TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Why don't we try a grand social experiment?

Everyone has a different idea of what the laws should be, some even claim their way of living is the best. So my question is why not have a grand social experiment and let government be run on a very local scale. I think the most interesting findings would be how those fare that choose a large intrusive government versus those that choose to live under a small limited government.

It seems silly to me that civilization has been around for thousands of years and the scientific method for hundreds but people still can't agree on how to live. It's about time we stop relying on majority opinion or some so-called prophet to decide the best way to live.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 5 2013: If it seems silly to you that "people still cannot agree on how to live," would it seem more sensible to you if people with diverse preferences and interests DID agree on a single best way to live? Do you think homogeneous preferences are more logical or desirable than diverse preferences? Do you think static preferences are more logical than changing preferences?

    I think it is very valuable for people to experiment with different ways of living, both as individuals and within the organizations in which they participate. This grand experiment is underway.

    If I am not mistaken the TED prize winner from a couple of years ago, City 2.0. is partly a venue and forum for aggregating and sharing the results of local experiments in living/working/decisionmaking. http://www.ted.com/pages/prizewinner_city2 Do join in!
    • Sep 5 2013: Fritzie see my above comment. It is my response to your statement.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.