factor that would come into play is the entity could be democratically controlled, which is another thing we don’t get with typical insurance.
Yeah! Like I’m glad that Charity Navigator exists because we need it in the world we live in, but people shouldn’t have to do a lot of research to determine if their donation is mostly going to administrative costs.
Sometimes I think about how we might make a public dining hall that people would choose to eat at, rather than go as a last resort. Sort of how U.S. public housing is dumpy while some European social housing is actually desirable.