Should Scientists/Engineers be our leaders?

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

The HCS you're referring to.

Right. You said this:

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

It [the HCS] is a committee of scientists who have vast knowledge on matters...

...which is incorrect. Where's the confusion?

[Hawkingbird]

In context I was saying that some may see that the HSC SHOULD be a committee of scientists who SHOULD make the ultimate decision. It was an ideal, not my perception of reality.

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

In context I was saying that some may see that the HSC SHOULD be a committee of scientists who SHOULD make the ultimate decision. It was an ideal, not my perception of reality.

I don't think anybody would have gotten that from what you had written.

[Hawkingbird]

So you're speaking for everybody?

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

So you're speaking for everybody?

I didn't say, "Nobody got that from what you had written." I said, "I don't think anybody would have gotten that from what you had written." Do you not understand the difference?

Alternate Answer: Yes. Because I'm a ****ing leader.

[Schlosser85]

Dial it back a notch, people.

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

Dial it back a notch, people.

Which part of that exchange was too much?

[Schlosser85]

The overall heated tone. Nothing over the line, which is why I just commented. Don't make it hard, guys, just keep it civil.

[Anita18]

As a scientist, I say no.

It completely depends on the person. I know scientists who hate the doing of research/benchwork because it's lonely and tedious, and crave management. So those kinds of scientists should be leaders.

Whereas I know other scientists (including my boss, hilariously) who prefer doing research to the machinations of politics. In fact, in a college seminar class that was populated mostly by science majors, it was asked if we went into science to escape politics and almost everyone raised their hands. So there are definitely more loner/introvert scientists than management scientists. And a great majority of the engineers I know (and I'm Asian - I know a lot!) are the loner/introvert sort.

Considering how few people go into science (engineering is even worse), if we made a science/engineering background a requirement of our politicians, there simply wouldn't be enough to go around.

I don't think we should require that our leaders be scientists or engineers. But we should require that they TRUST the findings of scientists and engineers. And non-scientists really should keep their grubby hands off science, ie don't teach creationism in a goddamn science class.

[Hawkingbird]

Dr Evo, I think you're getting a bit too enthusiastic I accept my ability to argue is weak and my points are somewhat undeveloped. What can I say? I'm learning, I'm still young! I'm not going to be intimidated however

[Thundercrack85]

The fact that intelligence and social ineptitude go hand in hand probably means we won't see scientists becoming the ruling class any time soon.

Least not until they create a robot army to conquer the world.

[redhawk23]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

The idea that "leaders" must "lead" may itself be an ideology.

I'm not sure how deeply I buy it, but some scientists contend if everyone is provided for you basically have no crime.

I'm somewhat unconvinced of that.

Rape, for example, is probably a byproduct of our nature. Sometimes I feel like theft and murder are unnatural, and more byproducts of monetary desperation. Humans condition themselves to survive, but with rape, it all goes back to that basic need to procreate. Everyone desires for their genetics to be passed on. And sexual selection in no way favors everyone equally. So there's genetics that want to be passed on, and they don't much care how. So eventually you'd still think there'd be a guy who wants a girl, and she doesn't want him, and he rapes her.

Outside of simulated sex on command, I don't see what science could be to eliminate rape, and even then, I think people would still seek out the real thing.

Also, on top of this, even Democracy and modern secular societies, with good economies can't eliminate rape, and even worse, it goes widely unreported and often events that are legitimate rape are written off by both the attacker and the victim (I was drunk, I agreed to let him in, He's just aggressive, etc...).

Science a Technology based societies like the Venus Project and whatever that other one is, I forget, they all say on the websites and interviews that resource based economies would be "crime free" and have "no need for courts". While I may agree courts aren't always models for justice, I'd need to see a better argument than "crime just goes away". That's a little pie-in-the-sky for me. It's great on paper, but if their wrong then you have a civilization with crimes and no courts. I think that part of the theory should be refined.

Nor can they eliminate murder. Rape isn't anymore "natural" than murder is. In our culture rape and violence are seen as viable options to get what people want.

In both cases there are major cultural forces at play. While there are of course laws against it, and people of course see such actions as totally reprehensible, they are not actually deviant behaviors. Rather they are a superlative version of values our society upholds or otherwise alternative means of carrying out and achieving those values.

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

Dr Evo, I think you're getting a bit too enthusiastic I accept my ability to argue is weak and my points are somewhat undeveloped. What can I say? I'm learning, I'm still young! I'm not going to be intimidated however

I'm more concerned with reading comprehension at this point. I know you're 15, but if you're going to attempt to debate, I'm gonna hold you to higher standards. No intimidation intended.

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Anita18

As a scientist, I say no.

It completely depends on the person. I know scientists who hate the doing of research/benchwork because it's lonely and tedious, and crave management. So those kinds of scientists should be leaders.

Whereas I know other scientists (including my boss, hilariously) who prefer doing research to the machinations of politics. In fact, in a college seminar class that was populated mostly by science majors, it was asked if we went into science to escape politics and almost everyone raised their hands. So there are definitely more loner/introvert scientists than management scientists. And a great majority of the engineers I know (and I'm Asian - I know a lot!) are the loner/introvert sort.

You racist.

Originally Posted by Anita18

Considering how few people go into science (engineering is even worse), if we made a science/engineering background a requirement of our politicians, there simply wouldn't be enough to go around.

I don't think we should require that our leaders be scientists or engineers. But we should require that they TRUST the findings of scientists and engineers. And non-scientists really should keep their grubby hands off science, ie don't teach creationism in a goddamn science class.

[Schlosser85]

Avoid personal condescension.

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

Avoid personal condescension.

My own personal Navi.

In any case, if she's going to make comments like this:

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

So you're speaking for everybody?

...based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what I've written, then I think my comment is deserved.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

Nor can they eliminate murder. Rape isn't anymore "natural" than murder is. In our culture rape and violence are seen as viable options to get what people want.

In both cases there are major cultural forces at play. While there are of course laws against it, and people of course see such actions as totally reprehensible, they are not actually deviant behaviors. Rather they are a superlative version of values our society upholds or otherwise alternative means of carrying out and achieving those values.

Just because there are laws against it doesn't mean that EVERYONE is gonna follow those laws. Laws and culture do not necessarily go hand in hand. Science cannot fix culture.

And rape is not about sex, unless you're talking about the drunken kind of rape where both parties legally can't consent. Rape is about power over the woman. Rapists go after women they know they can physically dominate. You think a rapist out specifically looking for prey, or a guy who really wants to get some and won't take no for an answer, goes after Gina Carano? Hell no.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evo

You racist.

Just speaking from personal experience. But to be fair, it's mostly because my parents are engineers and we just hang in those circles.

[Hawkingbird]

I'm learning to argue Dr.Evo. I'm allowed to make my point, even if the points are undeveloped. This is not a formal debate, allow me to learn

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

I'm learning to argue Dr.Evo. I'm allowed to make my point, even if the points are undeveloped. This is not a formal debate, allow me to learn

1) You're still missing the point.

2) I'm not stopping you from learning.

[Hawkingbird]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evo

1) You're still missing the point.

2) I'm not stopping you from learning.

How so? And I never said that, I said I'm allowed to argue my point.

[Doctor Evo]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

How so?

My problem wasn't with underdeveloped points. My problem was with the fact that you blatantly misinterpreted what I said.

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

And I never said that, I said I'm allowed to argue my point.

You said, "allow me to learn," which implies that I somehow have some magical ability to prevent you from learning, or that I was otherwise hindering the process.

Magic isn't real, H, no matter what the acid is telling you. Put down the drugs and walk away. I said walk away!

[Alex_Spider]

Um...why would we need some kind of leader in the first place..? Really if you think about it the necesity for a leader or a government comes when people cannot produce on their own food, shelter, clothing etc and so a group of people must lay down rules, laws to leave them dependent forever on coorporations, market and so on for profit reasons. I am pretty sure soon in the future we will have so advanced tech in our homes where we will construct matter from atoms to anything we need.

Anyway here's some interesting links that may take us into new societies like featured in Star Trek.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrN99RELqwo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KphWsnhZ4Ag

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will...rst-warp-drive

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I'm actually not convinced you need Government though.

One truism Government constantly tries to sell is certain "-isms" produce better results in terms of inventing new technology, when in fact, access to information is about the only thing that is needed. Humans are naturally inquisitive, this isn't something brought about by the desire for money. Humans are born with a natural inclination to find out who they are. Racism, religion, celebrity worship, the desire for monetary compensation, that's all taught. So really I do think it's only a matter of time before technology outstrips the need Governance, or even an economy. Because once we see we're all human, and aren't being monopolized by the interests of the most dogmatic of our society, they won't be able to trick us into playing their games anymore, and we'll still be inventing things to change our society for the better.

Bingo!