Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Considerando la Sciocracia Mundial Ciudadana y Transparente

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Considering a Global Transparent Citizen Sciocracy an interview with Paco Mota a video by Sergio M.L. Tarrero On September 21, 2015, Sergio M.L. Tarrero, President of Spanish political party Alianza Futurista, interviewed Paco Mota, author of "If Darwin and Socrates, Global Sciocracy". In his book, Paco Mota makes an ambitious proposal to reform our system of global governance. "If Darwin and Socrates, Global Sciocracy" is a novel essay in Political Philosophy. The author proposes the start of a global conversation to address the Global EthoAuthoritative Deficit (GEAD). This goes beyond the sub-global scope which national parties, like Alianza Futurista, typically cover. However, we think the topics covered in the book are so urgent and important —politically, socially and intellectually—that they should be properly understood and addressed, both by the best minds of our time, and by the global citizenry: the World Citizens who will one day be Base Political Decisionmakers ('bapodes'). Therefore, we are delighted to present this interview, so that those interested in improving the world can better understand some of the main ideas of this holoethical proposal which Paco Mota brings to the table: the Global Transparent Citizen Sciocracy (Σ). Sergio M. L. Tarrero: Paco Mota is a Philosophy and Ethics high school teacher. He has written this book, "If Darwin and Socrates, Global Sciocracy", which is a treaty in Holoethics, as he will explain in a minute, which I read, and I just loved it, I really liked it. The book is truly visionary, it makes a very novel proposal, and we believe it can have a significant social effect. Paco, what is Holoethics? Paco Mota: Holoethics is essentially the same as Ethics, but my purpose is to strengthen the global reach of this Ethics. While traditional Ethics has been a rather fragmentary type of Ethics, and it has focused, perhaps, exclusively in human beings, or sometimes, actually, in a subset of all human beings, neglecting the rest of human beings, and the rest of living beings, Holoethics intends not to commit, as much as possible, that mistake, or that oversight. Of course, human attention is limited, human knowledge is limited, but Holoethics intends to be a type of Ethics for all living beings fated to an obligatory coexistence, as it is the case with Earth's whole biosphere. S: Very well. You say that the book's protagonist is sciocracy. Explain to our audience what sciocracy is. P: People are aware of the concept of democracy. Democracy etymologically means "government by the people": "demos" means people in Greek and "cratos", "cracy" means power, literally, "democracy" is the power by the people, and that is what has caused democracy to mean the idea that sovereignty rests with the people. Sciocracia is not something different from democracy, it is a type of democracy. I... I like to define it as a superdemocracy. A democracy can be superior relative to another one, because it may be of greater magnitude, and it can also be superior relative to another one because it may be of better quality. Well, in both senses, [global] sciocracia is a superdemocracy: it is of greater magnitude than any other democracy of those known to date, and of better quality than any other democracy known or implemented so far. In fact, [global] sciocracy is a geodemocracy, sophisticated and scioweighted. This means that it rests very…, very relevantly in the idea that base electors would deserve to have (a) different decision-making power by virtue of their factual knowledge and scientifically proven ratiocognitive power. S: Very well. P: And, the symbol I use for sciocracia, for brevity, is the Greek capital letter sigma (Σ), which, at the same time, is the mathematical symbol for a summation. Because, in reality, sciocracy is a great human double summation. Sciocracy attempts to take into account all human beings, without forgetting any one of them, and it also attempts to take into account, fairly, the knowledge of each of those human beings who are to give their opinion. It is a double summation, and… in fact, that's the idea I wanted to convey with such a great symbol, which comes so handy, the Greek capital letter sigma (Σ). S: Another important concept is GEAD, the Global EthoAuthoritative Deficit. What is GEAD? P: GEAD is, in fact, the villain protagonist in this book's story. I maintain that the set of all human beings is currently facing five major global issues, of planetary scope. And the first and most important one is precisely this GEAD: Global EthoAuthoritative Deficit. Humanity, or, as I like to call it, Humanty, the set of all human beings alive today, is lacking an authority which is chosen in an impeccably democratic manner and recognized by most human beings. When I say "in an impeccably democratic manner", naturally, too, I also mean to say, in an impeccably ethical manner. That's why I speak of an Etho-(Authoritative) deficit, 'etho' is a prefix which has to do with Ethics, Global EthoAuthoritative. We lack an authority, ethically elected, in a democratic manner. S: Okay. You talk about sciocracy having 4 Framework Conditions. P: That's right. S: What are these Framework Conditions? P: Yes. Framework Conditions... I like to compare global sciocracy with a table which has 4 legs... and the picture is easily understandable, or comprehensible. Sciocracy's 4 legs are its 4 Framework Conditions. Sciocracy's first Framework Condition establishes democratic universal law and legislation, that is, that the same law is applied worldwide and the same justice, the same justice system. That the same crimes are punished, or prosecuted and punished, similarly worldwide. And, of course, when I say that we must apply a universal system of law, and of justice, I look at the systems of law and justice that are most advanced, in the world. I'm not talking about those systems which, without a doubt, are much more backward. Sciocracy's second Framework Condition has to do, precisely, with what is, perhaps, sciocracy's most distinctive feature: the condition of base political elector, the condition of BAse POlitical DEcisionmaker. I call them bapodes, the bapode is the BAse POlitical DEcisionmaker, and to refer to her condition, the condition of being a bapode, I use the term bapodeship. Okay, well, bapodeship is not achieved, in sciocracy, by a mere matter of extrauterine age, as it is standard and normal in the most advanced modern democracies. Let's say that in those democracies which come to mind as most advanced, those in Nordic countries, those in Western countries, the condition of base political elector, bapodeship, is obtained by mere extrauterine age. At 18 years of age, anyone, regardless of gender, becomes, automatically, and for all time, a bapode, a base political elector. I think that's a misguided idea. I think it's an error of democracy from the times of its very inception as an idea and as a political system, it's a defect which is ab origine, from the origins of democracy, about which Socrates warned, back then; and I end up saying that Condition 2, Framework Condition number 2 of sciocracy, should establish bapodeship as a function of a scientifically proven ratiocognitivity, using a double blind testing method. So if a boy, or a girl, 13, 14 or 15 years of age, manages to demonstrate having achieved the proper level to reach the bapodeship which sciocratian citizens themselves established, that the citizens of a sciocracy established, well all these younsters deserve, ipso facto, to be bapodes in the global sciocracy. And, of course, I also say, at the same time, that not all bopodes have to have the same base political decisionmaker power, but that this base political decisonmaker power must be proportional, quasi-proportional, to her ratiocognitive potential, to the number of sciocredits that she has managed to accumulate or have in life. We are all used to modern university systems in which studies are measured in a number of credits, which students must get in order to obtain a degree. We could apply that to all educational systems at all levels, in such a way that, for example, in a sciocracy, you could say: "anyone who can show to have achieved 220 sciocredits, can be established as a bapode". Well, so when you reach 220 sciocredits you get your first sciovote. But, if, throughout your life, you continue to educate yourself, and your ratiocognitive abilities increase, because your culture increases, because your logical-deductive capability increases, because… you know much more than… S: You're wiser. P: Exactly, so… You would deserve to have…, and in sciocracy that is the case, you would have a greater number of sciovotes to put on a ballot box. So, what sciocracy is, is essentially a system to enhance the citizenry's average ratiocognitivity. Any given citizen in a sciocracy would want to have the greatest base political decisionmaking power and make every effort to increase her own ratiocognitivity, her factual knowledge of the world, and her ratiocognitive potential. This is the second Condition. S: Framework Condition 3 establishes both the free and unrestricted access to all true or scioprobable non-reserved information, and a universal anti-indoctrination ban. Okay, explain this to us. P: Yes. Framework Condition number 3, actually, establishes two conditions or two prerequisites of any sciocracy worthy of that title. The first of these requirements is, precisely, the unrestricted, unlimited access to all information that, for whatever reason, is not considered reserved. Of course, in all social systems there must be…, there can be and there must be, information which is deemed reserved. Nobody needs to know what I spend my free time doing. Okay, but we are all aware that there are educational systems, and tyrannical governments, which hinder freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of information amongst the citizenry. Well, that would be a crime against humanty and would be totally forbidden. And, secondly, Framework Condition 3 also flatly forbids the indoctrination of people, indoctrination being the systematic and regular instillment of unscientific or anti-scientific beliefs in the minds of well…, the most vulnerable of cognitive agents. I am, of course, referring to… kids, especially, right? All of us, in our childhood, go through a period in which we believe absolutely everything. Sciocracy is not against children's tales and recreational or fun stories. What sciocracy is against, and strictly prohibits, to the point of considering it a very serious crime, is the systematic indoctrination—that is, a repeated, regular, intentional, monitored effort—, to instill in children, or in the most cognitively vulnerable people, beliefs which are clearly contrary to scientific knowledge and which can cripple, so to speak, or disable the ratiocognitivity of the indoctrinated… the child in this case, right? or the cognitively limited person, if that was the case. That is Framework Condition 3. S: Obviously, that includes religions… P: Yes, indeed. Religions, but not only religions. I mean… there are autocratic governments which don't instill religious beliefs on their citizenry, but do instill quasi-religious cultish beliefs, and superstitious beliefs, that is, unscientific or anti-scientific beliefs, about the nation's "great leader", or about the virtues of the economic or political system that prevails in that country. We are all aware of…, we have witnessed governments, states, which are openly secular, which have no formal religious beliefs, but which, however, well, keep their citizens in informational bubbles, and make them believe, well, a host of strange beliefs, which are manifestly nonveridical and untruthful. So, instilling untrue beliefs, manifestly untrue beliefs, on the citizenry, is considered a flagrant violation of this Framework Condition number 3, in sciocracy. S: And Framework Condition 4 establishes the universal abolition of cash—physical money—, and the thorough, secure, confidential and traceable inforegistry of every legal financial transaction. P: Yes. Let's see. Economics has the—probably deserved—bad reputation of being a construct, a theoretical construct, halfway between the "hard", more prestigious sciences, such as Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and other disciplines that don't…, that probably don't deserve the title of sciences. Someone even said, perhaps rightly, that Economics is an occult science. Sciocracy's Framework Condition number 4 does not want to judge, so to speak, which is the ideal system of production, sharing and distribution of wealth, but it does demand, at least, accounting clarity. Then, while admitting that the invention of cash, physical money, coins, paper money, was a great invention that has streamlined all commercial exchanges between human beings, we should also admit that it has some side effects which are very, very undesirable. What sciocratism, or sciocracy, demands, is that any financial transaction, —be it a purchase/sale, be it a rental, be it…, I don't know, the purchase of some services, or whatever—, that every, every financial transaction is documented and registered… and so any financial transaction that fails to be registered and documented exhaustively, in detail, would not be deemed a legal transaction, in the world. Naturally, sciocracy…, in order to reach that goal, say, should first develop a highly sophisticated accounting database —I talk about Human(i)ty's Accounting Database—, where every economic transaction must be registered, in such a way that we can always track, or trace, (as we now use this verb in Spanish, which we've copied from English), trace the exact origin of the specific economic transaction, the parties involved in the economic transaction, the type of payment, the type of services which were rendered, the product that was exchanged, etc., etc. That is, accounting is fundamental; cash money is not. S: You've also introduced the term "Humanty". Why is it important to distinguish between Humanty and humanity? P: Well, the word "humanity" in Spanish, if you look up the term in the Dictionary of the (Spanish language) Royal Academy, has up to 8 different meanings. I…, when writing an essay, I am clearly in favor of the unambiguity of concepts. If we don't want to be confused by the words, the first thing we have to do is to have clear, well-defined concepts, right? We could well call "humanity" to the set of all living beings who share the human genome. Well, what I call that meaning of "humanity", is "Humanitas", I call it "Humanitas". I reach out to a bit of Latin. But to refer, for instance, to the group of living human beings at any given moment, which can be a second, a minute, an hour, a year, or even a century, I talk about "Humanty". Humanty, naturally, any given Humanty is a particular subset of Humanitas. The Humanty of the 5th century AD knew individuals like Socrates or Democritus. But that Humanty is dead, it no longer exists, it is not among us. And, indeed, each passing second, Humanty's exact cardinality changes, because children are constantly being born, and some people are dying. Okay, well to refer to the set of all human beings living in a given time I prefer to use the concept of Humanty. Let's say Humanty is a specific frame in the movie of the whole of Humanitas, throughout history. S: And you also talk about the possibility of creating an Advisory Parliament for Humanty. P: Yes. I say that in order to reach…, in order to set up a sciocracy, which should be done, of course, in a perfectly holoethical way, there is a preferred route, which I call the Road Map towards sciocracy, RMΣ. But this preferential way is not the only way, and I pose, for instance, the possibility of electing an Advisory Parliament for Humanty among people over 18, human beings over 18 years of age, in the whole planet. But, also, to elect a parliament in such a way that anyone over 18 can choose their representatives, let's say about 20, 30, however many we want, in open lists, by rigorous order of preference, so that the first one, say, always appears in the particular list of each elector, of each bapode, at the top, and moreover, that this parliament allows every citizen of Earth to choose her political representatives both among her current compatriots, and among any other legal adult in the planet. So, for example…, a currently Spanish citizen should be able to choose, if she has to choose 20 representatives in order of preference, well she can choose, if she wants, say, 20 Chinese people…, it their arguments are convincing [to this person], if she sees them as great leaders, or great defenders of ideals which go well with…, or are in tune with her own way of understanding life. Well, that Advisory Parliament would have something like numerary members (I think I propose some 860 there, in the book), at a rate of 1 member for every 10 million citizens, or fraction thereof, because there are countries that, you know, have, maybe, 15 million inhabitants, they'd have 10 million—that country would have one member for that country, for the people of that country— plus another one, it would have 2, because 5 is a fraction 10, so it would have 2 members, right? But 5 does not... make it to 20; 15 million is less than 20. It wouldn't have, so to speak, more than 2; it would only have 2. And then I also propose that there are a number of parliamentarians at this Advisory Parliament for Humanty, supernumerary parliamentarians, at a rate of 1 for every currently recognized, existing state government. These supernumerary parliamentarians would have a voice in that Advisory Parliament, but they would not have a vote. Because we cannot have absolutely certainty that the government electing that candidate is a democracy. And, well, actually, most of the governments that exist on Earth are not…, most are not fully democratic. Well, that Advisory Parliament, although it would have no official legislative function, nor could it determine what is or isn't done in the world, I think it would have a very strong moral or ethical weight or gravitas, if we want to look at it that way, and that its decisions and resolutions would resonate strongly across the globe. It would be a parliament which would issue recommendations, which would be non-binding. But, in a sense, us citizens over the whole planet would feel that we have chosen, all adult citizens, or scioadult word citizens, that we have chosen, together, very freely, a parliament which would have those people who we'd like to be, well…, the great proponents of ideas for the future, say, the proponents of guidelines for a future planetary government, which would be ideal, of course. S: You speak of a "preferred method" for setting up a sciocracy. You call the Road Map to Sciocracy, to Σ. Tell us about it. What is the Road Map to Σ? Q: The Road Map to Σ is the appropriate way, in my opinion, to set up Σ, or to set up this thing that we call sciocracy. The Road Map consists of five steps, some of them recommended, not strictly necessary, but indeed recommended. The only strictly necessary step…, or, more precisely, the only holoethically necessary step, to set up Σ is a plebiscite among sciologically competent human beings, among human scioadults. Of course, in order to determine who will participate in that plebiscite, first we must determine who are the scioadult human beings, or the sciologically competent human beings. And that effort, obviously…, has a…, requires some preparations, some logistics and a method, a way to proceed, which is extremely complicated, and may take decades, even. Alright… S: But you talk about starting with a poll… Q: Indeed. Given that, for the time being, politics is the art of…, I say that politics is a form of engineering, Holoethics is a form of engineering, and all forms of engineering are art on probation. That is, the artist…, there has never been an artist who has not been surrounded by limiting conditions. Holoethics, which is a technical science that tries to change the world in its small sphere of activity, which is human coexistence, and our coexistence with animals and other living beings on the planet, well it has many limiting conditions, as well. It would be ideal to start from a different scenario in the world, to set up Σ. But we don't have that scenario to start from. So, all we have is the scenario or situation that we have. And in these conditions, I say that it is highly advisable to carry out a poll, or to start by carrying out a world opinion poll among people over 18 years old about the suitability of setting up—¡or not!—a sciocracy, Σ. A poll... We are used to opinion polls, we know that opinion polls don't ask everyone…, they don't ask the whole population who will later participate in the elections, but only to a particular sample of the population. Unlike those polls, which are always sampling polls, a full-sample opinion poll is directed, potentially, to all humans of an age group…, or…, with some sociological profile, right? Ok, so…, this is a voluntary poll, of course. When the full-sample poll is directed at people over 18, nobody is forced to participate. Those who want to participate, should participate, and those who don't, shouldn't. But perhaps, because of logistical or educational reasons, or even… as a warmup exercise —so that Humanty will get going and rectify anything that if might consider wrong or improper in the future, via a plebisicite, in an ideal plebiscite among sciocompentent human beings— well what would be ideal…, would be to launch a global, full sample opinion poll…, which would be non-binding, it would not have political weight, it's only about gathering the views of adult Humanty, about what is... about a fundamental and primordial political question: which is the model of coexistence, of geocoexistence, that we all…, or that most of us, want. Let's ask ourselves... S: Yeah, well, that we want democratically… P: Democratically, yes. Well, then…, nobody can say that an opinion poll is, in principle…, it's hard to argue that it's something subversive. It just means asking… Nobody would think, for instance., that an opinion poll in order to launch a shampoo, or a soap, some commercial product, is something subversive. The only goal is to study a population's opinion or receptiveness about a product which has not even been designed yet, right? Well, given that opinion polls don't have, prima facie, in principle, any political weight, no one will be able to, holoethically, raise any objections to it, no one will be able to object to any adult citizen in the planet participating in it, as it may be the case, at that point, that many other adult human beings may be already participating, in a political poll with holoethical content. But it is an opinion poll, just an opinion poll. Of course, if… S: Later, a plebiscite would be held… P: Yes, of course. In any case, it would be advisable, for instance, to hold a plebiscite. If…, if a full sample opinion poll, implemented, if not ideally, in the best possible way, let's say, indicated that a majority of the human population would welcome something like a sophisticated geodemocracy of this type, like Σ, the next step would be—pending the determination of who are the sciocompetent human beings—to hold a plebiscite among a population that could be taken, provisionarily, as a substitute, a proxy, of the scientifically vetted sciocompetent human beings. In today's more civilized and more developed democracies it is considered that anyone over 18 years old, by the mere fact of being over 18, can make base political decisions. Anyone can participate in elections and can normally be elected to public office, right? Well I say…, well, if a full sample global opinion poll indicates that there is a clear positive reception to the idea of ​​sciocracy, the next step, still pending the determination who the effective sciocompetent human beings are, would be a plebiscite among people over 18 about the same subject and implemented the same way. S: It should be clarified that this wouldn't be the only question. The poll could have 100 other questions… P: That's right. I…, I think what I say, in the book, and I explain sufficiently well, is that it's not that I…, that I am personally really keen on asking this one question…, to all adults, or all people over 18 years of age… In fact, adult Humanty should be asked about thousands of issues…, so long as the needed financial resources to do it are available, so long as it's considered that it's the right moment to do it, etc. etc. I mean, that it would be ideal for us to have knowledge, pretty much weekly, or monthly, about a huge number of issues… That is, public opinion research could really offer us, if it were reliable, if it were ethoscientific, if it were done using perfectly scientific and ethical protocols, and unimpeded by liberticide-type obstacles, it could offer us a wonderful window into the soul, the desires, the beliefs of people. The knowledge of what the hell humanity wants, about a host of issues, in real time, could bring us incredible benefits. Given that in my book I tackle a holoethical question which, to me, is primal and fundamental, among all holoethical questions, thus I say that that poll and that referendum should be about this issue: about the ideal geodemocratic model that we should establish. Because I do not even entertain the idea that a model of governance exists, not just global, but even subglobal, that is decent and that is not, at the same time, democratic, right? I don't even entertain the idea. This is something which…, to me, is indisputable. Then the poll, for instance, the global full sample poll, could be an excellent experience in preparation for a global plebiscite, of course a full sample one, as well, amongst people older than [18 years old]… And, eventually, when we could have a reliable record of which people are sciocompetent, in a way that, I also think that… S: Giving people time to prepare, to take the tests… Q: Exactly. S: After all, it's not unlike taking tests to get a driver's license. Q: Right…, well, yes, indeed. I'm glad you asked that question… Exactly. It takes me many pages in the book to explain that sciologicity, this ratiocognitive capacity, is not a subjective parameter, is not a parameter which, let's say, can't be measured objectively, but the opposite is true. That is, just as we measure…—and judge and value— citizens' competence at the wheel, or, even, competence at, say… for instance, gymnastics, or any othe type of [skills], well the ratiocognitivity of any given human being is a parameter which is as objective and as measurable as is someone's weight, or any other parameter, be it weight, height, body size, endurance, oxygen consumption under physical exertion, etc., Then, just as in the automotive world, anyone can prepare and aspire to obtain one or another type of driver's license, in fact, whenever, wherever and however she wants to obtain it, and driving licenses…, many of them, anyway, have almost universal validity, a given country accepts as valid another country's drivers' licenses, its citizens' drivers' licenses, we could do the same thing… In fact, our educational system is also…, our globalized educational system has taken…, has moved in that direction for a long time now. That is, academic qualifications from a university in the United States, most likely, are recognized and have the same value and prestige at universities in Germany, or England, etc., right? That's what international treaties are for. Well, I say that we can all come to an agreement about what there is to know, what is relevant to know, in the world, which is, basically, what we find in science books, Math, Biology, Chemistry books, etc., in almost every school, in the countries with the best educational systems in the world. That is, no… S: It's what appears in a good encyclopedia, isn't it? P: Yes, indeed. Well, precisely what sciocracy needs to do…, say, first off…, is to determine what the set is… what the tree of human knowledge is, what is objective, what is relevant, what the data is, where the scientific community in a given field, where all or most experts in the world have come to an agreement, and what should be required at each educational level. Then, a system of academic credits that is universally recognized, worldwide, today is a utopia, but it is not an unattainable utopia, in the sense that nothing has been done at all. We are close to getting even that. I mean… The movement of students from one academic system, from one country to another…, is constant, it's very fluid. Everyone is aware of academic validation systems. Well, so we could even get to the point where we say…, hey…, in order to become a bapode, a base political decisionmaker, whatever your current nationality, your age, your gender, your condition…, you should demonstrate that you know how to do such and such things, that you have certain academic abilities. Well, for this achievement, we give you this number of sciocredits, and this number of sciocredits grants you..., or makes you deserving or entitled to such number of sciovotes. That is… the part about the logistics needed prior to sciocracy, prior to the implementation of sciocracy, which may take longer and require more of an effort, but it is not an impossibility at all, not at all. In fact there are very laudable efforts by the UN that point in that direction. There is…, there is a system which aims provide international accreditation, universal accreditation, of academic or training courses, from any country to any other country, okay? So, we should apply that not only to the training courses at university level, which is already, pretty much…, it's already applied pretty much everywhere, since the movement of college students is huge, I mean, it's enormous, but we should also apply it to secondary education, and maybe even to primary education. That is, the child can do…,, has such and such skills. Okay, so if she accumulates these competences, maybe, with those skills, say, the skills needed for…, for example, this is just a proposal, the skills acquired by a normal high school graduate, who at 17, or 18, has completed her education, of her own Language, of a Foreign Language, of Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, History, very importantly, History, well, at that level of knowledge, say, any world citizen deserves to be considered, already, a bapode, with her first sciovote. But this is not her only vote, for life. That is, precisely, what sciocracy does not defend. S: How can Darwin and Socrates' ideas be applied to politics? P: Yes. I say in the book…, one of the…, perhaps my top intellectual icon is Darwin, right? Socrates is too, course. And there are many more, right? But…, well, I always look at myself in Darwin's mirror, such is my admiration for him. Darwin said about The Origin of Species that it was just a long argument. Well, a long argument of…,, I think some 190,000 words. It was a long argument. My book came out even lengthier than The Origin of Species, which it is not a merit, but a defect. I consider it a defect. But indeed it is a long argument. A long argument… An argument is always… In Logic, —and maybe I say this in the book, given my own training in logic, I studied quite a bit of Logic in college—, an argument is basically a series of statements and in this series of statements, there are some statements which are premises, which are starting conditions, to develop the argument, there are others that are intermediate steps or a transformation of those starting statements called premises, and then there is one, at least one, or several, which are supposed to be statements extracted from the premises by rules of transformation, okay? That is what an argument typically is. Well, so there are certain rules of transformation, also called "rules of inference", which are standard in Logic, and one of them is what it is known as modus ponens. A typical modus ponens, the most elementary kind, has two premises and a conclusion. In the elementary modus ponens the first premise is shaped like a conditional which says "If A happens then B happens". And the second premise always says "A", "A happens". So, if we have those two premises, anyone…, if we take them for true and correct, anyone, without even having any particularly sophisticated training in Logic, will say, well, "If A, then B", and A happens, so B can be easily deduced. That is the typical modus ponens. The modus ponens can get as complicated as desired and more. In the case of my book… S: Let's not complicate things. What needs to be understood… P: Yes, but let me finish. In the book's modus ponens what is… The book is a modus ponens-type argument, because it says "If what Darwin said and what Socrates said are true, then we have to set up something like Σ, something like sciocracy". And, well, I think that, in fact, what Darwin said and what Socrates said, a couple of things they said, about human beings and about politics, specifically, Socrates said something about the desirability of doing something in particular, in politics, I think those two…, those two…, Darwinism and political Socratism, —I'm going to trim it down now, as if it were two tweets, two statements— are correct, they are very easily acceptable. Well, then, if they are acceptable, you accept, so to speak, the part with…, the antecedent of the conditional. Then, if Darwinism is…, if Darwinism and political Socratism are right, then Σ must be set up. But Darwinism and political Socratism are indeed right. Thus, the modus ponens is that Σ must be set up. S: Isn't it very naive to think, as you say in your book, that in 50 years Humanty—the Humanty of that time, of course—will live in a global transparent citizen sciocracy? Q: Well, what is not naive is to think that most people that hear this will think, precisely, that is very naive. That is, it is certain that most [people] who hear that will think that…, that…, that I display an extreme naivete, right? It's possible. But the fact is that I trust that the sciocracy project will accelerate by the very fact of enunciating it, of stating it, which nobody has done before. An idea is stated and put into circulation, and it starts to get discussed. I imagine it will have many enemies. What I don't know is how many friends it will have. So, this is the bottom line, because, once an idea, a project, is put into circulation, a project, a…, I speak about a prosolution —a prosolution is not a solution… really, it's a proposal— well the proposal is heard by many people and, automatically there will pop out, I am convinced, as I say, (enemies and…) people who are favorable and people who are opposed to the proposal. But I also note that the times…, the pace of change of history has accelerated. This not only happens with technology, or with the popular Moore's Law, with the progress in computing power of chips and such, the pace of change has accelerated in all areas of life. We are witnessing a period of breathtaking change in all areas of life… Everything is under discussion. This time we're living in reminds me of the time of Athens in the 5th century BC, where all the sophists arrived or confluenced, and everything, everything, everything was up for discussion. Everything, absolutely everything—religions, customs, social norms, words… what this or that meant, the equality between men and women, whether the slaves were slaves by nature or by convention— everything was up for debate. We are, also, in a time of crisis, and crises have a very, very positive element, which is that everything is reviewed, everything is revised. I say that Humanty's Holoethical Age, which must begin now, is the Age of Due Explanations. If there's something which has no justification, or there's something we don't see a rationale, a reason for being, automatically, people who are acceptably informed start to demand a justification for it. What I…, what seems unjustifiable to me must either disappear, or must be, say, continually under attack, continuously under siege. Thus, nobody…, to what experts say, nobody dares saying today what jobs there will be in 5 or 10 years' time. Nobody dares saying that, right? Well, my question is this, the question that I pose to myself… Are we so sure that within 5 or 10 years the world will not have changed enough so that our predictions of today have been, so to speak, ridiculed? I mean, I don't know…, perhaps the most immediate example is the fall of the Berlin Wall. No political scientist, no sociologist, could predict that: the collapse of the Soviet world, of the communist world. That changed almost overnight, without warning, or without notice of what was going to happen. The popular Arab Spring, which, indeed, has not fulfilled all the dreams or all the expectations that were put in it, but, however, several dictatorships have disappeared which seemed monolithic, which seemed written in basalt, right? Who can tell whether or not political changes to come, over the next 50 years, will not acquire a pace, precisely so…, so accelerated, and that…, for whatever reason, —due to climate change, or due to…, due to the rapid acceleration of…, well, the rapid growth of the human population, maybe because we reach…, I don't know, a terrible degree of degradation of Earth's ecosystems…— who can tell us that it can't happen that within 10, 12, 20 years, humanity won't have put itself before the mirror and seen the deep…, the deep abysses it faces…, and maybe start thinking in a holoethical way, start rising to the occasion? Ok? … And maybe it will begin to take shape and grow, in Humanty's global consciousness [in most people's minds], the idea that what is convenient for us is to move towards some type of geodemocracy. I don't claim that sciocracy is the best imaginable geodemocracy. I claim that it is the best geodemocracy that I have been able to imagine. Right? Exactly. Then, if someone has a better idea, we want to hear it. S: You say that Ethics should not only take into account human beings... Should we also protect or defend nonhuman animals? P: We should, at the very least, be considerate with them. That is, Holoethics is defined as the technoscience, the technical science, which attempts to minimize avoidable suffering in a community of living beings in obligate coexistence, without—I say in the book—without unbearable losses of freedom nor knowledge. That's what Holoethics is, for me. The rational search for the best model of coexistence for a community of living beings forced to be in constant interaction, but without losses of freedom nor knowledge… and, of course, nor wellbeing…, which, let's say, goes without saying, right? Well, naturally, we are not, as the Judeo-Christian creation myth says, we are not the…, we're not the gardeners of Eden. Creation didn't happen for our exploitation and sometimes abuse, but we are part of creation —by the way, an evolutionary creation, not a divine one— and what is true is that we are the only living beings on the planet who have this thing called ability to reason. The ability to reason, incidentally, is not a thing…, let's say, that happens for sure in any human being; it's an ability, it's a kind of power, which, to be able to exert it, you have to exercise it, you have to train it, and you have to have the willingness to apply it. It's like the ability… Nobody would define the human being as, say, the living being who rides bicycles. Only human beings ride bicycles, but not all human beings ride bicycles. The same thing happens with reason. Reason is a power, a potentiality, which any, say, intellectually healthy human being has… any person without a serious cognitive deficiency, who is not in a coma, who has not suffered a recent brain injury, and so on, right? Human beings, having that superior potentiality with respect to the rest of known creatures, we have no more rights than they do, we have, so to speak, more obligations, more obligations… S: And eventually—this may be more specific topics to, say, begin to to discuss after we create a sciocracy— [we should discuss] things like whether we should also give…, appoint representatives for children, animals, etc. within our parliaments and our collective decisionmaking processes, etc. because they really do not have official representatives, right? And this issue, I mean, is not in the book, or anything; it is something that we can look at later, that there seems to be a lack of some direct representation there, right? So, I suppose you think that the more someone knows, the more people know about the world, as people study it more, as people learn and know about it more…, biology, nature, everything, logically, the more they tend to understand, also…, well… everything, including aspects of animal rights movement, meaning, for instance, what speciesism is, etc., and, at least, processes the information, think about it, and the tendency would be for people to be more empathetic, more compassionate [towards animals] and... Because I have seen the experience of many people around me, who have had this happen to them. So…, the more you know, and the more conscious you are of the harm that your decisions cause, etc., the more you want to change yourself to avoid causing that harm. P: That seems like a pretty logical correlation. That is, no one can do anything, nor will they, to lessen the suffering of another living being, be it a person, or not, if that someone doesn't know that something which is happening around them, or something they are doing, causes or is causing some suffering. If I am unaware that, well, for whatever reason, setting a plot of forest on fire, if am unaware that there are a number of animals that depend on that plot of forest, and I'm not talking about just the plants, if I am unaware that animals depend vitally on that plot of forest, well it…, it doesn't even cross my imagination that I'm doing…, that I'm causing an increase in suffering in the world. In a sense…, in order to have a holoethical conscience one must first have an enlightened conscience, an informed conscience. One of the arguments that bullfighting enthusiasts sometimes use has to do with this question. They say that the bull does not suffer. And, claiming that the bull does not suffer, the question doesn't even arise…, the holoethical question doesn't even arise, of whether I must act in one way or another. Because holoethical issues only arise when there is suffering which is present, adjustable or variable via the purposeful, propositive action of an agent, okay? I don't know whether always and in all cases more…, better information, more extensive information, or better education, makes us necessarily more holoethically enlightened, but what I do know is that to be holoethically enlightened one previously needs to be acceptably well informed. S: Yes, right…, and understand very well how the world works, the physiology or appearance of nervous systems of animals, in this case…, in this particular case. If you don't know, you don't… P: Logicians express this relationship by saying that…, or, a logician would say that sufficient knowledge of the world is a necessary condition to have a holoethical conscience, but it's not a sufficient condition. That's what…, what I'm trying to tell you. S: Well, Paco, imagine that your prediction comes true and in 50 years we are living in Σ. What comes after Σ? P: After Σ comes whatever sciocratians, that is, the inhabitants of Σ, want. I often use a famous quote by Jefferson in a private letter, in which Jefferson said that no human generation has any right to impose on the following generations…, any type of condition, or obligation…, any limiting condition. And, truly, I..., I believe it is so, like Jefferson did. And although I advocate a sciocracy, —and I advocate for a sciocracy, because I do not see anything better… if I saw something better I would immediately jump to the other side supposedly defending a better cause…—, while I advocate a sciocracy, I am not a sciocratian. I'm a sciocratist, in the sense that I'm a defender of sciocracy. But I'm not a sciocratian, because I'm not a citizen in a sciocracy. Sciocracy is only…, what I say in the book…, a product of the mind, which doesn't exist yet; it's a virtual product. Then, once sciocracy is constituted —and I hope I get to see it, although I doubt it, as I don't believe I'll last another 50 years— with sciocracy, the very sciocratians will handle things and act as they wish. S: Well, we can talk a little bit about ExtraHs. You talk quite a bit in the book... you focus on the concept of the ExtraH. P: ExtraHs, with an 'h'. S: With an 'h', yes, which stands for Extraordinary Humans. P: That's right. ExtraHs... well, in that Road Map to Σ, which we talked about earlier, which it is the preferred route, the one which I consider to be the most adequate, the calmest, most peaceful, even the most prudent route, to reach Σ, I say that…, that Road Map to Σ should be implemented by the UN, and the UN and any of the delegates present at the UN should show enthusiasm towards the idea. That is, if the UN really wanted to "wash its face" and…, let's say, get rid of all those accusations it receives of not being a fully ethical agency —in the sense that…, well, it has a Security Council in which there are 5 members with veto power, which constantly blocks very laudable initiatives— if the UN really wanted…, to be true to its main duty, which is to…, to keep the peace and promote the prosperity of the peoples, and human rights, etc., it should be the lead agency carrying the flag of something like sciocracy and it should be the main promoter of the Road Map to Σ. But, unfortunately, I have to say that I don't have much hope that this degree of enthusiasm will be widespread among UN members, or delegates. So I say that, if the UN does not take the initiative, the only hope left to the sciocratist is to have confidence on the ExtraHs. ExtraHs are those human beings who share three traits, three characteristics, three features in a very, very remarkable way, a very, very, very prominent way. The first feature is that they are—all, or each of them— misopathic philanthropists. That is, they are people who try to help Humanty and, by extension, Humanitas, with a deep disgust towards or contempt of suffering. 'Misopathic' is an adjective that means 'someone who despises, hates, is repulsed by suffering'. Secondly, a prototypical ExtraH is a lover of science, of ratiocognitivity, of humanity's cognitive progress, of knowledge, actually. What's more, an ExtraH… S: A lover of technological progress… P: Yes, yes. A prototypical ExtraH, normally, is either a practitioner in the forefront of some science or some technology, or is a promoter of science, in general, or of science education, and of technology for the good of humanity. And thirdly, the third typical feature of an ExtraH is that they are generally true magnates, they have many resources, economic, financial, or they are in charge of corporations, or networks of…, of…, of connections, of acquaintances. They are able to pull very important strings in the world, or to implement initiatives of a planetary scale. When those three features come together in the same human being the typical profile of an ExtraH emerges. I say in the book that, pretty much, the prototype of an ExtraH would be Iron Man, right? [or, more precisely,Tony Stark…] Because he is a…, he is supposed to be a kind of modern Don Quixote, a modern version of Don Quixote, who wants to contribute to the good causes, who goes around defending the needy, the poor, those who are in danger, who cannot stand gratuitous suffering, of course his own suffering and the suffering of others, while at the same time being… Not having special superhero powers, Iron Man builds his own armor, with which he flies, has incredible weapons that he always uses, of course, towards the best causes… That would be, let's say, the second feature: that he or she is a champion of science or technology. And thirdly, well, he is a multimillionaire who devotes his entire fortune, indeed, just like Batman, to the most meritorious, noblest causes… S: The most urgent… P: Humanity's most urgent causes, too. Those are the ExtraHs. So, if the UN fails us, —I say in the book—our only hope, the only hope for us sciocratists, resides in the ExtraHs, both individually and, ideally, in synergistic collaboration. S: You also seem to place much confidence in the "Jumanji effect." P: (Laughs) The Jumanji effect…, the Jumanji effect…, well, is essentially that of a game which, once started, that of a game which, once started, cannot be stopped. Of course, it is obvious that I found inspiration in Chris Van Allsburg's tale, and more than Chris Van Allsburg's tale, which is relatively simple and very, very…, extremely short —by the way, the illustrations were also done by the writer—, I was inspired by the film version of the story, by Joe Johnston. As you know, in the movie some kids find a mysterious box which produces a sound; they open it; it's a game, a weird game, a board game, with its corresponding track of chips and its movable pieces. And they start playing, and with each roll of the dice prodigious phenomena begin to occur, right? Well, what I say in the book is that the very idea of a credible global full sample opinion poll on an issue as capital, as primordial, as relevant as what the model of geocoexistence that us human beings want to have is, the very idea that it is underway, that… S: That it's on the table. P: That it's on the table. And that, indeed, there is a will to get it done in a spotlessly holoethical way, already puts, already puts… S: It's back on the table. P: Yes…, already puts, already puts…, it would mean the first roll of the dice over the geopolitical chessboard, call it as you wish, of the world. For if indeed a sufficient number of human beings believed that it's going to be done, and positively thought that it's going to be done in a flawless way, in a holoethically flawless way, then the very idea of ​​sciocracy would be placed in most humans brains. And I wonder what…, what would happen if…, if that idea gained momentum. That is, what would happen…, I wonder, for instance, whether it could be indefinitely stopped… that idea. That is, once the idea is suggested that there is a holoethical initiative to move towards a world government, with, as I say, a flawlessly chosen parliament, democratically elected, sciocratically elected, in the long run, yes? What would happen if that idea gained strength? Because my…, my assumption is that this game of geopolitical Jumanji would be, ultimately, unstoppable. As, by the way, as was the very idea of ​​democracy. Once it was started in Athens it's true that it was latent, —the Jumanji box, in the film version, is latent…, I will not recount the film here, but it stays latent…, for 26 years—, well you can't stop it: the game must continue. And this is…, modestly, I think this is my contribution to this game. I…, I…, simply, I cannot roll the dice. But I…, I have heard the box, and I have put on the table. Now…, let's see…, the ExtraHs should show up, or preferably, the UN should shows up, and roll the dice. S: Great. Well, thank you very much for letting us ask you some questions. P: Thank you. S: … and let's hope that it goes well and that we get to Σ. P: Yes, let's hope that we do. In 50 years we'll do another interview. S: Thank you. P: You're welcome.

Video Details

Duration: 1 hour, 2 minutes and 40 seconds
Year: 2015
Country: Spain
Language: Spanish (Spain)
License: Dotsub - Standard License
Producer: Sergio M.L. Tarrero
Director: Sergio M.L. Tarrero
Views: 67
Posted by: sergiotarrero on Nov 3, 2015

El 21 de septiembre de 2015, Sergio M.L. Tarrero, Presidente de Alianza Futurista, entrevistó a Paco Mota, autor de "Si Darwin y Sócrates, Sciocracia Mundial".

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.