You are wrong on the point that essential decisions can be made without history. You don’t know the first thing about what knowledge actually is, and I asked you that because I didn’t think you could answer and it confirmed for me that you are uneducated.

You didn’t do the barest minimum of work on this, your opinion is uneducated and you are being disrespectful.

Can? How? Go read any intro book on epistemology. You are talking out of your ass and it’s disrespectful to everyone that actually takes knowledge and human progress seriously.

Nah. Define your axioms like I said. If you won’t, you can’t.

You apparently have no idea

Define “tainted”, “wrong”(your word I never used that word) and how the context of history is not required to detect such things.

Define what we know in a way that doesn’t have a historical basis.

That’s a very uneducated take, and shows that you don’t understand how access to information can be changed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

Alright, thanks for confirming my opinion.

Things don’t happen that way. “Can, may, could” means that there will be pockets of people that don’t subscribe to the ideology and undermine it.

That “could” is doing a lot of work for that premise. We are currently structured as an amalgam of disparate chains of systems interacting with each other in loosely defined ways.

If you want to take the ability of sovereign entities to self determine, then sure we “could” organize in this other way.

But we don’t have a god emperor of earth, so we will need to rely on this loose consensus instead of a dictated one.

That’s a very uneducated take, and shows that you don’t understand how access to information can be changed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

Unbiased, well cited repositories of information are essential.