The moral conundrum
Yes, I keep coming back to the need to ignore the willfully ignorant. But there’s a moral conundrum there. That becomes an act of removing them from consideration which is what they do, are doing, to whole groups of people arbitrarily. When does that cross the moral line from “justified” to becoming just like the willfully ignorant.
The real problem is how to give people the right to self-determination while preventing people who are inadequately informed from determining destructive systems for themselves and others out of ignorance. The paradigm changes that we are caught in are defined by complexity at the very edge of what we can understand. I think we will need to accept that our only way forward will soon be reliance on the AI systems that we built to learn faster and better than we can. We’re there right now and that takes out 90% of the population who have no hope of understanding the logic and evidence used by our AI systems now. I understand the problem just well enough to know what I can’t do. Less informed people tend to react emotionally or even violently as they feel intimidated and threatened.
I understand how they feel but they will make decisions that could and will kill us all. How do we prevent that? Can we rely on those people being a small minority? That is why we are now in a collapsing society. The wild card was being blindsided by a new scientific method of group manipulation that took advantage of a failing and antiquated political system. And less than 100,000 people needed to be affected to tip this system into disaster. There does not appear to be any means of recovery as the political system is so corrupt that the forces of ignorance and emotion have the majorities with the controls locked.
So the moral conundrum leads to removing a significant minority of the population from any authority. And for some indefinite time. The justification cannot be “for their own good” but it may be required for our survival. A true dictatorship of the majority?