Example:
According to Biology living beings start to economize in unpredictable environments, e.g. animals store fat or hide food when resources become unpredictable and restrictive.
When political decisions increase the unpredictability of a working environment people that are facing these unpredictable working environments will reduce investment in the Economy (e.g. stop or reduce spending) to anticipate an uncertain working future.
There is, as ir appears, a clear interest in politically knowing the functioning of biology, particularly of the brain. The neurosciences and their chapters are increasingly important por the state and the corporations to control people. Thus, f.i., neuro-marketing, neuro-law, neuro-economics, neuro-education, among others, are being increasingly recognized as capital for the very understanding and manipulation of scoeity. The literature about this is bigger at every step...
Yes politicians have to use more brains instead of weapons and do more research about a human being. And yes the evolution in biology is important but as we have seen with Darwin, his findings can be interpret as they like it also by science philosophers.
As half of the population will be living in cities the relation with nature will be broken, the food is already no more delivered by farmers.
There is, as ir appears, a clear interest in politically knowing the functioning of biology, particularly of the brain. The neurosciences and their chapters are increasingly important por the state and the corporations to control people. Thus, f.i., neuro-marketing, neuro-law, neuro-economics, neuro-education, among others, are being increasingly recognized as capital for the very understanding and manipulation of scoeity. The literature about this is bigger at every step...
To me it is physical stability based mechanisms (inertia increase to withstand external fluctuations) rather than biology based mechanisms.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Lambrechts & readers,
I thought Maldonado's comment very interesting. No doubt, contemporary studies of the brain and of "neuroscience" could well produce important results in relation to human psychology and biology. But it might also be viewed as a reductive approach to our understanding human beings and society in contrast to studies conducted in terms of details of cultural differences. In computer science terms, it seems to be something of a "hardware," instead of a "software" approach. One may recall the prominence of behaviorism during the Cold War.
It seems important to remark that politicians have to know something about the mediation of cultural difference, if we are to end up with something other than a cultural "lowest common denominator." But we expect, too, that there will be many people who "just want to make a deal." That's a constant pressure.
When ethical and moral considerations drop out of high political councils, trouble is in the brewing, IMHO.
H.G. Callaway
Dear H. G., I agree woith you. Thatis exactly the point - i fact, I believe, Marcel's point, namely the reductionist interest that politicians, businessmen and military men have in some fields based on biology, at large.
being as it might be, allow me please go one single step further, thus. The behavioral sciences are crucial for the state and the corporations. They do not trace a sharp difference, in fact, between neuroscience and the behavioral sciences.
There is, as it happens, a real interest in biology at large in order to manage and manipulate people and societies. We can easily find both reports on this as well as scientific papers.
I sincerely think that both aspects are closely intertwined, namely manipulation and understanding. The best example by and large is the BRAIN INITIATIVe by President Obama.
I am convinced that President Obama does not have manipulation in mind!
Problably not. The point is: the BI was introduced by Obama himself. But some of the contents and agents of the BI are well known for their interest in control.
(In the name of the rose is not the rose, U. Eco).
Dear Marcel, the problem of ascribing decisions to biology could absolutely release all individuals from the political responsibility of their decisions. In which case, I strongly disagree with the premise of your question. I have the impression that people with different biologies (men and women, for example) believe in similar things and make similar decisions that are not visibly based on their different biologies. If biology were so important for decision making, it would be impossible to educate people for being responsible citizens. According to Norbert Elias, in his impressive and impressively longstanding book The Civilizing Process (1932), the history of civilization is the history of how humanity has learned to impose mind over body, intelligence over biology. Elias offers many examples minutely analyzed, starting with the "laws of etiquette" and ending with our need to spit (I am sure that the scenes in the movie Titanic having to do with spitting were taken directly from Elias's book...). We learn not to "break wind" in the table, or not to burp, and men learn not to rape a woman they like too much. It our present day, it seems that, in many ways biology is taking the lead —as when we see hate leading Trump's campaign for the presidency of the US), but intelligence is still on top. I hope it stays there.
Best regards, Lilliana
Dear Marcel, telepathy is one of those weird sciences we may be fond of, indeed. It does happen.
A serious and conspicuous scientists would call it: (quantum) entanglement
POlitical decision makers do not have to study biology or any cognitive sciences. First of all, they should know the Constitution law (the fundamental principles and the relation of the diferent entties of the STATE)., They also should know the history of treir country as well as world history. They have to know about economy, how to arrive and take the best decisions for their beloved fellow countrymen, how to find and choose the right advisors in the different areas of the State: financial, healthcare, economy, education, environments, etc, etc). Particularly, They should be men with great values, particularly honest: an ethical man.
Dear Marcel, it is believable that during a crisis, people tend to forego intelligence and switch on their survival instinct, which is singularly individual, like we say in Spanish, "¡Sálvese el que pueda!", which means "Let each one try to save himself". But the fact is that the history of humanity bears witness to the fact that we have been able to overcome crises, which is the reason humanity still exists. Therefore, history proves that, somehow, intelligence —which calls for unity of purpose and agreement among the many— has been successful and has been able to hold at bay the egoism of individuals. We are still here as a humanity. We are facing enormous crises on many fronts right now: the environmental crisis brought about by global warming, the political crises that have provoked an unparalleled refugee movement worldwide, a financial crisis that has attempted to dissolve nations, like the case of Greece... And what we have seen have been attempts to make intelligent agreements that still need a lot of edition: like the recent Paris agreement on global warming, and the will of many countries to accept and accommodate refugees. Humanity is striving to stay alive by way of intelligence (and generosity, which is always against the survival instinct). After all, most of these decisions are based on accords subscribed by nations, and a nation is not the type of individual that has a "biology". Yours is a very interesting question, especially when we project the idea of "biology" to the decision-making processes of individual nations.
As always, warm regards!
Lilliana
You are right, there are a few monarchies in the world today, but in this day and age, the monarch has little to say in most countries where monarchy has survived. The English have a parliament, and in Spain monarchy is almost "decorative". Your comment is weak in this sense. My point is that "biology" is not the rule for "rulers" of nations. Scattered examples do not have enough persuasive strength to establish your point. In fact, the capriciousness and "biological" foibles of these frail monarchs are usually a joke for all, which proves the frailty or inexistence of their power.
In the corporate world, it is the bank account and the corporate boardroom where decisions are made, regardless of actual humans. The will for profit is not biological, unless you say that there is a certain "capitalist" biology. On the contrary, capitalism seems very cerebral, almost inhuman.
Best regards, Lilliana
Dear Brenda, thank you for your sincere comment of the Trump menace to kind humanity. Yes, I already see street bashings against all "different" people. Like a license to kill will be issued to all that who want it... Yes, many "yikes"!!! "Trumped" USA will be, then, all biology, no intelligence. If that happens, the time will come when all will be fighting each other. But, then, will it be too late to retrieve humanity? Senseless violence is never human.
In total agreement with you, Lilliana
Political policymakers decisions are being far behind people real life issues , that is why the environment is baldy in shape
Absolutely not !!! Theories on biological bases on decision making change continuously , have very low reliability and end up into practical recipes not very different from what an average granny can say you spontaneously. It is much more desirable the have a good practice in real decision making both in paradigmatic (e.g. experience in sailing in bad weather conditions) and 'wisdom' situations (e.g. ability in facing adolescential problems of son and daughters).
Are politicians good (biological) fathers/mothers at home, e.g. showing efficient ability in facing ...... at home? If you cannot handle problems at a tiny scale (e.g. family), how can you handle it at a much wider scale?
Most of time they are not that good at home. In spite of that speech about "family values". In most cases, in fact, they hide their family life, or just use it for the sake of elections, and the like. Who really "uses" his family for his political or public goals? Those people there.
You don' t really believe that yourself, dear Marcel. Moreover, that use-and-misuse is characteristic of an "American"-model-of-politics - rather culturally biased, in fact.
I think that biological foundations are practically unused in social sciences, that have other ideas about social behavior. How much people are biological and how much social? Even if it is 50:50, biology cannot be ignored. Motivations, emotions often have biological origin. Not all behavior can be rationalized.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200909/social-sciences-are-branches-biology-i
Political decision-makers obviously do not know the underlying spiritual-based mechanisms of human citizen decision-making? Would they behave as they behave when they would have access to this? What are the spiritual consequences of complicating the life of citizens because of egocentric political reasons? Think about it. Life is short
I guess that smart politicians understand some of underlying biology. It may help to rule people when a ruler knows and uses some subconscious mechanisms. This is biology of humans that is not rationalized. Not all people are fully rational in their decisions.
As for your last question, Marcel, I doubt that many politicians are indeed spiritual. Being spiritual might indeed help to find socially optimal decisions. But the evolution towards a position in government typically selects people with other features of character, that are very different from spiritualism.
Spiritual leaders come not so often (well, that depends on their level of spirituality). But they become political leaders even less often. (Recall, what had happened to Jesus). Sometimes leaders with some spirituality rule a country, and this country is blessed. I guess that Mahatma Gandhi is such an example. In Iran, President should listen to spiritual leader (ayatollah). But I do not know to what extent the people believe that they are really spiritual leaders of the nation.
Bluntly speaking , politicians have nothing to do with anything related to humanity !
Emotions and moods in politics and political decison-making?
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.221
Indeed politicians are experts on emotional behaviors of humans than analytical and rational parts. They utilize emotions to stir society and create a large follower of a rising ballons but because truth always dictates, airs of emotions evaporate in to oblivion and the clutches of truth engulf the balloon of emotions to bring down to the ground - reality.
A very important question must politicians to see the environment of the problem of society and how to exercise his life within the social framework in which they are, for example today in Iraq, most politicians and expatriates to the community after leaving for a long time and when they returned did not see closely how the society changed and became different from what it was so they failed In the State Administration
On the European Digital Day, Katrin Amunts, director of the Institute for Neuroscience and Medicine in Germany, spoke to the assembled European Ministers, stakeholders and representatives on interactions between neuroscience and computing, how high-performance computing is vital in the quest to understand the organization of the brain at multiple scales. Supercomputing is key in controlling the society also on multiple levels and to simulate brain models.
The politics will be very interested in the interaction of neuroscience and ICT which can be extended to new neuro-technologies and innovative drug research.
The Human Brain Project tries to prove the necessity for more European infrastructure for collaborative interdisciplinary research in neuroscience and computer.
It’s just a pity that this demands enormous investments and how dangerous the results could be.
Here the natural development of the brain in society is at a loss when computers are taking the hawser.
We never know how politics will interpret the computer results.
I think it will be a critical path.
Does the human brain project make sense without a healthy environment and without the primary resources to support biological life?
Computers and robots can work without oxygen, not living beings including humans.....
Simple message: The environment should be at the center of all political decisions, so that decisions can continuously be taken in 200 years from now.....
How absolutely interesting!
I love your questions dear Marcel...
Not a all easy to answer ! Yes, O2 is essencial for the human brain to work properly. One of the most frequent causes of dementia derive from the impairment of arterial (oxigen) vascularisation to the brain...
Nevertheless, computers depend on electrical power, just as well...
In this sense good unpolluted environmental quality (air and wind and water) may be essencial for any future decision-making.
Had I any influence in the World, I might invest more in good environment !
Yes, dear Marcel. And, as we know it, the issue then is focused on Epigenetics. The interplay between, say gene and culture, or environment and neuron becomes then much more important than ever before.
Political decision-makers don't have to know the underlying biological mechanisms, but would benefit from exposure to research in this area, including the thorny ethics of applying these findings. For an overview, see, for example:
Article Demonic Geographies
Dragos,
Your basic assumptions in the introduction of your publication on geography apply to animal behaviour, right? To what extent does your perception of 'geography' differ from that of 'Biogeography' in general?
Nicolas Hulot [[email protected]]
I read: En 20 ans, deux tiers des hérissons ont disparu en France
Why is this message associated with publicity of a car?
Un président qui impose le plein pouvoir par la loi a une vision à courte terme par ce qu'il n'a pas la capacité d'anticiper le profile du président suivant.....
For some politicians it's only about power. But it's more crazy for the voters who are living in a democratic system and vote in the same country for the opposite. And further more have two nationalities which implies two different systems.
Where is the scientific logic as soon as society is concerned. Logic I find in the book of Ilya Ehrenburg: The Fall of Paris.
Do those that do not believe that humans can be responsible for climate change also do not believe that resources (e.g. phosphorus, petrol) can be exhausted whatever the human exploitation behavio(u)r?
We speak about reductionism in science but reductionism in politics is even more higher.
The planet does not even exist, there is investments in games with escapes and all kind of killer equipment. Headlines that the Americans sold for a 100.000.000.000 $ to a country as Saudi Arabia; what are they going to destroy is not even answered.
As ecosystems are developing fast with all kinds of feedback loops, very recently in the history of science, politicians should follow lessons at least one day a week from all kinds of experts and artists.
Fondation pour la Nature et l'Homme [[email protected]]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40594977
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/07/19/97001-20170719FILWWW00334-des-milliards-de-tonnes-de-plastiques-s-accumulent-dans-la-nature.php
http://grand-angle.lefigaro.fr/deforestation-anatomie-desastre-environnement-enquete
The message and/or meaning of a signal X (e.g. a spoken sentence X) will depend on the mental environment/context in which the signal is emitted. The potential consequence is that different people do not necessarily interpret the message and/or meaning of the same signal X (e.g. a spoken sentence X) in the same way, e.g. when the sender producing signal X (e.g. a spoken sentence X) has another mental context/environment in mind than the receiver(s) of signal X (e.g. a spoken sentence X)?
I think that multidisciplinary knowledge is important, and not only for politicians. People can be modeled as homo economicus only in a certain range of economic parameters. There are examples when extreme scarcity of resources can transform human into animal-type behavior.
Economic theory suggests that only rationality (full knowledge plus ability to analytically operate with it) drives economic behavior of humans. In reality, we can observe animal spirits even during stock market trade and auctions. Economics says that we maximize our utility. But do we know it well even for ourselves? What psychological forces can change it?
Marcel, it can be useful if you list the biology based mechanisms that you mean. Then we can find first if they have common sense at least for the scientists. And after we can formulate a goal whether we need and can teach politicians.
Où est la révolution numérique?
I do not understand why all these clever people claim there is a lack of space at the university given that all courses can be put on the internet and followed from any place (cf. for students that ask questions)
PS: A course accessible via the internet also avoids problems associated with professors not talking loud enough, professors that talk too fast, professors being sick and/or fellow students making too much noise....
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2017/07/14/01016-20170714ARTFIG00214-admission-post-bac-87000-bacheliers-toujours-en-attente-d-affectation-a-l-universite.php
Family planning politics: a biological approach
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2017/07/14/01016-20170714ARTFIG00214-admission-post-bac-87000-bacheliers-toujours-en-attente-d-affectation-a-l-universite.php
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/07/19/97001-20170719FILWWW00334-des-milliards-de-tonnes-de-plastiques-s-accumulent-dans-la-nature.php
http://grand-angle.lefigaro.fr/deforestation-anatomie-desastre-environnement-enquete
The fitness of democracy:
If people would be allowed to vote for a President that promotes pop music versus a President that fights climate change, who will win?
Example:
The fitness of animal communication:
Some quantitative figures concerning efficiency in animal communication on Internet:
Key word 'climate change' in Google Scholar: Ca. 3.040.000 results (0,08 s); the most cited paper/report dealing with climate change and published in 2014: Ca. 3014 citations.
versus
the most popular pop song from this summer: 4.600.000.000 reads/hits
For sure Marcel you are right, and I would vote for you. But we must consider the situation that our input is nihil. On internet we can't solve the problem. We must think about other actions but I don't know myself. In Afkikker I enjoy total isolation with my music of Steve Lacy and violinist Mikhail Bezverkhni. 500 m more to the centre there are thousands of people for the popfeast of Ghent, but politics can arrange it that in Afkikker nearly no one will be present. Marketing is a very dangerous and invisible technique. At the top they all know how to keep in power.There are many good musicians in Ghent but no journalist to write about it, no musicologist to come and listen. Although the faculty of musicology is just in font of Afkikker.
The most dramatic situation is that intellectuals are afraid to act because they are linked directly to politics and industry.
Again I invite everybody for the beautiful music in Afkikker on July 23 for the anniversary of Steve Lacy and on July 27 for the anniversary of Mikhail Bezverkhni
We go for the best!
Rita
NDDL
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/amazon-rainforest
If you wish to fight climate change and wish to protect the forest from other continents, why would you not wish to protect the forest/Nature from your own region?
If you are not willing to protect your local environment, you cannot ask other people to protect their local environment!
Also to religion-inspired people that trust in the power of God/Allah:
Building and using nuclear weapons makes no sense because of following reasons:
1) You cannot visit an area contaminated with radioactivity
2) Given that climate/winds/ocean currents do not take political borders into account you will at the end being contaminated yourself after use
3) When you store radioactive weapons, time will ultimately determine when you will be contaminated yourself (e.g. because of storage weaknesses or human errors)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lh94rErvcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tNOVv5PGlI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ZiDEtVms8
More than 120 military people that worked more or less in nuclear-associated environments declare to have perceived the presence of UFO
Good luck!
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_de_Rome
Some thoughts from 1970 and later
Saving Energy and behavio(u)ral change:
If I remember well, Jimmy Carter proposed to ware thicker cloths Inside living places to safe Energy during colder periods? The more efficient isolation layer of houses is then replaced by the more efficient isolation layer of the individual human body? In the latter case, 'fossile-based fuel' can be replaced by 'biofuel', sometimes called food
Saving Energy and behavio(u)ral change:
People do not want to pay much for fuel running cars and on the other hand do not want to reduce their Driving speed to reduce the consumption of fuel?
Contradictory messages: On the one hand there is the willingness to reduce CO2 associated pollution within a country X at a short-term basis and on the other hand there is the willingness to increase the number of tourists increasing CO2 associated travelling Inside country X at a short-term basis?
Decidedly if
There is ample argumentation on this subject in a masterpiece by Manuel Castell. In the book "Communication and power".
https://paisdospuntocero.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/07-comunicacic3b3n_y_poder_de_manuel_castells3.pdf
What is political local adaptation, e.g. adjusting rules (e.g. fuel taxes) to local constraints? Adjustment could be environment-specific (e.g. fuel taxes differ between areas or local taxes adjusted to the availability of government-supported services) or individual-specific (e.g. fuel taxes differ between individual credit cards associated with salary or ownership of vehicules consuming more or less fuel)? As concerns the last option taking social justice into account, each individual credit card should receive an individual-specific tax code?
Normally the system ( including also political, social and environmental) is necessary to be in equilibrium, according with 17 SDGS NU. And with this we will have the answer for the questions.
Generally speaking, humans use specific biology based mechanisms for coping with environmental conditions whereby resources become unpredictable and restrictive. in other words, when living conditions get worse, they may affect the physical, mental, and emotional health of citizens. At times like this, people choose to rid themselves of all that is toxic, and preserve their quality of life. When we have been hurt by life and we are stunned by some tragedy, we can only see and feel the tragedy. However, biological built in mechanisms help us to see the reality of the tragedy by recognizing its unfairness and defiantly choose to survive it.
Individual-specific social justice:
People with a salary below XXX Euros should not pay consumption taxes? Thus, each individual credit card should receive an individual-specific code adjusting consumption taxes to salaries? With this system, 'poor' people will contribute directly to Economy development via consumption without being penalized with taxes hampering consumption? This system also avoids complicated administration involved in asking for social support, and prevents the problem that people that are in a position to obtain governmental support are not aware of that are do not wish to ask for help because of personality resaons?
None has predictiive Reliable biological model of such things so the question is out of scope
Helping poor people should not be complicated, and the outcome is predictable as expressed in gratitude of those that receive support?
Animals are able to help, so what about 'rich' politicians and decision-makers?
I do not fully agree with the content of Following publication: animals, even insects, are more than living machines...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
This is not biology but common dense that in general is better suited than biology for such issues
Any sufficienti grown up and wise person independently of his or her studies know to e to manage the ussues.Sociology does not have to with biology more than how traffic jams can be predicted by a mechanical engineer Expert in entina design.Organization and scale metter..
The big problem Now is the shortage of wise and grown up people due to the never ending adolescence in which especially the edicated people are locked into ad we can destinate from the rising divorce rate
Hey,
I still do not have the arguments why behaviour/sociology does not belong to Biology.
I also still do not understand why governments keep supporting construction of cars that largely exceed the authorized speed limits, also in the Framework of politics that wish to fight CO2-production associated climate change.
You do not give certain toys to children because they are not mature enough, do you?
Any organization layer creates Ita open emergent laws that are compatibile but non dipendenti upon the Lower layer . This is why an ensemble of molecules has both temperature and pressure but a single molecule has not
Every relevant organization domain can thus ben studi ed by separate approaches and paradigma with respect to the Lower layer otherwise de could only study particle musica to know all.It could be an idea but it dire non work. Sometimes some model emerge that create a bridge a long diifferent layer (eg biochemistry) and a unification is convenience for understanding even if the correlated fields do not loose their autonomy
In the case of sociology the biological explanations were at their best alle at describing phenomena any lay people knows since millennia
There is no theory people behave differently if they know are loved by both Brother and God
Why governemnts support scientific education on the one hand and close their eyes for what scientists tell on the other hand, e.g. in the Framework of climate change (e.g. first Economy/gain at the within-generation level then Ecology/gain at the between-generation level)?
Why parents would be proud that their own child would be scientist on the one hand and close their eyes for what scientists tell on the other hand, e.g. in the Framework of climate change (e.g. first Economy/gain at the within-generation level then Ecology/gain at the between-generation level)?
Scientific justice: Why should what is scientifically valid or not valid Simply depend on personal political feelings?
Social justice: Why creating a whole universe of diverse people when only one person would be right, being yourself?
In accord with you, the unpredictability of political decisions has a direct impact on resources (human, material and financial), especially in this global context.
Moreover, I believe that the deepening of the differences between the rich and the poor, is an answer to those who make political decisions and in whose favor and all of us is neccesary to be focus by the 17 SDGs UN.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2018/12/11/97001-20181211FILWWW00042-les-francais-inquiets-du-changement-climatique-etude.php
Climate does not stop at the borders of a politically defined country. What is happening in country X has consequences for country Y.....
The costs and benefits of short-term economic decisions
Example:
People might be happy to earn more money from an economic (fuel-driven) point of view, but what are the possible financial consequences of climate-induced housing damage resulting from an economy ignoring climate change, e.g. housing damage as a result of heavy rain (e.g. flooding) or prolonged drought (e.g. soil drought causing house foundation movements)?
Why making a distinction between the role of humans in influencing the composition of the oceans (e.g. massive plastic contamination because of human activity during the last 50 years) and the role of humans in influencing the composition of the climate-associated atmosphere (e.g. massive release of fossile-associated CO2 that has been accumulated and stored for millions of years and released in the air during a time period of let say 100 years)?
Just to stimulate thinking in political decision-making taking or not taking the 'invisible' world(s) into account….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_GyO-nLBzU
http://www.allankardec.com/Allan_Kardec/Le_livre_des_esprits/lesp_us.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbkgj5J91hE
In other words, you can only take political decisions based on what you think you know or think what is true also accepting that each individual/political being has a unique set of thoughts and experiences?
Dear Marcel M. Lambrechts
I also feel that political decision-makers do not only have to know the underlying biology based mechanisms of human citizen decision-making, but should also know how the Psyche works and how we keep aspects of ourselves hidden in our shadow personality and then project these aspects onto others.
This way instead of fighting with our neighbour, we could spend time discovering and recuperating our different parts! More effective and certainly much cheaper! Bye bye to arms except human arms which can then stretch out in friendship.
For me we all need to know about this, especially people in positions of power.
Warm regards Tina
It is great to exchange ideas, but given the huge variation in opinions, who will take the decision to prefer one of those opinions in decision-making?
You can ask the people/citizens to help make short-term decisions in a democratic way, but then again what are the long-term consequences of those decisions, e.g. the consequences of short-term decisions for following generations? Ethical justice should have long-term consequences in mind, e.g. associated with social and environmental sustainability?
Dear Marcel M. Lambrechts
once we talk of long term decisions ( and I agree) the whole political structure would have to change!! As would the mentality of the people who vote.
Warm regards -Tina
A short-term political vision is based on 'observation' (e.g. a current state of art), a long-term political vision is based on 'imagination' (a potential future state of art)?
How then can a political decision of which the consequences are always expressed in the future be realized without 'imagination'? And how then to convince perceivers of a political decision to join the same kind of 'imagination'?
Why political leaders penalize fundamental research without being specialists in fundamental research themselves? How would problems, like climate change or ocean pollution, been identified without fundamental research, also given that many of the environmental problems (e.g. all kinds of pollution) result from products of industry and applied research made available to the citizens in general?
You cannot eat computers or high tech material, you cannot eat money, you cannot drink oïl or eat coal….. . You have to breath clean air every minute, you have to drink clean water daily, etc.… to avoid health problems at a long-term basis… .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport
What is a 'virtual' passport, e.g. allowing a mode of non-physical travel(l)ing and exchange?
https://writingexplained.org/travelling-or-traveling-difference
Adaptive political decision-making: are average values more useful than fixed values?
Example:
The average traffic speed is fixed at 80 km/hour to reduce 'costs' (e.g. environmental, medical), but might be adjusted to local environmental conditions?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology