[SoylentGreen]

SonartSo? You asked. Besides, it's the most clear and well planned government I could think of.

And differs in what way from constitutions in other countries?

Who knows, but obviously the electorate can't. You claim that governments are moving towards decentralization. I don't see it. They may be moving toward DEMOCRACY, as an check to centralized power, but not the elimination of it. What I see is a movement towards Socialism... government as the check to the worst excesses of capitalism. The U.S. may be well behind Europe in this, but we're still far more centralized than 100, or even 50 years ago, with more an more regulation and oversight being demanded all the time.

Wrong I did not claim the government was moving towards decentralisation. I claimed that the possible future path of social evolution leads towards decentralisation of government.

Yes your right , things are moving slowly towards socialism, and yes it is a check towards the worst of capitilism.

Basic evolutionary steps : From the present and future imbalances created by capitilism, remembering that capitilism creates class division which is the main pivot of social revolution, towards socialism which is the system of leveling out the class system towards a more even playing field for all.

On the other hand, the next step, the move toward anarchist Marxism has been tried... and failed. When the incentive to excel is not longer wealth, then the exceptional seek out another currency... power. And power corrupts far worse than money. Just look at Stalin and Mao.

Failure of practical attempts to create possible societies is not indicative of the failure of the theory. In fact it only emphasis the fact that society must follow along certain paths and wait for all conditions to be right before it can really happen.

Democratic and elected governments did not really work until the industrial revolution was in full swing and the power basis shifted from land owning royalty towards business owning capitalists. Until then those that tried it were failed attempts.

What breaking system would that be? Armageddon? Or some theoretical concept that we have yet to see, but navel gazing theorists assure us will take place.

We only assimilate what we use.

Based on events, the world population will double again within another generation, to 10 billion mouths. That's a lot of stuff people will need to use. Seems an ironic discussion, given your handle. Or is there another magical, theoretical breaking system that we assume will save us.

No, the breaking system is personal, in that each of us only assimilate what we need.
I do not need to know every facet of a computer to use one. Technology only advances if there is a use for it. The concept of electricity has been around for centuries, even the aztecs had apparently made primitive batteries. But without a use for it it never caught on. Farming based populations don't need artificial light, industrial societies do.
As for population, or any form of disaster that might be approaching the human race.
Very few philosophers , as far as i know, stop their treatise on future possibilities to suddenly inject into the theory that a natural disaster will occur to change things.
It could be that all the philosophies are wrong and that man is to stupid to survive,

But someone should, shouldn't they

That sounds like a plea for the existence of god.