quote:

---

I think we can all agree that ambition is a quality crucial to leadership.

---

The analogy is there, I see it; in small quantities, it's useful and even required, but in large quantities it's useless and dangerous.

If I read correctly, "Locke Foundation" was defined as "an organization devoted to the promotion and advancement of human intelligence". If this is true, than the Locke Foundation already exists, under the name of Mensa.

As a member, I can say with relative certainty, however, that Mensa does not pursue this goal through selective breeding. Instead, we do it by actively looking for intelligent people from all walks of life, and providing an environment where we can meet (and hopefully learn from) people of similiar intelligence. We also provide scholarships to further the education of the same.

As to what we need in a "Locke", you have overlooked the need for a very thick skin.

While Locke is trying to put in place the best policies he can, he's going to be constantly bombarded by people of lesser intelligence who truly think that their way is best, despite all the evidence against it.

Let me go back over the thread, and I'll give you a few examples.

Someone back in the first couple of pages invoked various socialist principles, such as providing economic aid to third world countries to help them industrialize. A quick survey of recent history would show that we've been doing this for decades. As you've noticed, it didn't work.

To show you how it will work, I ask you to look at Korea. Fifty years ago, they were in the middle of a civil war every bit at bloody as the ones currently raging in the Middle East. Although the country is in a state of relative peace now, hostilities never really ended. It's suicide to get too close to the DMZ even today.

A little less than thirty years ago, the leaders of South Korea began a policy of internal economic devlopment, while their northern cousins countinued their old policies. The South got loans (not gifts), and used that money to industrialize. They then embarked on a continuing policy of aggressively educating their people. The South Korean government today provides many economic incentives to citizens who travel to established industrialized nations, earn a (useful) degree, and then return to Seoul to train others. As a result of that policy, the average South Korean citizen lives a much better life, in terms of material wealth, than that of most Americans.

The North, by contrast, pursued their development through aid packages. Without the threat of looming debt to spur them on, most of that aid money was squandered on short term benefits, and North Koreans are not noticably better off today than they were 50 years ago. In many ways, they're even worse off, because the oppressive government now has boatloads of money to help enforce their regime.

I'm sure that the people who suggested the aid packages meant well, but the idea quite simply can't work.

In a similiar vein, people have given opinions on what needs to be done regarding the ozone layer, the environment, overpopulation, and other popular but stupid agendas.

In the first two cases, there are problems, but the problems are entirely local. Yes, all those factories dumping smog into the LA air are eventually going to find that same smog coming around to bite them in the ass. However, the sum total of *ALL* pollution, land, air and water, from *EVERY* human source, is less than that produced by the eruption of *ONE* active volcano.

To forestall the arguement that what humans do is worse, I'll save you the trouble of asking and just tell you that the deadliest toxin humans release into the environment is flatulence. Check your favorite Organic Chemistry textbook if you don't believe me. While slightly humorous, "Save the world: Don't fart!" doesn't look nearly so good as a campaign slogan, so environmentalists prefer to concentrate on things you can't pronounce.

As to the 'global overpopulation problem', there isn't one. All of Earth's 6 billion people could consume as much per capita as we do here in the U.S. from now until the sun burns out, and we still won't have used up all of Earth's natural resources. At the same time people are starving elsewhere in the world, here we literally have food rotting in warehouses, and the government is paying most of our farmers to NOT produce anything, because we're literally producing more than we know what to do with.

What we lack is a reliable way of gettng perishable goods from point A to point B while every tin-pot dictator between here and there insists that it sit at the border for weeks (or months) to undergo a thorough customs inspection.

Anyone stepping into the role of Locke, and actually getting anything done, will only do so by totally ignoring most of the popular agenda, and that's going to make him very unpopular. S/he will therfore need to have enough self-reliance to know that most of the world hates him, and still be able to get over it and go on making unpopular policies to benefit all mankind.

The obvious danger of that kind of person, however, is that they would be literally a law unto themselves. When/if Locke decides to implement something that works against the common good, no force on Earth will stop him, and it won't matter if your potential Locke is Hegemon or a homeless bum. He would be unstoppable.

In what way? The federal government attempting to help the state governments of Missouri, Arkansas, and (I'm told) most of the industirially undelevoped deep south has provided much the same results as international economic aid. In what way would moving this to a world scale change things?

>I really don't know much about the subject
>but I can tell one thing right now, for
>sure. People are being born deformed in
>Russia because of polution that was man-
>made.

The people having those problems all lived near Chernobyl, or were directly involved in the rescue/cleanup work. People who remained more than 30km away weren't seriously affected, although everyone in the northern hemisphere was exposed. Although I wouldn't be happy if I had to walk that far, 30km is nothing on a global scale. The only way that kind of thing could happen on a global scale is the detonation of all or most of the entire world supply of nuclear weapons. Even in that case, however, enough of the human (and other) population of the world would survive unharmed that life on Earth would be in no danger of extinction, although life would certainly be unpleasant for a relatively large period of time. (BTW, if you want more details on that, and have Acrobat Reader, see: http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl-update.pdf )

>About the population problem and the
>naturall resources: our population is
>doubling every, what, 20 years, if you're
>1/10 as smart as you think you are, you
>should be able to figure out what that
>means, sheerly mathmatically speaking.

Actually, human population follows the J-curve model, which increases logrythmically until it reaches Earth's carrying capacity, and then (if unchecked), falls back to near zero, when the cycle repeats. What this means in simple terms is, if the popluation doubled in 20 years (which it didn't), it will double again in 2 years. Theoretically, the next doubling would occur in 0.2 years, but this actually won't happen because humans have a relatively long gestation period. I don't feel like calculating the exact absolute min, and it might even be higher than the two years noted above, but it most definitely exists.

However, that, too, was considered in my statement. Right now, we're using such a tiny fraction of Earth's natural resources that scientists can't even begin to guess at what Earth's carrying capacity might be. When scientists are able to figure out how many people Earth can hold, or even give us a ballpark figure, then we can start worrying about what to do when we reach it. Based on current evidence, however, I'm placing my bets on humanity having fast, reliable extrasolar transport long before that becomes an issue.

>As to resources, we may have plenty of lot
>of them. But our oil supply is dwindling,
>far faster than even most ultra-greenies
>realize, and soon it will be gone. Without
>Oil, civilization and science could fade
>away rather quickly, before we had time to
>switch energy sources.

The rate of oil consumption is debatable. however, given that what you say is true, when the oil is used up, mankind will switch to hydrogen fuel (or something even more efficient, if such should be devloped), which we should have done years ago anyway. Since hydrogen is converted to water in the combustion reaction described above, and water eaily breaks down into it's component atoms, that fuel source will never be exhausted.

>Anyway, I personlly found your post
>interesting and I'm glad that you
>understand the problems that would face a
>world leader, perhaps you could write more
>on that?

Actually, hydrogen fuel is going. It's the sole fuel source for the Venturestar, which Lockheed hopes will eventually replace the aging space shuttle. Hydrogen isn't being more widely used primarily because of the cost of converting everything over.

While expensive, the conversion is relatively easy. If the need were to arise, the entire U.S. economy (excluding automobiles) could be converted in a few weeks. Autos would have to wait until factories were retooled to build them, but at least one Japanese company is doing this already, so that's not far off, either.

As to what our potential Locke would need, here's a partial list. It's just a rough draft, so expect much editing. I'll also probably forget a lot of things the first time through, so don't hesitate to add something I've left out.

First, he'll need the things y'all have already mentioned. As has already been said, Locke would need to be educated. He wouldn't need to be an expert in every field, but he would have to know enough to be able to spot when someone was feeding him a line of BS. About a year's worth of majors-level college courses in every field of study would give him the basic tools, so call it three or four years of college, assuming he went full time. He'll need charisma, so he doesn't get assassinated the first time he tells people to do things they don't want to. He'll need ambition, since no one's going to hand him the world on a platter.

Secondly, he would need endurance. As I pointed out earlier, any Hegemon capable of doing his job is going to take a LOT of abuse. Also, running the world takes a hell of a lot of work, so he'll need the physical and mental endurance to keep going and remain alert if some crisis requires him to stay at his desk for days or even weeks.

Next, he'll need an absolute respect for individual rights, but none at all for the law. All of the world's Great Leaders (Caesar, Lincoln, Washington, Churchill, etc.) became great because, when pushed, they were willing to tell the Constitution (or whatever law applied) to go to Hell, but at the same time, they had enough respect for the People that they did not become dictators.

He'll also need a capable staff. As has been said before, running the world is too big a job for one man. He'll need a relatively large Cabinet of people who are experts in their fields, all of whom would also need relatively large doses of the personal attributes needed to make a Hegemon.

Also, me must be computer literate. It has often been said that he who controls the flow of information controls the world. A potential Hegemon would need to be able to spot it immediately if any of the data he works with is being or has beeen tampered with. Come to think of it, more than just being literate, he'd have to be a pretty good hacker himself.

He'll also need strong character, and a rock solid sense of himself. As Nietzsche said, "Association with other people corrupts one's character -- especially if one has none." If he can't remain true to himself and his principles even when the whole world is pressuring him to change, then any hegemon is doomed to failure.

Finally, he absolutely, positively, must NOT want the job. Anyone who wants to be Hegemon should not ever, EVER, be allowed to take the post. If nothing else, by wanting the job, he's proved that he's not smart enough to do it.

Because being Hegemon is only one specific goal, while ambition can take any form.

Linus Torvaldis had the ambition needed to build an operating system that changed the world. AFAIK, he takes very little interest in politics, outside of how it impacts the drive of his ambition, and has actually turned down nominations that he be elected to lead various nations.

Like Altaris said, he would become Hegemon because he needed to, not because he wanted to.

>It's more like a "cross that bridge when we
>come to it," but what if the scientist
>discover how much earth can hold just in
>time for us to use the last of it?

It might be a little bit selfish, but I take that attitude because the decision will never affect me or anyone I care about.

This particular passage bothers me a lot.
What Constitution did Washington ever buck? Lincoln? What opprotunity did Lincoln have to set himself up as dictator?

Ceasar did set himself up as an emperor, as I recall. One of the greats.

It's hard to overlook some of the holes in your arguments, Siece.

Maybe I can explain on behalf of siece.

Peter Wiggin (Locke) wanted to rule the world. His desire started as childish ambition; as siece said, ambition takes many forms. Origionally, Peter's only desire in life was military power. He wanted to be trained in Battle School.

He failed. Subsequently, he turns his life to the Hegemony, in hopes of political power. As he rises to fame under the alias of Locke, Peter wants nothing but to be Hegemon.

Years later, after the Hegemon passes away, Locke is offered the job.

Locke declines. Peter reveals himself as the teenage boy he is.

The world sees past his age and sweeps him into the Hegemony.

Peter wins, even though he "didn't want the job."

So, a Hegemon needs to appear as though he doesn't want the job. Otherwise, there's no way to force anyone to rule the world if they really don't want to. You couldn't, to draw another OSC example, get Ender to take up Hegemony, see how 'tired' he was, after the Bugger Wars.

-Abyss

quote:

---

Knowing stuff seems to lead to happiness...

---

It's the only way for them to stay in power, cause they have to be voted into office.

...

Two things strike me about you. The first is your argument and your statements on democracy.

I think that one of the problems is that politicians are just power-grubby crowd-pleasers who don't get their hands dirty. They bounce rhetoric and push corporate agendas, but they live in an Ivory Tower, or an Oval Office, or what have you. They are not the ones dying as a result of their orders. They don't suffer on account of their laws. We do. The people do. They don't get their hands dirty; they yell at us to dirty our hands for them.

[sarcasm]

The other striking quality you possess is the use of the word "cause" (i.e., resulting in an effect) in place of "because" (i.e., due to).

If you take two smart, wealthy business people, and pay them to have kids, what do you get?

On the whole, more smart, wealthy business people. Maybe a politician or two (seeing as the two so often overlap anyway) .

Throw in some other leader-types, some Army men, maybe. Smart people. Upstanding citizens.

Pay them to have sex, educate their kids; and whammo! instant smarts.

Now the criterion get tougher. There are more smart people lying around; so you demand higher test scores, you look for higher leaders.

And their kids.

"The apple falls not far from the tree," you know.

Now, the cheif objection to this was the "can't breed humans like pigs" argument.
I'd like to clarify now: it's not as vulgar as simply paying them to have sex, even though I use the phrase often.

It's simply a grant (monetary sum) given to married, fertile couples to encourage good traits, and a grant given to their children to educate them.

It would work. I'd like to try it.

And BTW... I'm sure u missed my scepticism

(edited for typology... I wish my english was better !!)

George Washington openly commited treason. He revolted against the existing, duly appointed British government in the colonies.

When Washington and his associates set up the U.S., Several states signed on with it actually written into the contract that they could withdraw from that union at any time. When they actually decided to do so, however, Lincoln went to war to prevent it.

>It's hard to overlook some of the holes in
>your arguments, Siece.

The points on Caesar and Lincoln as a dictator have already been adressed. If you see any other holes, please point them out, either here or by email. As I said before, my 'arguments' are simply a rough draft.

I know there are holes, and I'm patching them as fast as I can find them.

On the other hand, it's also possible that merely stating the ideas are enough, and those "desperate to remain in power" will do the patching for me. You may have noticed that mere days after my post here, President Bush came out with a remarkably similiar plan for converting our nation to the use of hydrogen fuel.

Of course, my two-week estimate assumed the situation was dire enough that the U.S. would be willing to donate it's entire production capacity to the conversion. With no petroleum, all of the oil burning power plants would have to shut down, and without gas, there would be no fleets of trucks carrying food into the cities. Shortages would occur in days, and starvation would set in inside of a month. If it happenes to be winter when this happens, people in the colder parts of the country, trapped without any power or reliable transportation, would start dieing of cold in a time measuring between hours and days, depending on what resources they have on hand when disaster strikes. In that kind of a situation, those wishing to remain in power would do whatever it takes to get the nation's core infrastructure converted before the people started revolting.

Bush isn't that desperate, so his plan is going to take a lot longer. I'm certain his staff is more than capable of filling in all the other details I left out.

What actually scares me about this is that converting to hydrogen is acting almost directly against the personal interests of Bush himself, and a large percentage of his staff, all of whom have invested strongly in oil. Since they now openly support destroying their biggest financial base, they're either much better people than they've been given credit for, or they're not telling us something that makes all that oil money worthless.