TED Conversations

Tao P
  • Tao P
  • Vancouver B.c
  • Canada


This conversation is closed.

'It is no sign of health to be well adjusted to a sick society' How can we make a healthy society?

There seems to be an ever increasing number of people who are depressed, or have another form of mental 'deficientcy': ADHD bipolar... What is causing this increase and how can we remedy it?
It is my belief that we need to focus our lives around what it means to be human: movement, community and meaningful creative work. Do you agree? What would this new way of life look like to you?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 7 2013: www.onlineparty.ca

    A healthy society would be one in which the government acts on the majority will of its people. It would know the will of its people as the people would vote directly on the issues facing government

    As a result of people being directly responsible for creating the rules that govern them, healthy rules would result that they would believe in and support with minimum resistance.

    This would result in a healthy societal mind. As each person would vote for what benefits them directly, the things all persons share in common would become societal supported norms.

    Healthy society mind/healthy individual mind.

    Myself healthy society or unhealthy, god is my center and luckily so because if we are dependent on external forces we're in a tippy canoe on rough waters at best.
    • Oct 8 2013: What if the majority will of the people is "Kill the Jews"?
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2013: It would be astronomically more likely for a majority government comprised of a HANDFUL of PARTY WHIPPED party members to carry out such a heinous atrocity, than it would be to convince 30 MILLION multiculturally socialized Canadians with a history of peace to do so.

        Those Jewish persons you're speaking about are our neighbors, our friends, our co-workers, our family ..they are a part of "us." Therefore I cannot even in the wildest imaginings see such an irrational possibility.

        In the past "kill the Jews" was brought about by the few who governed the many. It was stopped by the many banding together against the few.

        It's not the majority will of the common people one needs to fear ..it is the will of the elite who care little what it costs the common people.
        • Oct 10 2013: Hi martin.
          When it comes to decision making in the house of parliament, please I would like to know the process. Are the votings of the various representatives truly what the mass wish for
          ., of course as a democratic society?. I know democracy is the government of the people but I dnt really feel as part of it all so also is most people. No motivation
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2013: Hello Martin,

      The trouble with the idea of governments acting "on the majority will of its people" is that few issues are simply either/or where a clear 51% majority is measurable.

      Where there is a clear either/or choice to be made, what constitutes a majority?
      For example, in the U.K before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 2 million people marched in protest against the war (1 million in London, 1 million combined in other major U.K cities), the Foreign Secretary (Robin Cook) resigned when the decision to go ahead was announced, and 139 members of parliament of the Prime Minister's own Labour party (about 30% I think) voted against the war.
      Would this conglomerate of protest constitute the "majority will of the people" that the then government should have abided by under your suggestion for a healthy society?
      (As you probably know, Tony Blair went ahead regardless, citing evidence of WMD as "beyond doubt" but that shortly afterwards proved never to have existed).
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: Hello Joshua,

        I looked up what I believe is the population of the UK.
        63,182,000 is that correct?

        If so, then 2 million protesters would clearly not be a majority will of 63 million.

        If as http://www.onlineparty.ca suggests people voted directly on the issues and the majority will of each electoral area as passed on to elected representatives were brought to government, then the collective will would dictate policy.

        The collective will of each electoral district, combined to form a majority will of all electoral districts is NOT the same as the majority will of all combined citizens (although it could be.)

        Even so the responsibility, accountability, popularity of government decisions, long term decisiveness of policy .. all these things would begin stabilizing in the positive rather than the erratic knee-jerk pendulum effect that democracy currently is paralyzed by.

        The average person does not change their mind as often as they change their clothes. Instead the average person seeks to decrease negative stress and improve the wheel and their position in an effort toward continuous improvement ..which translates to progress. "Mistakes are not really mistakes if we learn from them, they are learning experiences." (forget who said that)

        So yes.. Direct Democracy will lead to a more stable, more productive, more responsible, more accountable democracy for all, and social mind. The more stable the society mind, the more stable the individual mind.
        • thumb
          Oct 10 2013: Hello Martin,
          Thank you for your reply. Yes, pop of 63m sounds about right to me.
          What I forgot to add is that the general apathetic nature of the British public is such that for every person who makes the effort to go out on the street and join a protest march (especially on a rainy day) there are probably ?10-15? others who also had the same view against Britain getting involved in the Iraq war, but didn't put on their wellies and get out there. Of course it's an unknown, but such would have pushed it nearer it the 50% mark.

          In the British psyche, the decision of Tony Blair to go to war in the face of such protests, and opposition from his own party, has gone down in history as not only the main legacy that Tony Blair will be remembered for, but also as the day democracy finally died. People mutter "well if they don't listen to THAT, then what's the point?" Indeed, in the recent Syria crisis Prime Minister David Cameron had to state in relation at the time to possible U.K involvement, "This is not another Iraq",

          Anyway, thank you for the link about direct democracy and how it might work.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.