Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

New Political Parties: A What-if Poll

What if we had two different major parties?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. First, read my original post below. Then answer the following: Which party do you think you are most likely going to identify with if you were to join one of these two parties as a politician?

    • The Science Party
    • The Humanitarian Party


Recommended Posts

Let's say the Democratic Party and the Republican parties evaporate in 50 years. People become more reasonable, possibly through modifications that increase maximum intelligence, making us intellectually more like a super computer than animal. Say we are able to do this without humans losing empathy, love, innovation, creativity, etc. and say these are actually enhanced with our intelligence---we are all both Albert Einstein and William Shakespeare. Let's say two major parties form. 

We have the Science Party. This party that attempts to achieve the best for the country and for the world through chiefly scientific means. However, sometimes the scientific means can be far from humanitarian. 

We have the Humanitarian Party. This party attempts to achieve the best for the country and for the world through chiefly humanistic means. However, sometimes these means will bypass the "best of all possible policies" as advised by the Scientists in an effort to maintain an ideal humanitarian record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Would be an independent.

How would your independence be defined? What would you dislike about these parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

How would your independence be defined? What would you dislike about these parties?

I hate to say it, but if those were the two "official," political parties, you'd probably end up with elections like in the House of Keys on the Isle of Man (the British Crown Dependency), where Independents always greatly outnumber members of official political parties for elected seats held.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

I hate to say it, but if those were the two "official," political parties, you'd probably end up with elections like in the House of Keys on the Isle of Man (the British Crown Dependency), where Independents always greatly outnumber members of official political parties for elected seats held.

As stated in my original post, we are superhumans. Assume that 95% of voters see these parties as acceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, vcczar said:

How would your independence be defined? What would you dislike about these parties?

Hm. I think I'd caucus with the H party for most social issues and the S party for just about everything else. In general I'd be pushing for more individual freedoms which I think would put me at odds with both parties. Ultimately I see both parties fighting for an expansive federal government, and if we're all Einstein and Shakespeare then there is even more reason to push for limited government or at least more powerful local governments rather than a strong federal government. 

 

Not that this would effect me but I do think there would be a religious sect in the Humanitarian party which I think would be at odds with the other sects of that party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Hm. I think I'd caucus with the H party for most social issues and the S party for just about everything else. In general I'd be pushing for more individual freedoms which I think would put me at odds with both parties. Ultimately I see both parties fighting for an expansive federal government, and if we're all Einstein and Shakespeare then there is even more reason to push for limited government or at least more powerful local governments rather than a strong federal government. 

 

Not that this would effect me but I do think there would be a religious sect in the Humanitarian party which I think would be at odds with the other sects of that party.

I’m assuming in this situation religion would basically be dead. It would be akin to adults no longer believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. Those still believing would be small and doing mostly just for the cult-feeling of cult-companionship. This would be a post-religious world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I’m assuming in this situation religion would basically be dead. It would be akin to adults no longer believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. Those still believing would be small and doing mostly just for the cult-feeling of cult-companionship. This would be a post-religious world. 

I don't think we'll ever live in a post-religious world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I don't think we'll ever live in a post-religious world.

I think we will. Each generations seems to be more and more secular, according to polls. I mean this is in regards to Americans. I think by 2050, non-religious voters will outnumber Christians in the US. Much of Europe is already at this point. Islam will probably be the largest religion, and it probably already is the religion with the highest number of practicing members. A lot of Christians probably go days without thinking about their faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SilentLiberty and to add, remember in this hypothetical we are programmed to be more rational. Americans won’t believe in fantasies or revealed or inspired knowledge based on faith. Both parties would be, to varying degrees, faithful to the God of science. Even though they wouldn’t express it as a religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I don't think we'll ever live in a post-religious world.

Our distant descendants, maybe.  Certainly nobody alive today will live in such a world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think we will. Each generations seems to be more and more secular, according to polls. I mean this is in regards to Americans. I think by 2050, non-religious voters will outnumber Christians in the US. Much of Europe is already at this point. Islam will probably be the largest religion, and it probably already is the religion with the highest number of practicing members. A lot of Christians probably go days without thinking about their faith. 

 

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@SilentLiberty and to add, remember in this hypothetical we are programmed to be more rational. Americans won’t believe in fantasies or revealed or inspired knowledge based on faith. Both parties would be, to varying degrees, faithful to the God of science. Even though they wouldn’t express it as a religion. 

These are fair points, and fair to put into the hypothetical. I'd be in my mid 50's by 2050 so hopefully I'll be around to see just what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pilight said:

Our distant descendants, maybe.  Certainly nobody alive today will live in such a world.

The world is constantly changing so I suppose it's entirely possible. Just nothing something I'd think would happen. But you raise a good point. As does @vcczar about the hypothetical he brought forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...