Finally,
criticism. It's been ages since I've actually gotten to argue a point.
Of course that's true, it's trivially true. In a society of perfect idealized angels where everyone's first and highest goal is flourishing for all people without selfishness or bias, anarchy, totalitarianism, and democracy all have precisely the same results. If everyone agrees, it doesn't matter who has the votes because every vote passes by consensus, and the consent of the governed is irrelevant because they all agree with the government by construction.
Well, yes. But I'd say that you don't need to go to quite that
extreme of a point to get something relatively close. Having a society is rational, to put it simply. You can get nice things like a house, high quality food, the internet, etc, much more easily in a society than you possibly could in small groups/alone. If you have people who can decently and
consistently put aside emotions and gut reactions and make rational decisions then you are
already on a much better foot than anything in human history, even if you don't really change anything else.
Granted, that doesn't make it...
simple. Democracy is still pretty good,
other forms of governance have flaws beyond "people are stupid". And rational does not mean altruistic; if you put people in situations where the best choice is to do something negative for society at a large they'll still
do it unless you mess about with a whole lot of other key X-anity things, and so you have to start designing the system to keep people from ending up in that sort of situation.
The question is whether mere mortals (who are somewhat altruistic, but only when they're comfortable themselves) can make a government work. And you'd need to pull out some awfully important core values of the human utility function to make people remotely resemble the philosopher's angels. Or make abundance so vast and effortless that everyone naturally becomes their best self. Neither is happening this side of a Singularity; not a chance.
The guy who wrote the X-anity thing clearly knows no evolutionary or developmental psychology and probably no dev-bio or evo-bio either. We are monkeys. We will always be monkeys. Anything descended from us will be a supermonkey or
Vile Offspring.
I'm not sure that altruism is a good thing. Trying to increasing altruism while leaving everything else intact will get you something like... a
Mother Teresa hack. You get a society where, sure, everyone is trying to help others... who primarily want to help others, and don't want much of anything for themselves. And altruism can lead to helping people back on their feet... or carrying them until they forget how to walk. It's a balancing act, and it's a delicate one; I'm not convinced it's stable, and I'm not convinced we can't do better.
Part of the reason I linked that website, criticism aside for the moment, is that it presents one of the few models of people/society that I think would actually
work decently, provided you're already tinkering with all the important bits of our utility function. And as I see it, humanity
has to change. Significantly. Our best hope
without changing a whole lot is probably something along the lines of
The Culture, where we become the glorified pets of another group that actually has their shit together. It just goes downhill from there.
So looking around for viable alternatives is a really good idea, and as a example, and to respond to your criticism about how this race could possibly develop, I provide the Eldrae:
So you're a sufficiently-advanced alien, and you're working on a brand new artificial planet. You've got the ecology fleshed, you finally smoothed out all the problems that the disc-shape caused, and now you want to put something a bit...
smarter on it. And hey, while you're at it, why not make some servants at the same time?
So you fish about for viable species, and come across some carbon-based bipeds that you think will probably develop a society eventually. You take a couple, and start fixing up their biology; you get rid of that inconveniently short lifespan, add in optimizations all around, hybridize them with the main strain of life you used for rest of the planet... Looks good, now for the brain- ugh.
Okay, well... take most of this out, they're servants and decorations, not animals trying to compete in the wilderness. Nudge things around a bit so they think on a more suitable timescale... that hyperbolic discounting definitely has to go. Just improve things all around with memory, intelligence, problem solving, get rid of that choice fatigue... maybe make them a bit manic, a bit more eager for change. There, that looks good.
Now just set them down and... did that other being just start encroaching on my solar system? Hmm, looks like I'm going to have to wipe it out-
One extinct sufficiently-advanced alien race and thousands of years later, and you have a
unique sort of humanity-descendant which has had all of the monkeyness left far behind. The details are...
complicated. But the essence of it is that you end up with a race that isn't
completely alien, mentally or culturally, but is still vastly changed. And, the point I argue is: improved.
I'm not a multi-phd expert on sociology, biology, and psychology, I don't know for sure if this fictional society would actually
work, or if the people in it are actually as plausible as they seem. I do
think, however, that if it does and is, then it is pretty much universally
better. I provide it as a example of a at least half-decently thought out example of a alien race (even if the author is not a expert in all fields), that I would point to and say "we should just do
that." It's not the only one, of course; I think
Greg Egan has some great examples of viable transhumans which are more human-like than them.
To put it simply, you think humanity, the utility function of humans, needs to be preserved, and we have to find the best way to work around it. I think humanity needs to be ripped out and thrown in the garbage, and we should be shopping around to find a good, stable alternative, that is still at least vaguely similar and produces similar results. Because what we have now
sucks, and it shows.
Your metaphor is garbage. We're not lava, we're just hot water. The various forms of democracy are different types of cup, monarchy is a plastic bag, and anarchy is a paper bag.
My metaphors are kinda hit and miss, this I admit freely.
(Sorry for the sorta-rambly and disjointed post, this is a complicated topic and I find it difficult to write half-decently, respond to all points presented, keep it concise, etc all at the same time)