|
On August 12 2011 23:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:31 meegrean wrote: I don't think technocrats are going to make many decisions that would benefit the poor... You do realize that every major reform movement which benefits the poor is backed by academics? Why would technocrats care much about the poor when they could spend more resources on research and technological advancement?
|
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote: The closest example of technocracy in a country would be the current leadership in China.
Almost everyone of them have an engineering degree -_- and look how they turned out.
You do realize that most of China's problems are not caused by the current leadership in China but were already there? And just how far China has come since this technocracy came to power?
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote: A) The lure of power. It wouldn't stop anyone that wants to have that power to study in science instead of say law if science degree is more valued. Politicians like it or not probably excelled in their school years to get that far and don't call politicians dumb, they might make dumb decisions but it's unlikely that they are not intelligent.
In a technocracy, a science degree may get you power, but it's within a very narrowly defined scope and requires signicant time and energy investment to achieve. It's much worse in a democracy, where a politician can simply go to law school (which is easier than getting a doctorate). So the lure of power is probably dampened if anything.
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote: B) The lack of empathy. Scientists care little about your average citizens. Sometimes the populace do things that are against logic. Public mood can swing one way or another and a scientist is not equipped to deal with that unless he has prior experiences in political science which will end up like the system we have now. Scientists would have less patient for people's opinions when he consider himself smarter than them and a scientist is just as likely as the next person to be influenced by interest groups.
Lawyers also care little about your average citizens, beyond how those citizens might vote, and are more easily influenced by interest groups, since they don't have deeply held factual beliefs on many of the areas they vote on, unlike a technocrat.
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote: C) Lawyers and business people while do not make the best decisions all the time (or at all) is the closest we can get to get a group that is some what equipped with running a nation. Likely it or not, that is what we have now.
By all indications, China shows us that lawyers and businessmen are good at it in a general sense, but not the only ones who are capable, especially not in areas of technical expertise.
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote: D) We need good administrators and great decision makers which are things that no degree or knowledge can teach you. We need someone who is powerful and resourceful enough to muster support to implement what ever the nation needs.
We do. But they should also be required to listen to their expert advisors to some degree.
|
On August 12 2011 23:09 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:05 Traeon wrote: The more I read from the pro-technocracy people, the more I'm skeptical. The idea comes across as extremely authoritarian and is sold under the guise of a presumed intellectual superiority of the experts. I call rhetorical BS. You've been vehemently against it from your first post in the thread due to your anti-intellectual attitudes and failure to understand either technocracy or science.
You're only further illustrating my point.
|
I'm an engineer and I like the premises of a technocratic government, but I'm still skeptical regarding its viability in the near future. Scientists, economists, engineers, and whatever other specialists out there are fellow human beings, and once put into position of power and authority, are going to be a "politician" regardless of their professional field. How are the seats / power going to be distributed among the professions? How can the budget be balanced to serve all areas of interest, when the representatives are going to be pushing their respective fields with little or no regard to other fields?
Yes, I'd like to believe that the technocrats are going to be more educated than the Average Joe. It's no secret that it takes talent, skill, dedication, and effort to reach the forefronts of the various professions. However, moral education, human(/resource) management, ethics, and other "soft-skills" are not an integral part of the technical fields (especially post-undergrad where you pretty much only deal with your exclusive field of study). One may say, the directors and CEOs of large corporations and firms have proven their worth in both areas of technical and soft skill. Even if that's the case, wouldn't that bring corporate interests into politics? Elect the prolific professor who hasn't dealt with people outside his own research lab or the CEO of an international mega-firm?
My preference would be that scientific/technical expertise be introduced to the government in increments. We should continue incorporating more "soft" elements into sciences/engineering curriculum at higher levels of education. More people in the technical fields should take steps into political careers while cutting ties with the private corporate interests. Instead of being sidelined as consultants and advisers, I sincerely hope that the future holds technical experts in the forefront of challenges as government leaders.
|
Will this system Technocracy (same goes for democracy which have obviously failed) bring about peace? i.e. a life without conflict?
Because if it doesn't what use does it truly have, it will just be the same idea with a different sauce (different kind of people ruling over other people).
Can anyone answers this question?
|
On August 12 2011 23:00 Hermasaurus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:51 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 22:44 paradox_ wrote: Scientists and engineers aren't infallible or some how have more integrity than the average politician. Power corrupts and anyone in Academia will know they have their own politics in there. You give them power and it'll just turn into another shit show of disagreement that's a little more technically wordy.
There have been enough cases or research being stolen, papers being rejected by journals because the person on the board is doing the same research etc. Scientists are human, they're just specialized in a specific field of knowledge. Scientists and engineers aren't the equivalent of politicians in a technocracy. Rather, scientists and engineers are the equivalent of citizens, while leaders of the scientific community are equivalent to politicians. The idea is that citizens should not get to vote or elect representatives to vote on issues on which they have no knowledge or expertise. On August 12 2011 22:44 paradox_ wrote: Experts in science will disagree just as much as non-experts. False. Experts in science have a shared knoweldge base generally accept many foundational ideas even if they disagree on details. For example, most people seem to have a very wrong idea that there is disagreement about evolution, when scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution as fact and disagree only on details. To use a Starcraft analogy, professional Starcraft players agree on a lot more elements of strategy than noobs do, even if they have intense disagreements with each other over the details. You seem to believe that Scientists and other experts of transcended past human emotion onto a platform of sheer objectivity. Which is wrong. The problem with any government is human emotion. No one is exempt from ego, envy, or greed. Being a scientist doesn't assert any higher level of morality than the next person. Which means everyone is capable of corruption, regardless of expertise. But the thing is morality is subjective, and so on, and so forth. As well as corruption. Just the same as a civilizations success, or a persons. Success isn't objective. You can't suggest that technocracy is objectively better than any other form of politics. The pros and cons of any policy varies through the eye of the beholder. Actually to say that something is objectively better than something else you just need objective(measurable) criteria. You can argue about validity/applicability of the criteria, but not about objectivity in that case.
Also morality is pretty objective.
|
On August 12 2011 23:44 meegrean wrote: Why would technocrats care much about the poor when they could spend more resources on research and technological advancement?
*sigh* Despite how the name sounds, 'technocrat' does not mean 'technology-oriented'. It means that experts are in charge of their respective fields.
Economics, sociology, urban development, education, philosophy, ethics, etc. are all fields of knowledge with experts that care about things like social inequality.
In fact, the only reason you even know about things like the growing wealth gap is because of those experts. They're also the only ones presenting solutions.
On August 12 2011 23:48 Traeon wrote: You're only further illustrating my point.
Go away. It's clear you don't have any actual logical arguments or actual relevant information to this thread besides your unsubstantiated opinion.
|
Sunprince
I think one problem is that the knowledge of experts in their respective fields are usually irrelevant at the policy level. To take medicine for example: A doctor might be the most knowledgeable person in the world regarding some specific treatment but would this knowledge give him any relevant insights into how medical care is to be supplied?
|
On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote: The closest example of technocracy in a country would be the current leadership in China.
Almost everyone of them have an engineering degree -_- and look how they turned out.
The major problems are:
A) The lure of power. It wouldn't stop anyone that wants to have that power to study in science instead of say law if science degree is more valued. Politicians like it or not probably excelled in their school years to get that far and don't call politicians dumb, they might make dumb decisions but it's unlikely that they are not intelligent.
B) The lack of empathy. Scientists care little about your average citizens. Sometimes the populace do things that are against logic. Public mood can swing one way or another and a scientist is not equipped to deal with that unless he has prior experiences in political science which will end up like the system we have now. Scientists would have less patient for people's opinions when he consider himself smarter than them and a scientist is just as likely as the next person to be influenced by interest groups.
C) Lawyers and business people while do not make the best decisions all the time (or at all) is the closest we can get to get a group that is some what equipped with running a nation. Likely it or not, that is what we have now.
D) We need good administrators and great decision makers which are things that no degree or knowledge can teach you. We need someone who is powerful and resourceful enough to muster support to implement what ever the nation needs.
E) I do think that there should be a functional and political separation in positions. Say for I.T ministers, there should be one person elected by his peers and one that is appointed by the political bloc, there should be a vote called on all major decisions in the actual research / industry that the decision will effect but this is not almost possible due to budget and time.
People should understand that politics is not always about doing the best thing. It often comes down to compromises (for interest groups) and budget.
This is a good example of someone who doesn't understand science. All scientists have a lack of empathy? Care less about people? Less patience? Come on...You're close to talking about psychopaths. You can hear a lot from outspoken scientists about how science is about advancing the human species, not restraining it to "cold" logic.
"A scientist is just as likely as the next to be influenced by interest groups" Well, ok. But then why would you want someone who doesn't use science, someone who uses rhetoric and populism and fear mongering, to be in control and make decisions?
C) Good point, they don't make the best decisions, except where's your reasoning? Lawyers and business people make decisions based on who pays them. That's why the US is in the mess it is now. Scientists would make decisions based on science.
D) So someone can't be taught decision making, or administration? No knowledge at all can teach you anything about that? Right..So it's just an inborn trait? Then why pick some group of lawyers, when scientists would produce the same result? Your last sentence is besides this discussion, the point of the technocracy would be to do what's best, and not due to special interest groups(racist, religious, corporatist, etc)
|
On August 12 2011 23:44 meegrean wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:34 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 23:31 meegrean wrote: I don't think technocrats are going to make many decisions that would benefit the poor... You do realize that every major reform movement which benefits the poor is backed by academics? Why would technocrats care much about the poor when they could spend more resources on research and technological advancement? Why would anyone care about the poor?
|
On August 12 2011 23:51 Malmis wrote: I think one problem is that the knowledge of experts in their respective fields are usually irrelevant at the policy level. To take medicine for example: A doctor might be the most knowledgeable person in the world regarding some specific treatment but would this knowledge give him any relevant insights into how medical care is to be supplied?
This is actually due to confusion about the field of expertise in question.
You're right that a doctor would not be the most knowledgeable in how medical care is supplied. But we also have professionals in the fields of public health and health administration. Those would be the relevant experts here, not the doctors.
In a more technocratic government, we would listen to public health and health administration experts when we enact something such as health care reform. In our system, Congress mostly ignored them and instead did what was politically expedient a couple years ago.
|
On August 12 2011 22:39 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 20:50 Jibba wrote:I've already bit off more than I want to chew today in the Bear thread and a few more places, so I'll just say 'no', and then leave you with this essay by George Orwell. + Show Spoiler + George Orwell
What is Science?
In last week's Tribune, there was an interesting letter from Mr. J. Stewart Cook, in which he suggested that the best way of avoiding the danger of a ‘scientific hierarchy’ would be to see to it that every member of the general public was, as far as possible, scientifically educated. At the same time, scientists should be brought out of their isolation and encouraged to take a greater part in politics and administration.
As a general statement, I think most of us would agree with this, but I notice that, as usual, Mr. Cook does not define science, and merely implies in passing that it means certain exact sciences whose experiments can be made under laboratory conditions. Thus, adult education tends ‘to neglect scientific studies in favour of literary, economic and social subjects’, economics and sociology not being regarded as branches of science. Apparently. This point is of great importance. For the word science is at present used in at least two meanings, and the whole question of scientific education is obscured by the current tendency to dodge from one meaning to the other.
Science is generally taken as meaning either (a) the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc., or (b) a method of thought which obtains verifiable results by reasoning logically from observed fact. If you ask any scientist, or indeed almost any educated person, ‘What is science?’ you are likely to get an answer approximating to (b). In everyday life, however, both in speaking and in writing, when people say ‘science’ they mean (a). Science means something that happens in a laboratory: the very word calls up a picture of graphs, test-tubes, balances, Bunsen burners, microscopes. A biologist, and astronomer, perhaps a psychologist or a mathematician is described as a ‘man of science’: no one would think of applying this term to a statesman, a poet, a journalist or even a philosopher. And those who tell us that the young must be scientifically educated mean, almost invariably, that they should be taught more about radioactivity, or the stars, or the physiology or their own bodies, rather than that they should be taught to think more exactly.
This confusion of meaning, which is partly deliberate, has in it a great danger. Implied in the demand for more scientific education is the claim that if one has been scientifically trained one's approach to all subjects will be more intelligent than if one had had no such training. A scientist's political opinions, it is assumed, his opinions on sociological questions, on morals, on philosophy, perhaps even on the arts, will be more valuable than those of a layman. The world, in other words, would be a better place if the scientists were in control of it. But a ‘scientist’, as we have just seen, means in practice a specialist in one of the exact sciences. It follows that a chemist or a physicist, as such, is politically more intelligent than a poet or a lawyer, as such. And, in fact, there are already millions of people who do believe this.
But is it really true that a ‘scientist’, in this narrower sense, is any likelier than other people to approach non-scientific problems in an objective way? There is not much reason for thinking so. Take one simple test — the ability to withstand nationalism. It is often loosely said that ‘Science is international’, but in practice the scientific workers of all countries line up behind their own governments with fewer scruples than are felt by the writers and the artists. The German scientific community, as a whole, made no resistance to Hitler. Hitler may have ruined the long-term prospects of German science, but there were still plenty of gifted men to do the necessary research on such things as synthetic oil, jet planes, rocket projectiles and the atomic bomb. Without them the German war machine could never have been built up.
On the other hand, what happened to German literature when the Nazis came to power? I believe no exhaustive lists have been published, but I imagine that the number of German scientists — Jews apart — who voluntarily exiled themselves or were persecuted by the règime was much smaller than the number of writers and journalists. More sinister than this, a number of German scientists swallowed the monstrosity of ‘racial science’. You can find some of the statements to which they set their names in Professor Brady's The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism.
But, in slightly different forms, it is the same picture everywhere. In England, a large proportion of our leading scientists accept the structure of capitalist society, as can be seen from the comparative freedom with which they are given knighthoods, baronetcies and even peerages. Since Tennyson, no English writer worth reading — one might, perhaps, make an exception of Sir Max Beerbohm — has been given a title. And those English scientists who do not simply accept the status quo are frequently Communists, which means that, however intellectually scrupulous they may be in their own line of work, they are ready to be uncritical and even dishonest on certain subjects. The fact is that a mere training in one or more of the exact sciences, even combined with very high gifts, is no guarantee of a humane or sceptical outlook. The physicists of half a dozen great nations, all feverishly and secretly working away at the atomic bomb, are a demonstration of this. But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated? On the contrary! All it means is that scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history. Its probable effect on the average human being would be to narrow the range of his thoughts and make him more than ever contemptuous of such knowledge as he did not possess: and his political reactions would probably be somewhat less intelligent than those of an illiterate peasant who retained a few historical memories and a fairly sound aesthetic sense.
Clearly, scientific education ought to mean the implanting of a rational, sceptical, experimental habit of mind. It ought to mean acquiring a method — a method that can be used on any problem that one meets — and not simply piling up a lot of facts. Put it in those words, and the apologist of scientific education will usually agree. Press him further, ask him to particularize, and somehow it always turns out that scientific education means more attention to the sciences, in other words — more facts. The idea that science means a way of looking at the world, and not simply a body of knowledge, is in practice strongly resisted. I think sheer professional jealousy is part of the reason for this. For if science is simply a method or an attitude, so that anyone whose thought-processes are sufficiently rational can in some sense be described as a scientist — what then becomes of the enormous prestige now enjoyed by the chemist, the physicist, etc. and his claim to be somehow wiser than the rest of us?
A hundred years ago, Charles Kingsley described science as ‘making nasty smell in a laboratory’. A year or two ago a young industrial chemist informed me, smugly, that he ‘could not see what was the use of poetry’. So the pendulum swings to and fro, but it does not seem to me that one attitude is any better than the other. At the moment, science is on the upgrade, and so we hear, quite rightly, the claim that the masses should be scientifically educated: we do not hear, as we ought, the counter-claim that the scientists themselves would benefit by a little education. Just before writing this, I saw in an American magazine the statement that a number of British and American physicists refused from the start to do research on the atomic bomb, well knowing what use would be made of it. Here you have a group of same men in the middle of a world of lunatics. And though no names were published, I think it would be a safe guess that all of them were people with some kind of general cultural background, some acquaintance with history or literature or the arts — in short, people whose interests were not, in the current sense of the word, purely scientific. + Show Spoiler +Orwell's text is full of conjecture's without supporting data. Also it has no bearing on discussion if technocracy(there are many flavors) would be improvement upon current system. Noone is probably saying it would be a perfect system.
Just to point out some problems I have with his arguments. He brings an example of scientists vs writers(+..) in Nazi Germany. Not that he actually has any data. In Eastern bloc the situation was in my opinion (again without any data, just my limited observation) somewhat different. But in general I think the situation is much more different. Scientists are just much less interested in politics and all the drama, they want to be left alone. So I would argue that even if he is right that there was more writers/artists/... that actively opposed nazism there was also more writers/artists/... that actively helped nazism. And since we are talking about opinions I will put forward my hypothesis. The way that writers/artists/... are easily recruited for a cause is more a bad thing than a good thing. As they are easily swayed by extremes on either side. From my own experience nations that have somewhat "cultural apathy" in national psyche are in the end much more peaceful. In some circumstances like defending against aggression it is a bad attribute, but in peaceful times it leads to less extremes, less drama. That was kind of off-topic, but shows why I dislike his argument.
That was just one of the problems with his opinion.
It is interesting that you can dismiss Orwell's concerns by re-labeling them conjectures and then attacking only one of his supporting points. From my point of view as the reader this is both intellectually indolent and a feeble response.
Orwell appears to be mostly in line with my opinion. Scientists have very specialized knowledge, and if government were able to be efficiently compartmentalized into such specific domains, scientists would make good leaders. This is not the case, however. Good leaders by necessity need to be multi-disciplinary, empathic, experts in the human condition, dynamic, flexible, willing to compromise, etc. I would assert that you do not want any of these qualities in most scientists, notably excepting the obvious.
Scientists, on the other hand, seem to make excellent advisors, in that their point of view as people who rigidly (dogmatically?) pursue the truth tends to give a healthy perspective in a decision making body or individual.
Moreover, I would like to say that the nature of your whole post is an excellent example of why technocracy is an undesirable political model. You ask for hard data in what can only amount to an NP complete problem. The discussion will absolutely have to be done in a qualitative manner for great stretches at a time. What great leaders made their decisions by the abacus? How do you measure "great leader"? When and where possible it is nice to have hard data that strongly indicates an acceptable solution, but while scientists try to do very little without 'hard data', I fear that for the rest of at least my life we will need leaders who can make excellent decisions without scientific rigor. Thus, scientists who are trained to think in very constrained ways probably will make for bad leaders.
|
On August 12 2011 23:52 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:44 meegrean wrote:On August 12 2011 23:34 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 23:31 meegrean wrote: I don't think technocrats are going to make many decisions that would benefit the poor... You do realize that every major reform movement which benefits the poor is backed by academics? Why would technocrats care much about the poor when they could spend more resources on research and technological advancement? Why would anyone care about the poor? Because the poor = the majority of this world population and if there are more poor people the world is in a bad state.
Is it hard to comprehend that?
if you are poor in this world you simply don't have any physical or mental security try imagining that my friend how would your live look like if you were insecure of even being able to get food on a day to day basis, wouldn't you loath the system in which you live?
|
On August 12 2011 22:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:44 paradox_ wrote: Scientists and engineers aren't infallible or some how have more integrity than the average politician. Power corrupts and anyone in Academia will know they have their own politics in there. You give them power and it'll just turn into another shit show of disagreement that's a little more technically wordy.
There have been enough cases or research being stolen, papers being rejected by journals because the person on the board is doing the same research etc. Scientists are human, they're just specialized in a specific field of knowledge. Scientists and engineers aren't the equivalent of politicians in a technocracy. Rather, scientists and engineers are the equivalent of citizens, while leaders of the scientific community are equivalent to politicians. The idea is that citizens should not get to vote or elect representatives to vote on issues on which they have no knowledge or expertise. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:44 paradox_ wrote: Experts in science will disagree just as much as non-experts. False. Experts in science have a shared knoweldge base generally accept many foundational ideas even if they disagree on details. For example, most people seem to have a very wrong idea that there is disagreement about evolution, when scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution as fact and disagree only on details. To use a Starcraft analogy, professional Starcraft players agree on a lot more elements of strategy than noobs do, even if they have intense disagreements with each other over the details.
The disagreements on matters of science aren't the issue. When there are limited resources, there are always going to be disagreements on how to distribute those resources, regardless of who gets to decide. You put in scientists in charge of distributing funds within the sciences, you're going to get biologists vs physicists etc. Who gets to decide whether cancer research or particle physics is more important for the human condition and progress. No scientist is an expert on both, and even if one existed, there's always going to be bias just as there would be for any normal politician. You make it sound as if politicians flip a coin to decide. They have experts and read reports etc. Even during a thesis defence the committee is not necessarily going to be an expert on the topic. They go over it just as a politician would go over it and make a judgement on whether it is valid or not, deserves funding or not etc.
You can't use SC2 as an analogy at all because in SC2 choices made in a game only affect 1 person. The choices that result from this affect a larger amount. In SC2 you can discuss as much as you want and you can repeatedly try different things and show results. In the case of government, its far more complex and you don't have a "New Game" button.
Somehow thinking a group of scientists are going to be more rational than a group of politicians is silly. Scientists can be just as extremist as a a religious extremist. In the matters of government and leadership there is no formula. It just depends on the individuals. And the individuals are a representation of the population. There is a popular belief a lot of senators/politicians aren't anywhere are religious as they make themselves out to be but for them to be elected, they have to pretend. Their personalities and moral codes whether they are pretend/fake/real/honest/whatever are a representation of the population's overall personality and moral code (in a working democracy anyways)
Edit: Don't think I"m somehow saying scientists are evil folk. I'm personally an engineer who spent time in academia. All I'm saying is, expecting different results out of scientists/engineers is going to result in disappointment. Human behaviour is the problem, not politicians graduating from Harvard Law instead of MIT.
|
On August 12 2011 23:44 meegrean wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:34 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 23:31 meegrean wrote: I don't think technocrats are going to make many decisions that would benefit the poor... You do realize that every major reform movement which benefits the poor is backed by academics? Why would technocrats care much about the poor when they could spend more resources on research and technological advancement? Because they are human ? Also technocracy does not mean pursuit of sciences at all cost. It just means "rule of experts".
|
basically anything would be better than democracy
|
who do you want to be ruled by?
engineers? marketing people or politicians?
engineers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>politicians>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>marketing monkeys.
|
On August 12 2011 23:59 lofung wrote: who do you want to be ruled by?
engineers? marketing people or politicians?
engineers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>politicians>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>marketing monkeys.
how about not being ruled... ever considered that option???
|
On August 12 2011 23:58 paradox_ wrote: The disagreements on matters of science aren't the issue. When there are limited resources, there are always going to be disagreements on how to distribute those resources, regardless of who gets to decide. You put in scientists in charge of distributing funds within the sciences, you're going to get biologists vs physicists etc. Who gets to decide whether cancer research or particle physics is more important for the human condition and progress. No scientist is an expert on both, and even if one existed, there's always going to be bias just as there would be for any normal politician.
Distribution of funds is not a biology or physics issue. That's an economics one.
On August 12 2011 23:58 paradox_ wrote: You can't use SC2 as an analogy at all because in SC2 choices made in a game only affect 1 person. The choices that result from this affect a larger amount. In SC2 you can discuss as much as you want and you can repeatedly try different things and show results. In the case of government, its far more complex and you don't have a "New Game" button.
The point I'm making is that with any subject, experts agree on more things than noobs do. This is because noobs believe in things that are objectively wrong, whereas experts understand the scientific consensus and instead disagree on the edges of science and new research.
On August 12 2011 23:58 paradox_ wrote: Somehow thinking a group of scientists are going to be more rational than a group of politicians is silly. Scientists can be just as extremist as a a religious extremist.
This sounds so ridiculous that I'm gonna ignore it and assume you mistyped that incredibly wack couple of sentences.
On August 12 2011 23:58 paradox_ wrote: In the matters of government and leadership there is no formula. It just depends on the individuals. And the individuals are a representation of the population. There is a popular belief a lot of senators/politicians aren't anywhere are religious as they make themselves out to be but for them to be elected, they have to pretend. Their personalities and moral codes whether they are pretend/fake/real/honest/whatever are a representation of the population's overall personality and moral code (in a working democracy anyways)
So the question is, do you think it's a good thing that politicians represent the population in this regard? When people have utterly incoherent moral philosophies that they don't even live up to? When they want their nation to oppress others because their thousand-year-old religious book tells them to?
People are idiots; I don't know why you would want leaders who represent that. There's a reason why business executives aren't chosen to represent the rank-and-file employees and their values, you know.
|
On August 12 2011 23:59 Effay wrote: basically anything would be better than democracy
Live in a monarchy where you aren't in the favoured class and then say something like "basically anything would be better than a monarchy". Live in a totalitarian state where you disagree with what the dictator wants and then repeat that.
At least in a democratic society you're free to say statements like this. I wonder if you've lived outside a democracy at all where you're not in the favoured class/group of people.
|
|
|
|