Talk:Geniocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Okay. First, if anybody who's been to The Geniocracy Project's website [1] and thinks their manifesto adds something to the discussion, feel free to put it back: just erring on the side of caution. Second, is anybody really taking this idea seriously other than the Raelians? If so, could there be some references added? If not, could this article possibly be deleted, or otherwise appropriately tagged? As usual, I don't know whether to top-post or bottom-post in *this* discussion. Thanks. Johndodd 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand Geniocracy as an alternative form of democracy.
It is said that the only people who can vote are those who have an intellectual potential (IP, not the traditionnal IQ or intellectual quotient) above 10 % of the population's average IP: assuming a normal distribution of the IPs among the population, this geniocratic rule denies the 3/4 (75 %) of the population to vote. In the same way, by requiring an IP above 50 % more than the average IP, geniocracy deprieves more than 99 % of the population of the right to run for election. Can we call such a system a democratic one ?
- I wouldn't call it democratic, but there's goof precedent. Athens was considered a democracy even though only a small fraction of the population could vote. My real problem is the definition given of the intelligence restricton. Even if there was a good test for intelligence, "50% above average" isn't well-defined. The simplest method imaginable (similar to IQ) would be defined as a normal distribution with a mean of 1 and a standard deviation of 1. "50% above average", here, would mean half the populaton. Changing the standard deviation to 15 wouldn't change this. Arbitrarily adding 100 to each score (as IQ does) suddenly makes it incredibly selective: 0.043% qualify. Widening the standard deviation to 19 (as some IQ tests do) makes it 10 times as common, etc. Now if the scale was against some 'arbtrary' intelligence (we don't have a way to measure this now, but we also don't have an accurate way to measure intelligence at all, so while we're wishing...) this would make sense. If it was measured directly in terms of percentage of the population (top 30, or 10, or 2, or 0.0001%), it would make sense. Without that, the statement is essentially arbitrary. In fact, with the right choice of a mean, this scale could go down instead of up... CRGreathouse 23:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well you have got two sides here. One could claim that its democratic in the same way as the antique greece was at some point. Only free men where classified as "the people" and so "the people" had the right to vote and it was democracy.
I would say that its an oligarchy, where most political power rests with a small segment of society. Is an oligarchy democratic?, i cant say..., Felix
A number of the people on the geniocracy forum are not in fact Raelians. So there is some interest in the idea outside of the movement. One trend that I have noticed is that Geniocracy, as a political model, is sometimes more accessable to non-Raelians since it's something that they consider more tangible.
As for the argument of democracy, it does boil down to semantics. It is recognised that common parlance of the term democracy is almost synonymous with universal franchise. However, it should also be recognised that universal franchise is not the only quality to be identified with the concept. As a comprimise we use further definitions such as "selective democracy", rather than "universal democracy".
Angelus Michaels
[edit] Democratic one world government is a goal of geniocracy
The immigration rallies walk outs and strikes that are schuduled to take place all across the United States today May 1, 2006 are a sign that the ideals of geniocracy are being embraced by the massses. Do not make the mistake of thinking that marxists and other lefitsts are for democratic one world government, they would actually call that U.S. imperialism. If Mexico for example, was governed by the same laws as the US and borders were not around anymore allowing everyone who wants to travel anywhere, leftists would continue calling for nationalist solutions. Geniocracy would aim to work within the Democratic structure in order to improve the situation for all people through humanitarian technological means. Once there is a Democratic world revolution the current problem of racism will eventually disappear and pave the way for all people to unite and fight for revolutionary changes in society.
Roman Shusterman No Police State Coalition
So other than propaganda do you have anything to contribute? Lostsocks 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Religion?
Why is this part of the religion WikiProject? It should be in politics. --68.151.33.139 06:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
