Politics is a failed system and so long as the world has politics, this planet will remain in the dark ages. Science has given the world everything but has absolutely zero say on the direction of the human race; Banks and the egotists who support and operate them keep running all of us into the ground, time and time again.
What do you think would happen if current politics was disbanded and scientists took over?
I think it would be quite a cold, rational world...much like what we have today, which is an attempt at the ultimate triumph of scientific Enlightenment rationalism run by smart people from Harvard/Yale/Princeton/MIT/Chicago...economists, political scientists, biologists, lawyers (legal scientists) behind the very banks and govt agencies you're talking about. The political show we see on TV is just the game they play to setup the structure of the "rule by smart people."
A more extreme example of the rule by scientists...the 3rd Reich. Hitler was just the propagandist in front of the team of scientists in pursuit of better evolution, better allocation of resources, elimination of inefficiencies and surplus people, torturous medical research on the damned, etc.
I'd rather have Gandhi any day...or my loving grandmother for that matter...rather than yet another devotee of Enlightenment rationalism. The key is the heart, not the mind.
I echo Strabes' sentiments. I do not want anyone "running" the world for that matter. You talk of scientists as if they could take on the role of politics without becoming politicians, but that, I'm afraid, is impossible. What's that thing they say about power - "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? I've never heard "except for scientists" after that statement.
We would still have to have "UnderDog to Save the Day !"
Cool... does that mean I get to be "Secretary of Flying Automobiles"?
Anyway, sad to say neither science or engineering is free of politics, whether it comes from within the scientific community or imposed on it from without. Some in the scientific community take to politics disturbingly well and live and breathe bureaucracy, and can be just as stubborn and resistant to change as any actual politician. I can't say how many times I've had to postpone doing any actual work because of pointless politics and bureaucracy. I would have more to say on that, but I have all these TPS reports to file...
Hear, hear! Well said . . . Concise, and dead on.
I'm willing to let Strabes' grandma have a go at being in charge.
By the way, welcome to the website T1A.
Oh gosh, you're so wrong!
A number of theoretical physicists (OK, only one aspect of science) believe in 'a God' because of the beauty of the natural World (to include the structure of the Universe). Chirs is a scientist but would you exclude his measured vews on the basis of his 'rationality'? NO!
Science IS. The way it is used, in the absence of a definitive, is an INTERPRETATION! The 3rd Reich was NOT a rule by scientists, it was a slanted INTERPRETATION by a ruling political elite (ring any bells?) of certain aspects of science! Phrenology was an interpretation (now discredited, but at the time an attempt to interpret known aspects on measurable head measurements). Science measures, interpretation interprets (if that's not tautological!).
If we think of the current issue of the Cap and Trade - we have the 'science', which is ALL WE KNOW GIVEN THE CURRENT AVAILABLE MEASURED OR MEASURABLE DATA, and the interpretation, which is the potential trade in the CandT Credits.
What's important are the timeless values, morals and standards that are promoted...making the individual and ultimately society better.
It has nothing to do with a person's profession...there are good and bad in all.
I would contend that science IS NOT. There is nothing more relative than science. What IS, is absolute.
Albert Einstein once said...
“People love chopping wood. In this activity one immediately sees results.”
If he was still here with us…I’d vote for him to run the world!
…but I don’t think he’d accept!
I don't think the issue is Scientists themselves. The issue is that one group of "smart people" are not better than another group of "smart people". Any group that thinks they're better than the other to "rule" the masses is a bad idea.
Is a society designed by scientists but there are no "rulers". I personally think the idea is outstanding. It's not plausible in my lifetime but I hope a generation or two down the road we'll see something like this.....cheers.
Welcome to the board T1A!
Type1, you may be interested in the concept of demarchy, or rule via randomly selected decision makers from a pool of qualified individuals, underpinned by a permanent state infrastructure. The ancient greeks did it this way for a while.
Demarchy has featured in a number of science fiction novels, particularly those by Alistair Reynolds, and it has wikipedia page.
Demarchy has the ring of the kind of society scientists and engineers would construct given the chance.
I think a look at our most recently appointed science czar is appropriate here:
Hmmm . . . . . This is the kind of thinking that results from the intellect being untempered by heart . . . Also, see my root essay in this thread: http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/affairs-heart/ .
Thanks for all the replys !!!
I understand strabes point of view but could I ask all of you (strabes inculded) to take a quick look at this man Juan Enriquez:
The reason I started this post is due to the events that will take place in the not too distant future regarding science. I don’t want to bore you with “technicalities” but there are mind blowing advances that are going to happen in the next 20 years that will turn everything on earth on its head, it could also be extremely dangerous.
The videos are just a taste of what is to come in what many in the scientific community are describing as the most “exciting times” in human history.
Thanks for the welcomes
The world would be a Hell of a lot better if Scientists and Engineers run things. Most Human Problems are Technical NOT POLITICAL!! We would have been on the path to a Pure Resource Based Economy if we let the People who REALLY solve Human Problems run things.
Some group needs to Create a 3rd party only composed of Engineers and Scientists. Screw the Rep. and Dems.
End Scarcity, Planned obsolescence, More Redundancy built in, and End Money.
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. (Albert Einstein)
T1A, those videos are great examples of why I would shudder at having total control in the hands of scientists, let alone anyone else.
While very smart, I think Juan would be dangerous as a king. He's intrigued by DNA clone technology that allows us to reboot a lifeform as a separate species...yowza. He looks forward to the days when bionic people beat regular people at the olympics. He looks forward to the days when bionic eyes and ears beat our natural ones...maybe we'll all line up at human factories to get our bionic implants as part of our government-controlled schools of the future? He clearly desires species evolution controlled by and sped up by scientists so we can have better people...apparently he's not too fond of the billions he lives with today.
His emotional affect feels disconnected to me...schizoid personality traits, which are common in the upper echelons of the scientific community...it's the disposition that allows someone to be able to enjoy sitting with thousands of pages from science journals to research a narrow topic vs. the type of person who would rather be bar hopping, or the type of person who's just not interested in going deep on a topic, or more interested in making money, or more interested in working with his hands, or more artistic. It's the disposition that makes someone enjoy taking the time to write a long post on a forum like CM.com explaining stuff in detail...yes I have some schizoid traits. :) Schizoid personalities have intellectualization as a primary defense mechanism. It happens to be a defense that can serve society well, but it is a defense nonetheless. That's fine. We all have them. But it's why no one type of people should have total power.
We need to realize that scientific achievement is also a bubble. It's the same exponential growth that everything else has. Science has gotten to where it is as a result of the financial/political structure we have had. Do we really need bionic ears that work better than the natural ear? Do we really need to develop technology that makes the physically handicapped more capable than an olympic athlete? Do we need to be wandering into the unknown of designing our own humans? Do we need to be creating new energy potential in order to support the exponential growth that we know must stop eventually? This science bubble is going to deflate along with the greater economic collapse that will put governments and academia out of business.
And he missed the primary problem. He said that we need to reduce our debt and change entitlements/military spending. Yet he hasn't done the research to realize that entire structure comes from the Federal Reserve...we don't get money, exponential growth, science bubbles, etc unless the government goes heavily into debt via the warfare/welfare political machine. The economic "scientists" working for the Fed apparently don't know it either, so I'm not picking on Juan. I'm just saying that he still has to do more work to get to the heart of that problem, and so that's an example of how scientists don't know everything...they can still royally mess up by implementing a plan where they thought they had the answer, but they thought wrong.
The world would be a Hell of a lot better if Scientists and Engineers run things. Most Human Problems are Technical NOT POLITICAL!! or Religious. Those are False systems that has Destroyed Humanity. We would have been on the path to a Pure Resource Based Economy if we let the People who REALLY solve Human Problems run things.
Most human problems are human problems, put a scientist there he'll find a scientific solution, put an economist there, hell find an economic solution, put a politician there, he'll find a political solution, put a military commander there, he'll find a military solution, I could go on ad nauseum. However I think you see the problem from your perspective, you likely are in an engineering or scientific field, so find the logical solution based on your field of understanding. The answer to the problem, is 42, unfortunately we don't understand the question to the answer to the problem.
If you did not put an Engineering or Scientist Solution to Problems then you would not have a Car to do go work or a computer, fax machine, cell phone, planes, trains, alarm clock, air conditioner, microwave, dish washer, fire alarms, calculator, tv, dvd, mp3, iphones, the list goes on and on. Human Problems are basically Technical.
We are wasting our time with Budgets, interest rates, stocks, bonds, anything financial. Our old way of solving solutions will fail and we will awaken to a new higher level of thinking, because the current path we are on is leading us to a Collapse. After the Collapse of our current system, Survival is the main concern, not this Greed and Selfishness that we have today.
The Resource Based Economy Must emerge in order to have a REAL civilization. The real question is NOT do we have the Money to do something? The REAL question is Do we have the Resources?
If an Asteroid is going to Hit the earth, do you really think The leaders of the World would be sitting there Scratching their heads asking "Do we have enough money to blow up the Asteroid?"
I can't think of a better way of explaining this, so I'll quote:
-Francisco D'Anconia, Atlas Shrugged
The point is, I do not understand your argument. You seem to want to get rid of a money-based system in exchange for a resource-based system, but money itself is representative of resources. It's just a tool of exchange used to trade what is already resource-based.
Now I agree our system is a mess, but your argument does not have enough specifics for me to understand its practicalities.
Well, as there was plenty of evidence that a finanical asteroid was on its way (I've got books written in the early 2000s that we were heading for problems, I can remember seeing a TV programme about 3-4 years ago on self-declaration mortgages) and a large number of prominent politicinas have said' nobody saw it coming' (oh yes we did), it would not surprise me in the least if the leaders of the World sat there scratching their heads (or other parts of their anatomies) and said 'Asteroid? What asteroid?'
Incidentally, I've just seen Meredith Whitney's video where she 'caused' the big rise in the markets the other day. Joe Saluzzi, of Themis, was on Bloomberg last night (he's brilliant) and said that Whitney was actually very bearish and the markets had latched on to the one thing it wanted to, ignoring the rest of her talk. He's right.
Hey Pat, I see your point too. The Resource Based Economy will have to be considered when our current system fails. It's only a matter of time. When that happens it's more about survival instead of money. People would eventually understand we cannot go back to the old system of money to solve human problems. Also we are not using our Human Capital in a wise way. If we were to use our scientists to make inventions to benefit humanity (we do in many ways.) instead of WMD's we would be better off.
Eventually Peak Population (carrying capacity of the earth) and Peak Resources (misallocation) will hit a peak, then society will break down, and the money based greed system will be the fuel behind that breakdown. Along with Technological Unemployment (downsizing.) Then Survival not Greed will be important.
For example, if we were to use our technology and resources to say Help Africa become a nest egg for Food and Resources instead of the Blood Diamond, Death zone that it is, the better the planets total wealth would be. Providing food, metals, other for the planet instead of keeping stuff like the diamond count artificially low for Profits.
I think we can all agree that nobody want to see 14 and 15 yr old boys and girls search in death camps for Diamonds for the benefit of Madison Ave. Not to mention the human traffic problem that is money driven.
Hope this helped Pat, if not I will write more later to help illustrate this idea.
I will say until then, We do need a reconstructed Tax system, (low taxes to no taxes) and no Central Banking for the U.S.
Take Care ~ Joe
Peak population has been hit, in the 70's if you eliminate the additional energy that is being spent on agricultural production (in the developed world that is selling subsidized food to the third world) which is why peak oil is so important and we're around about the peak of oil production now maybe a little over peak maybe a little after peak, James Kunstler in "The Long Emergency" for instance wrote
Peak resources we're near. Copper for instance is a good example, that peaked some time ago too, now we're recycling it, but there was a lot of waste up until about 10 or so years ago. I could see us mining trash dumps for resources within the next 10-20 years.
Unfortunately the time for some of the idea's your positing is well past; time to market for most "inventions'" is 10-15 years of initial invention, research, development and then production, and is hugely resource intensive to get that first unit rolling off a production line. In 10-15 years if we're at Oil peak, which I think that most of us think that we are, and we continue oils use in the same way, the African famines of the 80's and 90's will look like minor hunger problems.
For instance Mexico currently supplies the US with 1/3 of it's oil, in the next ten years the expectation is that that surplus will be consumed by Mexico's internal market, so no oil will be available for the US, so where will we get it from? The Middle East, nope they're running at mostly max production now and world oil consumption is climbing, Russia, nope they have declining reserves and growing markets. Now how will the US produce grain for developing countries with 1/3 of it's oil gone, simply put it can't or if it does then the huge subsidies it currently gives will cease, since many of the developing world countries have a largely stunted agricultural industry (due to cheap imports of US raised corn and wheat) they're to put it quite bluntly screwed.
Peak oil is happening also because of the Planned Obsolescence in our Cars. And the need for Cyclical Consumption for profit. Everything has to break down eventually in a monetary system to maintain market share, which excludes concern for the earth and it's resources. If we made cars with fewer parts and the best durable materials, and made the darn thing to last 50 yrs and go 100 or 200 on gas or water we would not be complaining about peak oil, unless they fabricate peak oil to justify the increase in the barrel.
The reasoning as to why is irrelevant to the problem.
The fact that it's happened (or is happening) at a time where we do not have room for maneuver to try to resolve the situation is.
If only 100 years ago we thought about having too much dependence on oil would turn into a crisis later we wouldn't be in this situation now either. You're seem to be in the denial phase of thinking, which isn't an insult, but we do not have the time to try to fix the system from within the system. Yes if vehicles could go 100 miles on a tank of gas that would be awesome and give us some time to try to resolve the situation, as long as ERoEI is at parity with current vehicles, but we really needed those vehicles 10-15 years ago, ideally in even earlier in 1980.
Who is fabricating peak oil? Either the 3 E's and the crisis surrounding them as Chris discusses them are really happening is actual or not, Chris didn't "invent" the peak oil theory 1956 was the first discussion about peak oil (Hubbert), and accurately predicted US oil peak production and decline between 1965 and 1970. We also know that peak discovery happens prior to peak oil extraction, and peak discovery happened in 1965, finding about 55 billion barrels that year, it's declined ever since, Oil reserves peaked in 1980 when production overtook discovery. Indeed if you look at oil production graphs over the past 50 years we're already on a downward slope with increasing consumption. Current reserves also have huge doubts surrounding them, unless they're proven (as 90-95% accurate) then the probability of the resource can vary anywhere from 50% (probable) to 5% (possible) accuracy, for example 20% of Shells reserves evaporated in 2004 when it was discovered that there was either no oil, or that it could not be extracted. World Oil production has been flat since 2005, not a good sign considering the price of crude oil at that time, if more could have been pumped then you betcha they would have. Saudi'sGhawar field production (the largest in the world) is falling at 8% per year, Kuwait's Burgan field production entered decline in 2005, of the 811 largest oil fields the net decline is 4.5% per year (according to Cambridge Energy Research Associates).
If you do some digging on Oil production, reserves and so on you'll see that the current situation is looking grim, oil consumption is still increasing, oil production is level or gradually falling. Overall I'd say that there's a lot of hard evidence to prove that we're around peak right now.
Now the Hirsch report from 2005 stated that mitigation efforts needed would be either
Unfortunately peak oil is easy to see in retrospect, like peak oil discovery. Currently the US has no mitigation strategy for falling global oil production.
Place to find the latest trends and tutorials about how to make it in the startup world.
Emily's interests and research
For people in and around Austin, TX who are interested in working together to increase resiliency for ourselves and our communities
Group for people looking to connect in Alberta Canada