Supervising Nation-States with Experts
Jean-Francois Rischard: In the book, I sort of thought that the only way out would be not to try to extrapolate the nation state and _________ system all the way to the global levebecause I don't think that will workbut to actually think out of the box in terms of expert systems. In other words, not through representation systems, but expert systems. So I described in the book an idea which I call global issues networks where one would, for each of these 20 urgent global issues, set up a body of the world's best experts in that area. So let's take the example of fisheries depletion, which is a very serious problem which is about to become irreversible. The idea would be that one of the international institutions matter which one because they would only be involved as facilitators . . . So if it's fisheries depletion, it could be FAO in Rome which is a UN outfit, or the World Bank. I don't care which one it is. They're just facilitators. Le's say it's the World Bank. The World Bank would essentially gather 30 of the best experts it knows of in the fisheries management area. Ten would come from governments that have a lot of experience in fisheries management; 10 would come from the NGO area the international civil society area ....... and 10 would come from business. Whether business is part of the problem or part of the solution, it doesn't matter. Business has a lot of knowledge about fishing techniques and so forth. And these 30 experts would create sort of the beginning of a global issues network, which would then go into a second phase where some . . . another 60 experts would be co-opted. So you would have 90 a third from government, a third from business, and a third from the NGO world. And it's very important to say that these 90 experts would be essentially gathered by the international organization and then later by the early on experts only on the basis of their knowledge. In other terms, I happen to be from Luxembourg as we said earlier. I would not a fisheries expert from Luxembourg government to be in there because we don't know anything about fish. But I would want an expert from Iceland, from Mauritania, from South Africa, from Portugal, from Spain to be in there. So it's really an expert-driven . . . expertise-driven concept. And these 90 experts, once gathered, would go into a seclusion mode for two, three years. Not this off and on mode of the international system now which is very shallow; but essentially they would spend the next two or three years of their lives forgetting where they came from whether they came from this or that government, this or that company, or this or that NGO; but represent all of us in terms of representing all of us in the humanity of this planet to solve this fisheries problem onceand for all.
Recorded on: 7/2/07
Using a panel of experts to regulate the world.
Swiss researchers identify new dangers of modern cocaine.
- Cocaine cut with anti-worming adulterant levamisole may cause brain damage.
- Levamisole can thin out the prefrontal cortex and affect cognitive skills.
- Government health programs should encourage testing of cocaine for purity.
Civil discourse has fallen to an all time low.
The question that the American populace needs to ask itself now is: how do we fix it?
Discursive fundamentals need to be taught to preserve free expression
In their findings the authors state:
upholding First Amendment ideals.
Talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner
- Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
- Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
- Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
- Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial
- Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
- Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
- Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,
It's interesting to note the authors found that:
"Tribe membership shows strong reliability in predicting views across different political topics."
Here are some statistics on differing viewpoints according to political party:
- 51% of staunch liberals say it's "morally acceptable" to punch Nazis.
- 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
- 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
- 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
- 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
Here are some guidelines for civic discourse that might come in handy:
- Practice inclusion and listen to who you're speaking to.
Civic discourse in the divisive age
dangerously tribal, fueled by a culture of outrage and taking offense. For the combatants,
the other side can no longer be tolerated, and no price is too high to defeat them.
These tensions are poisoning personal relationships, consuming our politics and
putting our democracy in peril.
Once a country has become tribalized, debates about contested issues from
immigration and trade to economic management, climate change and national security,
become shaped by larger tribal identities. Policy debate gives way to tribal conflicts.
Polarization and tribalism are self-reinforcing and will likely continue to accelerate.
The work of rebuilding our fragmented society needs to start now. It extends from
re-connecting people across the lines of division in local communities all the way to
building a renewed sense of national identity: a bigger story of us."
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.