Quality versus quantity in society

Let´s imagine that there is a small community of ten people. And let´s imagine that an important decision must be made for the future of these ten people. Now you can follow the principle of quantity where quality does not count. Each of the ten people will make a vote and all votes will summed up in the end equally. We know this principle from politics today. Now, the option is to follow the principle of quality. Here the ten people must prove their competence. The question is, who is the most experienced one with the best knowledge, with the greatest wisdom and the noblest character and with the highest wish to serve the community. Within ten people you find someone who can be seen as the “best one” and you will find at least two more who are nearly as good as the number one. Now, the best three ones can work out the best solution with an argumentation. So they can explain to the others why their proposal is the best decision and then all agree and the decision is made.

This quality approach is the ideal way and it is a feasible way offering transparency to all people, so they understand and agree to the solution.

By the way, it is the natural principle that the most experienced and with this, the wisest member of a community is the leader and decision maker. It is valid for the whole animal kingdom and it has been valid for mankind for a very long time.

I would like to invite you to a thought experiment. Let´s imagine that you belong to this ten people community and that a major decision must be made which has great effects on your future and wellbeing. Now, let´s imagine that each person has a big label on its shirt with keywords about its characteristics. So you find the words “psychopath”, “selfish”, “uneducated”, “idiot”, “clever”, “compassionate”, “trustworthy”, “noble”, “well educated”, “dull”, “dangerous”, etc. on the labels. What would you think? Do you believe that the quantity approach will be the best solution to find the right decision for your future? Or would you prefer to pick out the persons “clever”, “well educated”, “noble”, “compassionate”, etc.?

Now, when you think about what mankind does over more than hundred years, then it is no wonder that we are at the edge of the abyss. We let all those make decisions which are not competent for this.

In this context, I also want to point at the natural principle that those in leading positions always have been bound by ethics to take care of the wellbeing of their group. This can be seen in the animal kingdom and it was standard for human societies. It was also the greatest honor to serve people as their leader. Unfortunately, at one point in history the leaders turned away from their people and started working against them like parasites. And in this way the mischief started.

At last I want to point at the principle of diversity which shows up today as statistics. Simplified said, if one color exists then all other colors must exist too. Creation draws always the full circle. This means for society that we find here also all possible characters, good ones, bad ones, smart ones, dull ones, and so on. We have all polarities here. Now the second point is that the diversity follows the principle of the triangle. This means that at the basis of the triangle we have a lot of “normal” people while at the top of the triangle we have a small number of “extraordinary” people. These principles come together and can change according to the situation. In conclusion, this means that it is not common to have a group of people who are all extraordinary in character. In the normal case, they are the minority. God is a great mathematician and it is left to us to understand his principles.

I personally hope that we return to the principle of quality, otherwise mankind will wipe out itself.