This is not the norm unless you are a narcissist. — L'éléphant
Voting is a virtue of our democracy and randomizing officials rather than electing them would undermine the democratic process, preventing citizens from voting according to what they think is best. If you take away voting, you severely curtail the ability of people to participate in the political process and you disconnect politics from the will of the people. — NotAristotle
People expect leaders chosen at random to be less effective than those picked systematically. But in multiple experiments led by the psychologist Alexander Haslam, the opposite held true. Groups actually made smarter decisions when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skill.
Why were randomly chosen leaders more effective? They led more democratically. “Systematically selected leaders can undermine group goals,” Dr. Haslam and his colleagues suggest, because they have a tendency to “assert their personal superiority.” When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head: I’m the chosen one.
Did you make it up (kudos if you did) or is it in common usage? — BC
I was just checking and it says that town meeting members in those cases are elected, not chosen by lottery, so I was wrong. — T Clark
My primary concern is that a non-expert might not make good decisions concerning a policy. My related concern is that an extremist would make decisions inconsistent with the majority. — NotAristotle
Towns are governed by a Board of Selectmen and a Town Meeting. — T Clark
In some larger towns that becomes unwieldy so they started using representative town meetings with members selected by lottery from a pool of applicants. — T Clark
“Is climate change real?” she said. “Yes, it is. But if you want to go and really change the environment, then we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions.”
After dangling the possibility of restarting the U.S. economy by Easter, Trump now says keeping deaths to 100,000 would be a ‘very good job.’
But I am cynical and don't believe that people will do what is required. The reasons include […] ignorance, — Agree to Disagree
methane emissions do NOT accumulate].
A constant number of cows produces a constant amount of methane each year. Because methane has a finite lifetime (about 12 years) this means that the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows is constant. — Agree to Disagree
The 2022 methane increase was 14.0 ppb, the fourth-largest annual increase recorded since NOAA's systematic measurements began in 1983, and follows record …
Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse. — Agree to Disagree
This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), — Agree to Disagree
One tries to engage, but eventually one reaches the outer limits of denialism. 12 years too short, 12 million years too long, but if you look at it just so - no worries. Have a great death! — unenlightened
Or do you still have something stupid to say? — Mikie
Are you saying that young people (with little life experience) usually have more intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge than older people? — Agree to Disagree