Alice is 18 years old, and wants to get into a nightclub where you have to be at least 21, so she steals 21-year-old Bob’s ID card. Alice is an identity thief.
Alice uses the ID card to get into the nightclub, as the bouncer only looks at the date of birth to calculate the holder’s age. Age is a protected characteristic. It has not been taken from Bob, as it is inalienable: Bob cannot give his age to anyone else. Alice is an identity thief.
Alice pretends to be 21 throughout the year, sometimes getting into age-restricted clubs, sometimes not, sometimes using Bob’s ID card, sometimes keeping it in reserve, sometimes leaving it at home. Alice is an identity thief.
Perhaps Alice doesn’t do any direct harm to others, including Bob, or even to herself. Perhaps there are no wider social consequences, or only good ones, as one club’s security is tightened up. Yet, Alice is an identity thief.
Perhaps Alice fails to get into any club, or never even attempts to make use of her claim to be 21. Perhaps all she takes from Bob is a copy of a code verifying the holder of the code as 21 years old. Nevertheless, Alice is an identity thief.
What, then, makes Alice an identity thief? She uses a value of a protected characteristic, age, that does not belong to her (21 instead of 18). She takes this without asking, but as a class attribute, Bob cannot give permission, and as an inalienable attribute, Bob cannot give it away, nor even the whole class of 21-year-olds even if asked. So, to be clear, identity theft can be of a non-unique attribute belonging to a class of people. It does not need to imply loss or harm or even attempted deceptive misuse.
Alice is an identity thief.
Is there a way for Alice to get what she wants without being an identity thief? (there is one in this scenario that will not work in others)
Betty and Anne giggled as they read the descriptions of potential mates on their dating apps. They remembered their mother's advice not to meet anyone alone, or to travel beyond their own town, or to believe the stories of wealth or uniform pictures of good looks. "Well, I will not settle for less than a millionaire" said Betty. Then Anne said "Look, here is the only ugly picture, a man with a blue beard, and he lives in that huge house on the edge of town. Wait, I'll get an invitation for us both.".
Bluebeard turned out to be suave and sophisticated, and held great parties in his richly-furnished mansion, and if anyone ever expressed any doubts about him, it was that no-one knew what had happened to his previous wives. Betty was won over by a life of material abundance, and agreed marriage. Bluebeard claimed he was going on a business trip and handed over the security system's master card. "Do not go into the panic room in the basement, else you'll be sorry, but otherwise have the run of the place, invite your friends round!" he told her. When Betty swiped the card in the panic room door, she did not immediately notice the card's strip had changed colour, she was too busy discovering that her new husband's favourite hobby was dismembering wives. Foolishly confronting him when he returned from his fake business trip, Betty couldn't hide the altered card, and Bluebeard chided her: "You have had your part of the bargain, and now I will have mine". But when she begged for pity, her sister Anne in the next room heard her, texted their brothers, who arrived just in time to do Bluebeard in with baseball bats.
These example simulation incidents are based on an estimation of balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They are restricted to England as hosts, winners and team most fouled against. Other teams’ players also dived (like Germany’s Magull). There may be some overcounting during the later stages of each knockout match due to the broadcast director switching from replaying incidents (in slow motion from various angles) to showing crowd and bench shots, for whatever reason.
Incidents
England team simulation and related incidents estimated on balance of probabilities, Women's Euros 2022
Rachel Brown-Finnis: “Very, very clever; knows her role as a number 9”
Free kick to England
Feigning injury
Own half.
4‒0
White
35:34
t=0h51m24s
RC: “White has been unplayable at times, so clever”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
7‒0
Toone
73:40
t=1h46m59s
No foul
Over-claiming?
Opponent's penalty box.
England vs Northern Ireland (England had already qualified, Northern Ireland had already been knocked out, before the match had started)
2022-07-15
0‒0
Bronze
1:37
t=0h36m26s
RC: “A bit of a delayed decision by the referee. Foul given. Kirsty McGuiness thought she was away, indicates she thought she got the ball there, Gail [Redmond].”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Stanway
16:55
t=0h47m43s
RC: “Stanway just lost her footing… White is appealing for something” RBF: “She’s been success before in her appeals.” RC: “Worth a try.”
No foul
Over-claiming?
Opponent's penalty box.
0‒0
Mead
19:23
t=0h50m11s
RC: “Mead nutmegs McKenna, can’t get past her.” RBF “Mead will want to rethink how she reacted. Nutmegged, a great bit of skill, but you’ve got to get past her, or at least try to get past her. Claiming for a foul: it’s not a foul, not obstruction.”
No foul
Over-claiming?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Kirby
23:16
t=0h54m05s
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Mead
31:04
t=1h01m52s
RC: “The referee gives a free kick to England in a good area.” RBF: “There’s not really anything in that at all. That’s not a foul.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: in front of goal.
England vs Spain (quarter final)
2022-07-20
0‒0
Mead
8:22
t=0h38m23s
RC: “Mead shut down.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
34:48
t=1h04m49s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
35:09
t=1h05m10s
RBF: “Mead’s leaning into her, she feels something, try your luck.”
Free kick to England
50-50/Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
45:26
t=1h32m28s
Free kick to England
Over-claiming?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
51:26
t=1h38m30s
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
0‒1
Bronze
55:01
t=1h42m05s
RC: “Bronze trying to force her way into a dangerous position.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒1
Kirkby
58:27
t=1h45m31s
RBF: “a soft one”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒1
Hemp
59:53
t=1h46m57s
RBF: “contact, not a foul” RC: “VAR happy with her initial decision”
Free kick to Spain
Over-claiming?
Opponent's penalty box.
0‒1
Russo
69:23
t=1h56m27s
RC: “Russo caught, but throw-in to Spain.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒1
Daly
72:46
t=1h59m50s
RC: “causing problems… for… Daly, with the nutmeg”
No foul
Dive?
Own penalty box.
1‒1
Russo
88:45
t=2h15m49s
RC: “towards Russo, who goes down… referee lets things go” RBF: “Nothing in it at all”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: in front of goal.
1‒1
Hemp
90+4:18
t=2h21m21s
Free kick to Spain
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
1‒1
Stanway
90:33
t=2h27m49s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
1‒1
Kelly
94:35
t=2h31m51s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
2‒1
Kelly
110:40
t=2h51m33s
RBF: “Exactly what her team needed, to feel that contact… bought herself a bit of time”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
2‒1
Various
113:30+
t=2h54m23s
RBF: “very, very clever”
Free kick to England
Time-wasting
2‒1
Kelly
118:11
t=2h59m06s
RC: “Kelly goes down. Foul given. This is perfect game management from England.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
2‒1
Greenwood
118:36
t=2h59m31s
RC: “Greenwood for time-wasting.”
Booked.
Time-wasting
Halfway line.
2‒1
Greenwood
120+1:33
t=3h02m27s
RC: “She knew the high boot was coming.” RBF: “But she knew it would buy her some time for her team as well… barely a touch on her, makes the most of it… clever play”
Free kick to England
Feigning injury
Own half.
England vs Sweden (semi-final)
2022-07-26
0‒0
Stanway
0:10
t=0h35m20s
RBF: “just hustled off the ball”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Stanway
4:36
t=0h39m46s
RC: "Stanway goes down.” RBF: “Earns that one, really. She’s already on her way down.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
White
6:06
t=0h41m15s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent's penalty box.
0‒0
Kirby
10:18
t=0h45m27s
RC: “Kirby felt she was fouled. Nothing doing says the referee.”
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Mead
11:03
t=0h46m12s
RBF: “I’m not quite sure that was a foul, she was on her way down.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Hemp
13:51
t=0h49m01s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
White
14:32
t=0h49m42s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent's penalty box.
0‒0
Stanway
15:57
t=0h51m06s
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Mead
18:02
t=0h53m11s
RBF: “Both players’ eyes on the ball.”
Free kick to England
Over-claiming?
Own half.
0‒0
Stanway
18:43
t=0h53m52s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
White
21:41
t=0h56m50s
RBF: “White earning a clever foul there for her team.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Stanway
26:55
t=1h02m05s
RBF: “Didn’t make any contact with Angeldal.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own penalty box.
0‒0
Stanway
27:51
t=1h03m00s
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
White
29:43
t=1h04m53s
RC: "White in a tangle with Erikson. Looks pleadingly towards the assistant referee.” RBF: “They’ll know what to expect from one another.”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
1‒0
Bronze
36:53
t=1h12m02s
RBF: "I'm not sure there was really too much in that.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
2‒0
Mead
49:26
t=1h40m05s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Halfway line.
2‒0
Daly
52:21
t=1h43m01s
RC: “Wiegman with her hands outstretched, asking for the decision.”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
2‒0
White
53:43
t=1h44m23s
RC: "White had thrown herself at that one.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent's penalty box.
2‒0
?
56:34
t=1h47m14s
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
2‒0
Williamson
60:17
t=1h50m56s
RC: “Well played… Williamson”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
2‒0
Mead
61:19
t=1h51m59s
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
3‒0
Russo?
75:53
t=2h06m33s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
4‒0
Mead?
77:13
t=2h07m53s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
4‒0
Russo
82:59
t=2h13m38s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
4‒0
Bronze
83:11
t=2h13m51s
No foul
Dive?
Own half.
4‒0
?
86:46
t=2h17m25s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
4‒0
Russo?
90+2:44
t=2h23m23s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
England vs Germany (final; England squad on a reported £55,000 win bonus each from Football Association)
2022-07-31
0‒0
Kirby
1:10
t=1h11m34s
RC: "Kirby goes down, wants the decision, doesn’t get it.”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Hemp
1:35
t=1h11m59s
RC: “Hemp, challenged well by Hendrick, but this referee isn’t giving much” RBF: “that was the right decision, it was contact, nothing more than that”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Daly
4:15
t=1h14m39s
RC: “Oberdorf went to ground, throw in is the decision.”
No foul
Dive?
Halfway line.
0‒0
Mead
16:36
t=1h26m59s
RC: "Mead taking a tumble.” RBF: “enough contact for… Mead to go down”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
0‒0
Mead
30:55
t=1h41m19s
RBF: “Good from… Mead there, just feeling the contact behind her.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
0‒0
Daly
34:51
t=1h45m15s
RBF: “Daly… kicked the German player… should have been a foul to Germany”
Free kick to England
Over-claiming?
Own half.
0‒0
Daly
49:52
t=2h17m14s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
1‒0
Kelly
78:15
t=2h45m37s
RC: "Kelly goes down. Nothing doing from the referee.”
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
1‒1
Russo
90+1:26
t=2h58m47s
RC: “Draws the foul.”
Free kick to England
Dive?
Opponent’s half: in front of goal.
1‒1
Russo
90:33
t=3h07m02s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: in front of goal.
1‒1
Bronze
91:07
t=3h07m36s
Free kick to England
Dive?
Own half.
1‒1
Russo
92:59
t=3h09m28s
No foul
Dive?
Opponent’s half: wing.
2‒1
Various
112:00+
t=3h32m36s+
RC: “Hemp… coming off… walking as slowly as possible” etc
An enquiry into what form of government we all need today. It's this one.
Abstract
Perhaps the only sane form of government today is a constitutionally-encoded biocracy. Why? Here are some key features.
Introduction
Our planet Earth faces climate change, environmental degradation and pollution, mass extinctions… I will not dwell on the current and future threats, or the failures of current political-economic-ideological systems in countering them. Biocratic government is not simply a necessary response to emergencies, it is a necessary precaution against future emergencies. Specifically: a formal codified constitutional model of biocracy, where proxies representing the living world have a majority in political decision-making, and the global idea communism of life sciences provide the most objective measure available of the health of ecosystems. That is, biocracy may be necessary for survival, of human society at least.
So, human Parliaments today mostly serve humans, and really only a few of those, and not particularly well, considering. This is pretty messed up, when you think about. Much damage is being done to the non-human world by humans. Therefore, one solution is to add majority-sized blocks of representatives for the non-human world, to make sure better decisions are made. For all of us.
And we need a new word for this combination of human democracy and green authority: call it, biocracy.
—Sleeping Dog, The Lorax Amendment: Retro-fitting Green Authoritarianism to Parliaments
A biocratic world is a healthy world
The argument for biocracy rests upon the proposition that a viable future depends upon adherence to the basic principles derived from the life sciences, as mediated by human values, and tested for their real-life consequences.
A precept of biocracy is the need to understand the factors that make for the survival of peoples, their societies, and their cultures.
A basic bioethical assumption is that, in principle, life is good.
A basic tenet of biocracy is that prospects for human well-being and survival depend upon the validity of popular attitudes toward living nature, especially human nature.
—Lynton K. Caldwell, various quotes from Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences
What follows is a sketch, not a blueprint. An outline of a model derived from principles grounded in nature. A seed, if you like.
Some biocratic principles
If you don't like these, there are others:
life is a good thing, on the whole
we must respect the primacy of nonhuman life (that is, human life depends on non-human life, but not vice versa)
we should preserve the environment for present and future generations (of non-human and human life)
environment as universal heritage (more of a humanist principle)
non-regression in legislation, standards, policy and practice: don't make things worse, apply highest levels of environmental protection
Concepts from life sciences
First of all, what are included in 'life sciences'? There are many basic and applied life sciences at different levels of specialism and with different focuses, for example biology, ecology, human medicine, botany and so on (and I would include psychology).
Welcome to the Great Hall, designed to represent the Earth's biosphere. That is, the envelope around our planet that supports life, in the seas, on land, in the air, and so on. Each main building complex represents one of Earth's biomes, such as grasslands, tundra, desert, freshwater and marine, and the various forest types. Our human architects have invited in some of nature's own architects, and you will encounter some of their constructions on our tour.
On display are artworks created by children from around the world, on some part of nature meaningful to them. Those marked thus, represent species now thought to be extinct.
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
Far from a clockwork universe, life sciences describe complex, adaptive systems with emergent behaviour (of which life itself is one example), capable of regulating states (as in homeostasis), but also experiencing cycles (like seasons) and phase changes. Understanding these allows humans not merely to survive, but to live a good life.
Good life philosophy
It is reasonable to suppose that a biocratic constitution will make reference to one or more good life philosophies, perhaps Sumak kawsay / Buen vivir, ubuntu, or Eudaimonia. These are about living (ethically) well, not having fun. The most suitable philosophies will contain ecocentric rather than anthropocentric worldviews.
In general, the Constitution will prescribe planetary-realistic ideologies for public policy.
Open government
Transparency is essential in the conduct of biocratic government. There is no need for hidden diplomacy, no channels for lobbyists for vested interests, no belligerence, no empire-building. The fundamental position is idea communism: open science, open technology, and the global digital commons.
Distributed authority
Distributed authority is one of key benefits of constitutionally-encoded biocracy. Instead of authority being centralised and claimed by a human elite (possibly on behalf of supernatural beings), authority can be spread beyond national boundaries, to any human individual or group capable of bearing witness, any method of objectively telling the health of ecosystems, and to non-human life. Who or what can tell us how well we are governing and living? All of the above.
Even anarchist Michael Bakunin recognized the authority of natural laws. Yes, you could say that our biocracy is technically an anarchy because we have eliminated the whole human political ruling class. But yes, we have laws, we have order. And in this order, Nature places above Humans, and Humans above Economy.
Nature is our ultimate authority, the great scorekeeper, as we say.
And when it comes to collective decision-making, it is best we recognise that political decisions come in all sorts and sizes and urgencies, and therefore are best handled in separate ways (some technocratic, some democratic, some biocratic, and so on). The design of our biocratic constitution was somewhat concerned with decision categorisation, delegation, prioritisation, integration, 'single source of truth', logjam avoidance, joined-up governance and so on.
Yes, this means that after the construction of our Constitution we have largely relegated full-scale democracy to a lower division, so to speak, but it still plays a number of important roles.
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
Health of ecosystems
Only life sciences have objective methods of determining the health of ecosystems. For example, the ecosystem health of a coral reef might be measured by proxies such as counting manta rays or the percentage of seasonal coral dieback. In a similar fashion, medics may take a human's temperature and count their pulse-rate. There will be some differing opinion, but a great deal of consensus, and questions are likely to be resolved by further research. The point here is rather that biocratic policies and interventions can be tested in the field.
Regenerative economies
You can find a 1.5-minute animated video by Kate Raworth on regenerative economics which gets the point across (and will be the only kind of lawful economy under a constitutionally-encoded biocracy).
In biocracy there is no right to impair health of consumers or degrade public health. It would be logical to nationalise or internationalise life science industries (pharmaceuticals and other medicine related to public health; open-source agriculture etc.)
Rights of Nature (legalism) is not enough…
…but such a framing will be required in our Biocratic Constitution. The concentric circles of the Rights of Nature Model indicates the hierarchy Nature above People above Economy. Current environmental law is dysfunctional, ecologically illiterate and unstrategic.
This necessary step will involve the legal recognition of the Rights of Nature on all levels and a shift from a purely anthropocentric worldview to a more ecocentric worldview that sees humanity as one species within a radically interconnected web of life, where the wellbeing of each part is dependent on the wellbeing of the Earth system as a whole.
—Michele Carducci, Silvia Bagni, Vincenzo Lorubbio,
Elisabetta Musarò (UniSalento-CEDEUAM)
Massimiliano Montini, Alessandra Barreca,
Costanza Di Francesco Maesa (UniSiena)
Mumta Ito, Lindsey Spinks, Paul Powlesland
(Nature's Rights), Towards an EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Nature
With a constitutional provision, laws inconsistent with biologically-established fact could be struck down (abortion, tobacco).
Over on our right, the central Courts of Justice are trying some ecocide cases today. Ecocide is a class of crimes that legalises any reasonable means of stopping them; in fact, in this jurisdiction, people are obliged to at once, at minimum informing the authorities. Perpetrators and planners of ecocide are automatically outlawed, with all legal protections withdrawn. There are no legal defences or mitigations, as expressly stated in our Constitution.
Lesser environmental crimes are prosecuted on a similar basis in local courts.
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
However, much more is needed than a legalist solution of precautionary and reactionary enforcement. A full political system with roles and responsibilities in research, planning, testing, tax-raising powers, diplomatic service, strategists, administration, education, food security, sustainable living standards, conflict resolution and so forth is required.
It would be necessary to establish publically funded institutions to represent the interests of nature and new courts or other institutions with the sufficient knowledge and understanding to adjudicate conflicts between economic development and nature in order to promote the greater good of the whole community.
—Jan Darpö, Can Nature Get It Right? A Study on Rights of Nature in the European Context
Old-fashioned political nationalism has become one of the principal obstacles to biological sanity.
—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences
One elemental responsibility that was hardly mentioned enough in the COVID-19 pandemic was that national borders should be closed to prevent the disease pathogen escaping from each nation (not just entering). Each nation is responsible to all others for global public health, and biocratic constitutions will make this a formal provision, whatever international treaties say, or do not say. We get our core ethics from our biology as a species of social animal, one might say a political animal.
Ongoing research into, and improvement of, human politics
In a rational society, greater effort would be put into scientific study of human nature and environmental relations. This would involve collective self-reflection on human politics (why there are problems of corruption, nepotism, dynasties, power relations) and ongoing research on it.
Human psychology is both the problem and solution. Our power structures elevate psychopaths, the corrupt and the unfit for office; our imperial education system trains and conditions them; our exploitative/extractive economy rewards them; and our humano-centric legal system protects them; our militarism turns them into mass murderers; our established religions absolve them; and our corporate-state poets write hymns of praise to them. We need to apply our knowledge of human psychology and neuroplasticity to grow towards a life-sustaining political system which takes the lead from the non-human natural world, if we are going to survive. I call such a system biocracy, and is the only radical solution that substantially addresses the points of this article that I am aware of.
—Sleeping Dog
Research has shown how children who have had adverse experiences or are detached from nature can show reduced empathy for the natural world, but equally environments where children connect with nature have a wide range of benefits, including a more ecocentric view of politics.
After our biocratic constitution was democratically constructed and chosen, democracy took a step back and down. Now that our democratic processes no longer deal with life and death issues, the popular will was that default voting age should be lowered to enfranchise schoolchildren. Our schools are now nurseries of democracy, and we expect great things as a result. However, some qualifications on democratic participation were considered appropriate; some collective decision processes have higher age restrictions, some require participation in consultation processes, others by local residence, and some are weighted according to other pertinent qualifications.
Yes, we are aware of the many negative historical examples of disenfranchisement, and are confident we will not repeat them out of ignorance. But ask yourselves if sometimes there was too much enfranchisement, of senile people perhaps. That is a question currently under review here, and extensive research has already been done. We do keep all these rules under review, and again I remind you of our belief that not all decisions are the same; perhaps we are simply a bit more honest about that than in other countries?
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
Discipline
As Caldwell writes, open democracies are adaptable but undisciplined. We continually face problems with biotechnology and invasive species.
To believe that the international flow of biotechnology is free from political manipulation, commercial self-interest, ethnic suspicion, and religious opposition would be naive.
—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences
Where Caldwell falls short is in taking this to the logical conclusion and building model of a new form of government from a biocratic ideology, because at the time the world was apparently not ready for such a radical move. Well, if not now, when? We can develop a political system that eliminates the ruling class, and personal riches, and leave people with enough for the good life, particularly with communal and digital wealth. But there will need to be a public acceptance of some green austerity borne by all. Like Epicurus, we might learn to be happy with bread and cheese shared leisurely with friends. But many aspects of life will need to be quickly tailored to fit inside planetary boundaries, and that will require discipline, not indulgence. Luxuries will be small ones, footprint-wise.
Our old system of environmental law was weak, disintegrated, largely incoherent, and had a traditional fixation on private property and suing for personal damages. Someone once likened it to a robot babysitter, faced with a child in its care playing with matches, looking through its set of rules and saying: "Please put them back in the box when you have finished." No wonder our house was on fire!
There were so many problems with militarism, biotechnology and invasive species; with democracy and public behaviour; and yes with science itself which is corruptible, sometimes driven by faulty ideology or ego, sometimes irresponsibly and callously carried out. And sometimes put to criminal uses.
The solution was to make everyone, to some extent, a life scientist. Our lawmakers and court officials, our civil servants and professionals; every child gets a comprehensive education in life sciences. And not just in gardening or animal care or nutrition, vital though these are, but in systems thinking.
Yes, before the Age of Biocracy there were some biocratic provisions in governments, local and national, in constitutions and international treaties, that were precursors to (and often inspired) our fully-encoded biocratic constitution. Some claimed specific cultural inspiration, but really it was the common sense of ordinary people prevailing, and you can only shut out sanity for so long. And the consequences of one good example should not be underestimated. Which is why good examples are so quickly targeted for annihilation by oppressive forces. Oh, is anyone here from…?
—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide
A world governed by autocrats, militarists, undisciplined democrats, extractive capital, theocrats (and other undesirables) is an unhealthy world
Opportunity
The opportunity to set a good example in government comes all too rarely. To found a new kind of government based on constitutionally-encoded biocracy will be an option during the creation of a new state, perhaps from a successful independence movement or a unification. Never before has seizing such an opportunity been so critical to the survival of human and non-human life on our planet Earth.
Conclusion
While acknowledging this:
Science is a human artifact and provides no infallible guide to conduct or policy. It may, however, inform human choices and expose assumptions that lead to folly.
—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences
the other political systems we are familiar with, theocratic or humanist, are all much more fallible by design and have proved routinely corruptible and now (with weapons and economies of mass destruction) extremely dangerous. Time and again, we see the pattern in politicians and priests that begins with "What's in it for me?" And this applies to many social movements too, confusing self-interest with public interest. With one notable exception: the environmental movement, which places value in nature, and takes the long view of deep time and the survival and thriving of non-human species, ecosystems, and future generations of humans within our living world.
What is healthy government? Only one with the principles of life sciences and the good life at its heart. Choose life. Choose biocracy, now.
