If you were to run for a political position of your choice, and had to choose 3 positions as your primary concerns for a platform, what would they be and why?
Only 3 positions? I think that seems' so impossible to actually narrow down to but I can see why it would have to be a smaller number of concerns to run for. There are so many.
Since the concern for me is long-term sustainability, the future, effective AND efficient progress as opposed to more of the short-term, self-pleasurable, immediate exclusive goals, a number people may "hate" the positions I would choose and defend. People stuck in their comfortable realities, people unwilling to see past their own life. A lot of people who don't understand or listen to science -but they'll follow religious doctrine and popular cultural norms no problem- these may be the first people to ignore the positions. Which is alright.
It would be of no surprise.
Last I checked, church (or any religious place of worship) and state are separate in societies, such as the U.S., and so far, it's been an important principle to continue to have. Yet morality here in the U.S. is not overall consistent, and the lack of much needed principles guided by strong, valid, and sound premises are not absolving our deeply troublesome situations.
I'm not inferring that all non-religious/secular communities and individuals will suddenly be on board either. What I can say is that, if individuals and communities value (or can value) the truth, value being honest, being socially open, open-minded AND reasonably skeptical, seeing and SEEKING the evidence, and to focus on what we can perform to what we can execute, then there's really nothing we cannot solve as long as we have the resources, the knowledge, the back-bone in fulfilling the imperatives. Or at least the incredible means to make it so, and fast.
The positions I would strive to run for would be things that are the most detrimental and yet given the least amount and quality of attention in public, within the masses, in the common households, in typical businesses, in institutions, in schools, in governments. Even online for that matter.
What would be three primary concerns I would raise as political positions?
1) All factors of harmful convention and "tradition" to be scrutinized and reformed, e.g., harmful agendas for the planet's entire ecosphere and biosphere; including but not limited to natural habitats, wildlife, oceans, atmospheric conditions, air quality, non-harm/nonviolence to animals, animal liberation, sustainable practice and initiatives.
2) All major factors of social/societal dysfunction, e.g., the socio-culture, how we consider the health of individuals, families, communities and society all over. Prime focus on education systems, attitudes and methods of raising children, media/communication or any large systems and platforms that hold considerable amount of influence. Advocating for facts, truths, and relevant, valid judgements or viewpoints.
3) The applications of progress in policies, strong economies, innovation, advancing technology, science, R&D.
Since the concern for me is long-term sustainability, the future, effective AND efficient progress as opposed to more of the short-term, self-pleasurable, immediate exclusive goals, a number people may "hate" the positions I would choose and defend. People stuck in their comfortable realities, people unwilling to see past their own life. A lot of people who don't understand or listen to science -but they'll follow religious doctrine and popular cultural norms no problem- these may be the first people to ignore the positions. Which is alright.
It would be of no surprise.
Last I checked, church (or any religious place of worship) and state are separate in societies, such as the U.S., and so far, it's been an important principle to continue to have. Yet morality here in the U.S. is not overall consistent, and the lack of much needed principles guided by strong, valid, and sound premises are not absolving our deeply troublesome situations.
I'm not inferring that all non-religious/secular communities and individuals will suddenly be on board either. What I can say is that, if individuals and communities value (or can value) the truth, value being honest, being socially open, open-minded AND reasonably skeptical, seeing and SEEKING the evidence, and to focus on what we can perform to what we can execute, then there's really nothing we cannot solve as long as we have the resources, the knowledge, the back-bone in fulfilling the imperatives. Or at least the incredible means to make it so, and fast.
The positions I would strive to run for would be things that are the most detrimental and yet given the least amount and quality of attention in public, within the masses, in the common households, in typical businesses, in institutions, in schools, in governments. Even online for that matter.
What would be three primary concerns I would raise as political positions?
1) All factors of harmful convention and "tradition" to be scrutinized and reformed, e.g., harmful agendas for the planet's entire ecosphere and biosphere; including but not limited to natural habitats, wildlife, oceans, atmospheric conditions, air quality, non-harm/nonviolence to animals, animal liberation, sustainable practice and initiatives.
2) All major factors of social/societal dysfunction, e.g., the socio-culture, how we consider the health of individuals, families, communities and society all over. Prime focus on education systems, attitudes and methods of raising children, media/communication or any large systems and platforms that hold considerable amount of influence. Advocating for facts, truths, and relevant, valid judgements or viewpoints.
3) The applications of progress in policies, strong economies, innovation, advancing technology, science, R&D.
