Whyeverfor?
I don’t think large groups wielding tons of political power is a good thing for humans, and evidence and science gives me a ton of support there.
We’re designed for small groups, and we have ample evidence that trying to get hundreds of millions of people on the same page just leads to milquetoast ‘lesser of two evils’ solutions. People are tribal and blindly side with ‘their team’ without having any need for reality to back them up (also very well studied and supported). The needs of strangers invariably fall behind the needs of ‘our people’, and we pick those most ‘like us’ over those who are less in the aggregate. That’s not a model for a civilized society.
Circling back, it also leads to corrupt processes, retardation of progression, and nations of supposedly peaceful people in which the presumably ‘non-military’ party is in power yet we’re still wasting tons of resources that could go to helping people bombing strangers and creating more terrorists.
Which all makes me wonder if anybody’s done some blind analysis of the source data I referenced in the OP and determined if there’s a reality behind that suspicious variance, and if that’s contributing to the problem (un-tangented! By ME of all people!!)
