Should world politicians be able to negotiate solutions in Syria and Ukraine - to stop mutual assassination and destruction there? Would you like to know about the solution which the query to world politics addresses? Would it be good if the UN or the world's media forced the politicians to respond?
We try to discuss such solutions. All the first of us agreed with these questions even on the first draft; we try to involve as many people as possible from around the world.
Do you have a better suggestion? Write to us! We want to publish just such proposals, vote on the best of them and spread awareness about it.
For more than 100 years, physics has shown that 'common sense' is not a good guide for orientation in the laws of nature, which relate to dimensions much larger and much smaller than those of things used in our everyday life. Does it also apply to the orientation in social problems, concerning a community much larger than a family or a clan?
useful can the reflections and discussions bring to the practical use
of intentions to which only the most powerful people of the planet
have the practical possibility?
People comfortably neglect the probability 1E-8 (= 0.000001%) of a fatal accident during a year, to prevent them from going mad about their security.
Is there a bug in the following reasoning: 'If we help to prevent the destruction of all living things on earth, with the same probability 0.000001%, we've probably helped save the lives of forty people and many animals and flowers.' ? People can imagine the second part of it. (Should we still update this small paragraph? Now it is said to be seventy people, yet there is the real prospect of a sustainable development in this direction, albeit at a not negligible price.)
probability may not be so small. Our Global
Co-operation Association wishes to prove it by the
experiment described on that page: to create a
least formal group of people from both poles who personally
therefore trust them
in an exchange of views; and to show that such trust spreads and, on
a personal level, contributes effectively to the suppression of the
image of the enemy, which almost all politicians + media,
in their own interest,
so successfully impose on both poles of world politics. We try
which institutions are
and between anybody.
Our effort is quite successful in the sense of the group of people at
least from our pole, who trust enough and support
Such a discussion is now possible and in a number of ways has proven
to be very successful; among other things, in the
development of the communication itself - the tools
of how people deal with this technique. Now, every
poorly technically-based person is looking for information by
"out googling" themselves from those supplied by other
more informed people. We will take advantage of a long
experience of internet correspondence about
other people’s opinions.
For its enlargement and for precise voting, we have prepared a secure
(HTTPS) version of the Internet connection. When enough people see
that the 'agreement of individual people is possible'
scientifically / technically thinking people: that the 'discussion
converges to a particular solution'),
we believe that
interest (and the aggregate influence of those involved) will grow
faster and faster.
It is difficult, in principle, to start such an initiative successfully. Every moral person knows that decency is a necessary condition for the solving of all human problems. But is this condition enough? Is not a lot of empty talking the only lawful psychological consequence of the decency and the influence of the media relying heavily on that 'common sense'? The empty talking about the need for global responsibility, which, instead of concrete reflection on what is now needed to do first, finds a lot of excuses? Frequently, that his fancy announcer will not deal with something as dirty as politics. Perhaps for that thing, my German friend has sent me a funny "educational scheme". It reminded me of the old joke: 'The inventor is a fool who does not know that something is not possible; and makes it'.
That is why, for the beginning, I, as one of the initiators of this experiment, turn first to people from those communities with whom I have a personal experience in terms of decency and reliability: to Unitarians and paragliders. To the Unitarians, because the whole idea appeared among Czech and American Unitarians as a practical application of their principle of relying as much as possible on individual people. It fits so well to the system of Masaryk's and Wilson's democracy. To the paragliders, because they are used to overcome the 'common sense' of the general fear and, mainly, the distrustful view of other people. I can only hope that none of them convinces others that by effectively spreading their awareness of the matter and expressing their own opinion on such proposals for a world solution they would harm the main purpose of their community. For Unitarians, I would directly see such an attitude as the denial of their basic principle, which in the Czech Republic is based on a tradition following on the ideas of President Masaryk */ and his wife, an American Unitarian. (It turned out that I was probably quite a great idealist with the idea of our democracy and democracy in the US: I expected that, mainly among the Czechs, there will be a lot of people who like to 'give advice' to the leading world's politicians. But, and even more strongly in the US, even good acquaintances, and others close to a person trying to debate are relucting to give their true opinions. And when one seeks for reason, they speak with those excuses. At the same time, the cooperation over these texts has shown us urgently, how such a world discussion is necessary. When we, for example came to the conclusion that, after the free elections in Syria, there was a government to be created there, I had to justify to an educated, experienced American who was, interested in the conditions of people's lives there, almost everywhere in the world, why there such an obviousness about the resulting government should be written at all. Whoever does not have experience with communist "elections", can hardly imagine, how absurdly, in terms of democracy, politicians could long overcome the inactivity by formally fulfilling the agreement.)
The experiment, from our angle, enriches the world system by the element of direct democracy: It will show if the advisory voice of individual people is able to gain sufficient influence, especially if it is possible to structure the discussion about that fundamental issue so that it converges. Our Global Co-operation Association has prepared the experiment very thoroughly. We have a proven technique for organizing the international debate electronically and we have a good first approximation of the outcome of the debate that we think will converge - it will lead to a successful outcome. The preliminary result - the lack of interest, we think artificially challenged - should warn us all from too much relying on the 'common sense' for such a large system. We see that in world discussions, e.g. at Quora.com (see our findings), world leaders are massively criticized for results of their work. Let's support what we are used to and what works well - synergy in small teams; through personal cooperation, their fellows gain the necessary mutual trust, even when they come from opposite poles; the Heyerdahl's Ra expedition or International Space Station work are examples of such team cooperating. In a matter that has an advisory voice and therefore serves mainly to inform about the attitude of people around the world and about their consensus on that attitude, unlike the attitudes of different countries and politicians and the media that, relying on that 'common sense', rather push people to squabble in some local interest and spread the image of the others as enemies.
let us try to use
that decency practically and reach an agreement!
Let us survive in health and well,
Tomáš Pečený (Grandfather Tom)
abstract considerations (said to be volunteer megalomaniac) may have
a core of substance: the world may tend toward the two-pole almost
democracy, and it is therefore good to think about the rules
beforehand. Should the two world's top leaders be elected while a
(consultative?) participation of the other half of the world? Should
the other pole be entitled to a veto on the candidates?
I look in the textbook of Roman law, as it went in that long period of the reign of the consuls pairs; it is necessary to get a comment from someone who knows; also to clarify that the period ended by the influence of the environment: I see hope in that the whole Earth, unlike old Rome, is practically isolated - it does not have external enemies.
*/ Newly, in the Czech, e.g., Bohumil Sláma: Zapomenutý prorok Tomáš G. Masaryk, Atelier Sláma Brno 2010,
ISBN 978-80-254-8433-3 . (Masaryk's Czechoslovakia enacted women's right to vote before the USA as a whole.)