It isn't a cult, but I agree that it looks like one.<p><a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Unconscious-Civilization-John-Ralston-Saul/dp/0887847315" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.ca/Unconscious-Civilization-John-Ralston-...</a><p>"Saul engagingly explains the current woes of democracy, especially in Canada, the U.S., and Britain. He argues from history and philosophy that the democratic meaning of individualism has been obscured and the importance of economics overemphasized throughout the twentieth century. With Socrates, he maintains that in a democracy, citizenship is the incumbent duty and government the great responsibility of the individual. Minding one's own business and getting the government off one's back are derelictions of democracy that reflect infatuation with corporatism, the brand of utopianism exemplified by Mussolini's fascism, with its melding of huge business interests and government to achieve the managed society. Privatization as a remedy for government inefficiency and the conception of individualism as the capacity to purchase consumer goods bespeak corporatism's present power, for both reduce citizenship and place control with managers accountable primarily for the bottom line, not the public good. There are many more compelling--and disquieting--ideas in this exciting, though discursive, little book." Ray Olson
I think the cult of "free speech" is a big part of the problem.<p>Free speech, as spelled out in the 1st amendment is the ability of anyone to speak freely without fear of repercussions by the State. "Congress shall make no law.."<p>But it has progressively help foster the idea that all speech should be respected or listened to, that all speakers are equally respectable, and as a consequence that every utterance of words is equivalent and should be given the same screen time.<p>This is madness.<p>People have an absolute right to be religious if they want to, and to worship any entity, without interference <i>from the State</i>. But they shouldn't expect to be respected for it, and certainly not by the common man. Indeed, they should expect the opposite: to be mocked and laughed at.<p>Same for "anti vaxxers" who are in fact utterly stupid, selfish freeriders and should be addressed as such (and shunned from civilized society). Etc.<p>Anyway, my point isn't against free speech per se; it's the observation that a certain idea of "free speech" has been intrumentalized by a lot of people to shield themselves and the absurd views they hold, from criticism, and that the non-crazies constantly fall prey to this obvious tactic.
I think it's widespread all over the world. Partly because not knowing stuff usually includes not knowing what one doesn't know. Therefore we always feel like knowing everything.<p>That leads to weird collisions between "elite" and "normal people" like me being the most well earning person due to my IT master and job, but some family members wondering at Christmas when I will learn a real job (that allows me to use my hands instead of my brain).
> ...the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’<p>But this is a necessary consequence of the universal franchise. My ignorance has one vote. Your knowledge has one vote. In a system of rule that furnishes us each a vote and values all votes equally, my ignorance and your knowledge are worth exactly the same. In such a system of rule, how can it be otherwise?
Keep in mind some of Asimov's best-known works do not flatter the intellectuals or even technology:<p>Foundation Trilogy --<p>1) The Encyclopedia Foundation epitomizes ivory-tower (and mostly retrospective) intellectuals who find themselves outmaneuvered by a mere politician, Salvor Hardin. This same Hardin uses deceit and treachery to keep Terminus independent against menacing breakaway provinces. Hardin's successors oversee the hegemony of the Foundation, even as Terminus' government devolves into autocracy under the Indburs.<p>2) The savior of humanity Hari Seldon essentially keeps Terminus in the dark about crises he was able to predict decades / centuries in advance. Only the arrival of an aberration (The Mule) throws his predictive power to the wind.<p>3) Moreover, Seldon establishes a shadow group of telepaths, mathematicians, and psychologists, ostensibly to gaurd against aberrations such as The Mule, but whose ultimate goal is to eventually rule the galaxy on the blood and sweat of the First Foundation.<p>Galatic Empire novels --<p>1) Hyperspatial travel, once considered liberating, becomes the primary mechanism for inflicting human politics on an unsuspecting galaxy.<p>Robots of Dawn novels --<p>1) Robots initially free humanity from drudgery but eventually render the societies that use them vulnerable to a droid-phobic Earth. Earth wins the inevitable war between itself and the robot societies, but becomes uninhabitable.<p>Considering his background, Dr. Asimov had a certain autocratic streak.
"Arguments, that is to say, have come to be understood in some circles not as expressions of rationality, but as weapons, the techniques for deploying which furnish a key part of the professional skills of lawyers, academics, economists, and journalists who thereby dominate the dialectically unfluent and inarticulate." - Alasdair MacIntyre<p>It's not surprising that people turn to demagogic populist buffoons when "rational" managerial class tell obvious lies in order to increase their powers.
Much of the reason why anti-intellectualism is held in high regard is because of the historical basis of the intellectuals being apologists for the rulers of civilization. Whether it's Milton Friedman being friendly with Augusto Pinochet who had no qualms throwing people out of flying helicopters that didn't comply with his right wing ideology or Trofim Lysenko who had his opponents killed or exiled under Stalin, intellectuals have a storied history of propping up bad regimes and bad policies so that they can bargain with said regimes to execute their own side projects (ex. Lysenkoism). Part of that comes from the fact that they believe their pursuits are divorced from the social and political dimensions when in reality they're so heavily tied to them that it's inescapable. Like it or not, they need to realize that they must be part of the social and political dimensions to mitigate the dangers of anti-intellectualism. That means there needs to be some form of science education/advocacy (like John Dobson did in some regard with astronomy or Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson had done for astrophysics) and participation in the political process such that the common person (the non-intellectual/scientist/expert) can digest what is said and done by intellectuals rather than cloistering the knowledge away behind thick books and thicker language. I'm not sure any of those suggestions can yield positive results but it seems it's better than cozying up to the current US President or hiding behind some tech billionaires to pursue your dreams of Martian colonies.
I think critiques of American bumbkins is an American tradition. Hawthorne to Twain to Mencken to etc. It is the American organism hashing itself. It is healthy and has helped to make this country what it is. However there is a dangerous trend today to severely ignore the lack of this in other nations whose own bumbkins self-immolate while those who could be Twains or Asimovs are immolated. But hey, say what you want about about everyone if it makes you feel good.
Humans are creatures that evolved at an interface - the boundary between the earth and the atmosphere, the boundary between the known and the unknown. We have evolved to solve problems in the face of the unknown. American ingenuity embodies this spirit. OTOH, 'intelligence' is simply the recapitulation of stuff people have already talked about and done. This arthritic view is European. The actual application of 'intelligence' to the unknown is a rare activity that very few have embarked on. The authors of 'intelligence' constitute a handful of individuals in the sea of billions that inhabit this planet. How many Asimov's are there? I can feel his loneliness at the top but have no compassion for it. Is it no surprise then that Americans have eschewed blind worship of an elite priesthood? That kind of behavior is a shortcut to abdicating your brain. I respect those people who have honestly forged their place in the world without relying on deceit, subterfuge, delegation, entitlements, etc. These people have a vision for their lives and move in that direction, not the cult-like flocking behavior of the 'literati' peering into their smartphones for the latest liturgy.
>> It may be that only 1 per cent—or less—of Americans make a stab at exercising their right to know.<p>Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. / Matthew 5:3-12 /<p>We think only because technology evolves humanity does it too. But we are still where we have been 2000 years ago.
It's not really the cult of ignorance but the cult of money.<p>And money making skills do not require being a genius or personally making key contributions to society. It is rather about hiring the right people, negotiation and selling ideas, etc...
Asimov was fascinated by psychology, so much so that he made it the ultimate technology in his Foundation trilogy. I think this stemmed from the common fascination among elitists with methods and technologies to get the people they perceive to be their inferiors to do what they want them to. "A Cult of Ignorance" is an excuse and a lament that their methods and technologies weren't effective.
Too bad Asimov does not call out religion as a culprit, as he alludes to that in his books. The US has a huge evangelical (or fundamentalist) population that places faith over reason.
In essence, if you don't vote or think like us you are wrong and it is because you are irrational and/or ignorant?<p>yet another post election political slam of voters because they didn't choose "correctly" and not something that should be on this site.