Tags

, , , , , ,

I do agree, that this hasn’t got anything to do with my job. However in the age of Brexit and Trump as presidential candidate (and probably upcoming: Dwayne Johnson vs. Kanye West in the next elections), but also chaotic governing in other countries, everybody should ask him & herself – what we can do besides of the rather passive voting? In the first world countries a revolution or putsch seems quite improbable. In the age of science, maybe the same can help us to resolve some issues?

In modern democratic politics there are basically two theories, which are competing against each other: the conservative idea: reducing the tax of the rich and the enterprises and deregulation of the trade, in the hope, that this will create more jobs (due to higher profits), more spending – and the liberal or rather social-democratic idea: protecting the worker, regulating (and controlling) the trade and nowadays: reducing the national dept.

Especially in the US, the democrats though changed from a party which stood for more social equality to a party which is “centre” – basically a relatively balanced governing (however the worker get less and less a representation in this politics).

These are two theories (obviously there is also the more progressive left-democratic side – though usually they aren’t very successful in elections – but it is nonetheless important to mention…) – but which is right? Or even more importantly, is an elected party or leader able to implement his political promises? And which implication would those action have?

Let’s just look for a moment in job fields, which are rather dangerous or complicated: a pilot, usually learns to fly on a simulator. Big parts of nuclear science or bio science is also done on simulators and simulated concepts. Even military strategies are simulated.

I do think, that politics has also a big impact on the safety of the citizen – often it is even a matter of life and death (think about war, crime or citizen unrests). So why shouldn’t potential political leader do a government simulation?

I am sure, that it cannot all be done with a software – but most of the scenario could be virtual – with real politicians and political scientists interacting. Obviously it also has to be a hybrid several disciplines society, economics, military, ecological, media (…).

Not only can the candidate and his team show, that he can successfully govern a country, you could see, how active or passive a candidate is, but every citizen could see, the results of respective actions.
For example, a lot of problems are far more complex, as a lot of people would like to see: let’s review one “solution” Trump has: He would like to ban Muslims and he things, that this would lead to more safety. But much more likely, it would have the opposite effect: If there is someone who literally target every Muslim, there is a far higher rate of radicalisation, support(er) for the radicals, as well as actions. Even with far higher spends into the police force, it is unlikely, that this could be kept under control. It further would have a very negative effect on the relations with other 1st world democratic countries, which would have a negative effect on trade. International (Islamic) partners, would also purchase their goods (mostly weapons) – in other countries than the US (Saudi Arabia is investing billions of dollars in American weapons, as well as the UAE, Oman and further Arabic countries). America would become “really” the bad guy. There might be even embargoes… Similar reactions could be expected for Trumps “ethnic cleansing” of latinos.

It doesn’t need a lot of intellect and intelligence to understand this cause and effect – but apparently about 50% of all Americans (*cough* Republicans) simply don’t even own this mental resources. In a simulation, people could see the effects on their virtual lives – hence it would be rather easy for them to agree or not agree.

A simulation would take out the guess work out of politics.

I think, that this would be a brilliant idea – and instead of voting for the candidate which has the most campaign funds, or the candidate which tries to get the votes through fear and anger (fascists’ traits), a candidate could be preferred, which really would have the ability to change things to the better.

I don’t say, that “building” this simulation would be easy. I believe that faculties for computer science and political science could join forces and for once (especially for latter) do something with a real practical and positive outcome.

Do I miss something? Why did nobody yet had this idea? Let’s discuss!

 

 

 

Advertisements