When our ancestors first changed from hunter gatherers to agriculturalists not only did their way of life improve as they settled, but it meant that they could live in larger groups. This was the beginning of group knowledge which was far more extensive than that available to the individual groups of nomads who went before them.

Today as we live in bigger groups in ever growing cities, this group knowledge is escalating at an ever growing speed. Trips to the moon and instantaneous  communication across the world are examples of this. When I compare my lifestyle with that of my parents I am aware of massive changes just in one generation.

I wonder if we are aware of this phenomena and are taking steps to deal with it? No one brain has any hope of knowing anything other than a very small part of not only present knowledge, but also that which lies ahead, even in the next 10 years. Should we be addressing the situation? Currently we just seem to shrug our shoulders and put it in the too hard basket.

These thoughts have been brought on by major elections this year in both Australia and the United States, and possibly other countries as well. I have expressed concern before about the way candidates are chosen, particularly in countries which have developed mainly two party systems, which in themselves restrict alternative policy thinking.

So many of our leaders, and would be leaders, seem to feel that if they went to University after leaving school then their education is complete for life. This may have been appropriate thinking at the time, probably 30 or more years ago, with the last generation, but is it appropriate today at a time of enormously accelerating gains in knowledge? There are quiet mutterings about lifelong learning but few seem to believe in it, including our political representatives.

Are ideas and information which were appropriate when our leaders completed their education really applicable today for a very different world? Doesn’t this explain why those who seek election to run their country usually seem woefully inadequate for the job, particularly when their ideas have to be constrained within a largely two party system.

Maybe we could find people who don’t necessarily want to be part of the ruling group but who can recognise what is happening to us and suggest arrangements which would enable our rapidly growing knowledge base to be available to, and part of, group leadership at a national and international level. Could we create an international knowledge bank available to leaders facing either national or international problems, which in today’s world are often indistinguishable? Is the current large gap between current knowledge and country, and world, leadership, causing our lack of ability to solve so many of the problems confronting the world’s peoples, both within national boundaries and at a world level? A current problem we seem unable to solve, or even foresee, is the movement of so many migrants and refugees across the world.

Should tackling the problem of providing access to new knowledge be the contribution the current world’s population make to those following us, part of our 21st century legacy? We could do much worse, including our present ‘continue as we are’ policy, or should I call it the ‘muddle through as you are’ policy?