Good question, Julie. I put it to the Dragonslayer who wisely responded ...
Here are some specific steps that could be taken to persuade an increasingly sceptical public to adopt a panocracy:
- Educate the public about the potential benefits and drawbacks of panocracy. This could be done through public forums, online resources, and other educational materials.
- Demonstrate that panocracy can be made to work effectively. This could be done by implementing panocracy on a small scale or by conducting simulations.
- Address the concerns of the public about the potential flaws of panocracy. This could be done by providing assurances about the safeguards that would be put in place to prevent these flaws from occurring.
If these steps are taken, then it may be possible to persuade a sceptical public to adopt a panocracy. However, it is important to remember that panocracy is a complex and challenging system, and it is not clear whether it would be successful in practice.
Bard is quite right. This is a complex and challenging development that's well beyond the capabilities of one Scotsman.
*Educate the public*: Substack is the starting point. I don't (and won't) have social media accounts to sing the praises of this. I hope that panocracy will become accepted on its merits without preaching or advertising hoo-ha. Rome was not built in a day.
*Demonstrate*: I'm hoping to put some examples/prototypes/proof of concept on to panocracy.net to show people how it might work in practice.
*Potential flaws*: The flaws are hard to spot. Some of my articles have been about the problems I've thought of myself but there are undoubtedly loads more. The good intentions of openness and continuous monitoring of institutions have to be fleshed out and made clear.
Never doubt the capabilities of one Scotsman! (or even half of one in my case).
I fear social media is unavoidable these days if you want to reach a significant part of the population, but I guess it has to be used strategically. The experiments using Pol.is are worth looking at as a template for a demonstration, and as the code is open source you could tweak it to better meet the parameters of a panocracy - though I rather like it as it is. It might be worth finding out what these guys (http://bit.ly/3s6gyNq) are doing now to see if there’s any potential for collaboration.
Oh, and at the risk of sounding trite, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions”!
Thanks, Cliff. My current plan is to get to grips with the basics of Wiki Surveys as in a 2014 paper by Salganik and Levy (https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.0500) and then look at the GitHub stuff.
Thanks for the reference to the Guardian article. It would indeed be nice to get some younger techies on side for this 'great endeavour'.
As to the good intentions, I fear we're all the victims of exactly that adage. Panocracy is based on balancing honest intentions against each other. Goodness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Jim - Salganik and Levy looks good to me. I especially like 'greedy, collaborative, and adaptive surveys' arriving at consensual solutions. That's what our parliament SHOULD do instead of having for/against debates forced by the far right.
btw the lone Scotsman could have an immediate impact by writing the Panocracy page on Wikipedia - carpe diem!
Well I think you can blame the 'far right' for some things but having debates isn't really one of them! I assume you meant something else.
I think Salganik and Levy were on a slightly different trajectory but some of their concepts - like the ones you mention - are entirely appropriate. I'll try to build these ideas into early prototypes (which will appear on panocracy.net sometime).
As to the panocracy page on Wikipedia, I was very surprised to see there isn't one already, although some other W entries seem to refer to one. I did register as a 'weditor' a long time ago but never got round to doing anything. Maybe now is the time ...
As an addendum: I looked into editing a panocracy page at Wikipedia and it looks like it would be disallowed as I have a 'vested interest' in it! W is not supposed to be used for 'promotion' (though I suspect it may depend on who is doing the promoting).
I can blame the far right for a lot of things! - but, seriously, I was referring to the 'tyranny of the majority' overwhelming a consensual approach. This is also a danger for a panocracy in which the majority of citizens could impose their will on a minority.
On the wiki page, unless you're planning to form a panocracy party - 'vote Jim Peden, send donations to ...' - I wouldn't worry about a vested interest. A clear description of panocracy and how it could be implemented would IMHO fit with the wikipedia ethos.
I take your point that we are already involved in a toxic relationship with big tech. I think the difference then, is that Panocracy is trying to be transparent and gain consent in advance of implementation.
Yes, good point. It may be my naivete showing but I believe most people respond positively to openness, even though a few will try to take advantage of it.
Good question, Julie. I put it to the Dragonslayer who wisely responded ...
Here are some specific steps that could be taken to persuade an increasingly sceptical public to adopt a panocracy:
- Educate the public about the potential benefits and drawbacks of panocracy. This could be done through public forums, online resources, and other educational materials.
- Demonstrate that panocracy can be made to work effectively. This could be done by implementing panocracy on a small scale or by conducting simulations.
- Address the concerns of the public about the potential flaws of panocracy. This could be done by providing assurances about the safeguards that would be put in place to prevent these flaws from occurring.
If these steps are taken, then it may be possible to persuade a sceptical public to adopt a panocracy. However, it is important to remember that panocracy is a complex and challenging system, and it is not clear whether it would be successful in practice.
Thanks, Cliff.
Bard is quite right. This is a complex and challenging development that's well beyond the capabilities of one Scotsman.
*Educate the public*: Substack is the starting point. I don't (and won't) have social media accounts to sing the praises of this. I hope that panocracy will become accepted on its merits without preaching or advertising hoo-ha. Rome was not built in a day.
*Demonstrate*: I'm hoping to put some examples/prototypes/proof of concept on to panocracy.net to show people how it might work in practice.
*Potential flaws*: The flaws are hard to spot. Some of my articles have been about the problems I've thought of myself but there are undoubtedly loads more. The good intentions of openness and continuous monitoring of institutions have to be fleshed out and made clear.
Never doubt the capabilities of one Scotsman! (or even half of one in my case).
I fear social media is unavoidable these days if you want to reach a significant part of the population, but I guess it has to be used strategically. The experiments using Pol.is are worth looking at as a template for a demonstration, and as the code is open source you could tweak it to better meet the parameters of a panocracy - though I rather like it as it is. It might be worth finding out what these guys (http://bit.ly/3s6gyNq) are doing now to see if there’s any potential for collaboration.
Oh, and at the risk of sounding trite, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions”!
Thanks, Cliff. My current plan is to get to grips with the basics of Wiki Surveys as in a 2014 paper by Salganik and Levy (https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.0500) and then look at the GitHub stuff.
Thanks for the reference to the Guardian article. It would indeed be nice to get some younger techies on side for this 'great endeavour'.
As to the good intentions, I fear we're all the victims of exactly that adage. Panocracy is based on balancing honest intentions against each other. Goodness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Jim - Salganik and Levy looks good to me. I especially like 'greedy, collaborative, and adaptive surveys' arriving at consensual solutions. That's what our parliament SHOULD do instead of having for/against debates forced by the far right.
btw the lone Scotsman could have an immediate impact by writing the Panocracy page on Wikipedia - carpe diem!
Well I think you can blame the 'far right' for some things but having debates isn't really one of them! I assume you meant something else.
I think Salganik and Levy were on a slightly different trajectory but some of their concepts - like the ones you mention - are entirely appropriate. I'll try to build these ideas into early prototypes (which will appear on panocracy.net sometime).
As to the panocracy page on Wikipedia, I was very surprised to see there isn't one already, although some other W entries seem to refer to one. I did register as a 'weditor' a long time ago but never got round to doing anything. Maybe now is the time ...
As an addendum: I looked into editing a panocracy page at Wikipedia and it looks like it would be disallowed as I have a 'vested interest' in it! W is not supposed to be used for 'promotion' (though I suspect it may depend on who is doing the promoting).
I can blame the far right for a lot of things! - but, seriously, I was referring to the 'tyranny of the majority' overwhelming a consensual approach. This is also a danger for a panocracy in which the majority of citizens could impose their will on a minority.
On the wiki page, unless you're planning to form a panocracy party - 'vote Jim Peden, send donations to ...' - I wouldn't worry about a vested interest. A clear description of panocracy and how it could be implemented would IMHO fit with the wikipedia ethos.
I take your point that we are already involved in a toxic relationship with big tech. I think the difference then, is that Panocracy is trying to be transparent and gain consent in advance of implementation.
Yes, good point. It may be my naivete showing but I believe most people respond positively to openness, even though a few will try to take advantage of it.
Yes, I'm afraid I look out as if it's a done deal!