討論逐字稿: What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people?

The original article post for this discussion is here.


elections = democracy?
elections can create dictators
In 3000 years experimentation of democracy, there's been only elections only 200 years, since the American and French revolutions
before elections, they did “lottery” “sortition”
“The appointment of magistrates (= public officials) by lot is democratic, and the election of them is oligarchic/aristocratic.” —Socrates

archy = order
an = no
anarchy = no order
hierarchy
hiero = layers
hierarchy = 等級制度
patriarchy
patrio = father
patriarchy = rule by the fathers
oligarchy
oligo = the few
oligarchy = rule by the few

if you choose people by lot, you get people from all walks of life
if you give them time and information, they can make decisions, based on their experience and this information, and having time to understand it.
because the job changes hands a lot, and so lots of people will have experience doing the job, so then people will understand how their city runs better.

increased public trust
decreased corruption
increases long term thinking

What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people?

Here are two sort of very passionate persuasion videos for a concept called "sortition".
Is sortition a good idea? Let's talk about it!






What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people? Link with transcript


More videos and articles about sortition can be found here:
Top ten best sortition videos
https://democracyinpractice.org
https://democracyinpractice.org/resources/

討論逐字稿:Iceland's Gender Equality Education

The discussion for which this is the transcript is here.

極光 = northern lights
nature vs nurture = was it innate or was it learned
innate = born that way, born in to the person

—Our ancestors seriously discussed the idea of nature vs nurture 1000 years ago. Confucious said that humans were born good, we’re naturally good, but others, Mengzi, said that humans are born , can’t see evil, but at least not good, and we need to teach them to the right path.
that’s the two ideas we learned as a child. but neither of those ideas matter, we still also need to send kids to school to be educated, and this is since Confucious.
students can be molded in certain ways, based on your education system.
—can you explain to me what was this kind of education that surprised you?
—uh
—because i just read part of it, and I don’t understand the difference between a regular kindergarten, what do they do differently.
—the main points are
.keeping the kid segregated by sex
.understanding that boys and girls have certain basic tendencies based on their sex
.giving extra education to each sex to counter the tendencies of that sex
For example: boys are naturally more violent, (according to this article) so teaching boys self control and compassion, thinking about others
girls are naturally more compliant, so teach them self-reliance and independence
—so they separate the boys and girls into separate classes, and do so with different materials.
—I think it’s largely the same, with just some behavioural differences
—in the video the guy said, that gender segregation is NOT the goal, it’s just a tool, to work on the negative mirroring that children do
have you spent a lot of time around children?
—not a lot, but i have a niece and a nephew, and they’re getting very naughty right now. one’s already in kindergarten
—like 3 and 5
—one is two and one is around 4.
I don’t understand why they use this way to… Like they already know, or assume that boys are more violent and girls are more emotional, and they set this as a goal to do something that will counteract this result. For me I feel like it’s something like this. But to do it on purpose is not too good. And boys become more violent, girls play dolls or girly stuff, I think mostly because we’re affected by society. kids don’t know things, so we adults teach them. but we already have our concepts and ideas, and we project those things in their daily living. for example, last time I went to the US I bought two coloring books for my niece and nephew, I bought one is a car, and the other is Froze, and i thought the girl would take Frozen, but she took the truck. and I asked her mom, did you leave the truck one to the little boy, and she said, no, her daughter took the truck. and what about the brother? she said, they can play together. but I was thinking, why? I already projected that she would take that, but I didn’t realize she would also think cars are interesting. and I think it’s because we adults we project those kinds of ideas, and so when they grow up that’s how we see things. so if we give her a different environment, then she’ll adapt to it and have different living style. so that’s how I think about education for kids. so for gender equality, it’s what we show them that they learn.
—I think that’s the idea of this kindergarten too.

Iceland's Gender Equality Education

A New Model for Kindergarten?
Iceland is consistently ranked first in the world for gender equality. But the Hjalli teaching model, as practiced in the nursery school, is considered progressive even in Iceland.

Founded in 1989 by self-described radical feminist Margrét Pála Ólafsdóttir, Hjalli schools aim to counter stereotypical gender roles and behaviors.

Boys and girls are separated for most of the day and they actively compensate for their gender by practicing behaviors usually associated with the other sex: from being daring and taking the initiative to helpfulness and being considerate of others.

The best way to get closer to equality is to admit the differences?
“The best way to get closer to equality is to admit the differences,” Ólafsdóttir said.

According to the Hjalli theory, by keeping the sexes apart, boys and girls are free to develop their personalities and discover their interests without the pressures and constraints of conventional gender roles and stereotypes. The toys at the schools are all gender-neutral and all of the children wear identical uniforms.

Ólafsdóttir, 60, believes that if children practice only the stereotypical gendered behaviors as society encourages, they risk slipping into what she calls the "blue" and "pink haze."

Found at the two poles of the gender spectrum, this is where the natural strengths of each gender tip over into weaknesses, she explained.

Green is Good for Us?



This is a podcast from NPR, which is National Public Radio in the US. This show is called "Hidden Brain" and their topic this time is Our Better Nature: How The Great Outdoors Can Improve Your Life

Transcript:
SHANKAR VEDANTAM, HOST:

This is HIDDEN BRAIN. I'm Shankar Vedantam.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

VEDANTAM: If you're living in a city, you may have noticed new buildings popping up - a high-rise here, a skyscraper there. These concrete jungles make urban living possible. They allow millions to live together in close proximity and allow modern economies to flourish. But is there something important missing in this picture?

(SOUNDBITE OF BIRDS CHIRPING)

VEDANTAM: For most of the last 2 million years, humans lived in a natural world, relying on nature for food and shelter. The amount of time we've spent in urban dwellings is a small sliver of the total time humans have spent on Earth. When you look at it this way, our shift from forest life to freeways and overflowing cities has been very recent and very dramatic. Today on HIDDEN BRAIN, we explore how this shift in the way we live might be having powerful effects on our lives and our well-being.

MING KUO: We are overlooking a crucial ingredient in the urban fabric, which is nature and elements of nature. So parks and greenery turn out to be not just something that brightens our lives but turns out to be really functional. It helps us be our better selves.

VEDANTAM: Ming Kuo has been studying the effects of nature on humans for more than 30 years. She works at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Early in her career, Ming studied research looking at the well-being of animals in zoos. Researchers found that even what animals were provided all the basics of food, safety and shelter, they often failed to thrive.

KUO: It turns out that zoo animals, first of all, are extremely expensive. They die at fairly alarming clips. And so biologists have studied animals in the wild, and one of the ideas that they have is that there's this thing called habitat selection theory, which is that we are - we're wired for whatever habitat we evolved in. And so there seems to be this general kind of rule that animals who are in their, quote, unquote, "natural habitats" will do much better. They thrive both in terms of physically and psychologically and in terms of their social behaviors.

VEDANTAM: So if zoo animals thrive in their natural habitat, some researchers have asked, could this also be true for humans? Given that humans first evolved in the forests of Africa, could it be that depriving humans of this natural environment has effects similar to housing a zebra in a cage? We'll get to Ming's answer to that question in a moment. But first, it's important to understand how she came to be studying this in the first place. She wasn't particularly interested in the benefits of greenery and nature. She was interested in the negative effects of noise and crowding.