When will scientists govern the world?

grazzhoppa

yawwn
Valued Senior Member
I think everyone is getting a little impatient...so when will it happen? Oh, you know it will happen.

Do you think they would do a better job?
 
Only when mankind no longer has to worry about doing actual "work". (by work i mean the actual production of material goods) Then people will be able to fully devote their time to science, art, and just having fun.

Of course at that point people could easily live their entire lives without dealing with other people. Governments would become largely obsolete and people would rule themselves.
 
Kyrgizstan is ruled by a scientist. And the guy's a complete wanker. A mini-Stalin.
 
We don't need scientists to govern the world. We need people with a true sense of honor who won't subjugate their morals for political expediency, or money.
 
Originally posted by John MacNeil
We don't need scientists to govern the world. We need people with a true sense of honor who won't subjugate their morals for political expediency, or money.

errr you just described a politician nowadays...

1)true sense of honor? I don't think many politicians have much honor...Bill Clinton need I say more? All the people running for New Jersey office :D...where's the honor?

2)politcal expediency? When it comes down to election time, nothing is more important than getting more votes, if the politician wants to make a career out it.

3)Money? Politicians nowadays are always doing crap for money.

I hope you were sarcastic.
 
Isn't there honor in science, making discoveries about existance and the way the universe operates?

Money is a problem though...scientific research costs mucho dinero.
 
I think you misunderstood my last post, grazzhoppa. I don't have much regard for the current crop of politicians who definately do not display honor. I know there must be some honorable politicians, but they are so few that their voices are drowned out by the lackeys of the military/industrial corporate/government.

Perhaps I should clarify my definition of the term "honor", in case that is what led to the misunderstanding. Honor is doing good. Honor is being honest, and truthful. It is a code to be lived by. It is not something that anyone can bestow on anyone else. It must come from within each individual as they strive to be conscientious in all their dealings with other members of the human family.

When I said we don't need scientists to run the world, I didn't mean to exclude scientists from running the world. I meant that a person's trade is not the most important prerequisite for running the world, but that their character is.
 
Ok, it was a slight misunderstanding.

Very true, now that I think about it...yet a person's character is influenced by everything around them, including their interests, profession, and eventually they inlfuence themselves because of what they have learned and they use their wisdom to build character.

If you contrast the priorities of a scientist and politician, you find the scientist (I'm talking about one who loves science and discovery) might put the well-being of the future infront of the present, while a politician always wants to solve current problems, and looks only slightly to the consquences. That is one way to govern. You need to solve the problems of today, so you may live another day, right?

My point is a scientist would have a more efficient way of solving problems, and the results would be better for the entire society.
 
In that regard, I agree, grazzhoppa. Scientists are definitely intellectually smarter than politicians and would be more able to think through problems and reach better conclusions.
 
Abhorance of governance is the province of Viagra users.

Governers get it up naturally. To best a Governer requires being a better Governer.

So, you whine, complain, and are embarassed for the compulsion of continually having to refill your prescription.

Like John, you pretend.
 
I should remember not to post after a Scotch or two too many.

Grazzhoppa: My apology for crapping all over you and your thread. You weren't deserving of such criticism. I'll willingly suffer as punishment the embarrassment and indignation of refilling John's prescription for him in person, just this once. ;)
 
ethics, conflicts of interest

Expert witnesses in criminal cases

Scientists that testify for the defense or prosecution are often paid for doing so. At the same time, they are sworn to give accurate testimony.

Medical conferences

Consumer Reports discussed how pharmaceutical manufacturers that sponsor conferences bias the presentations at these conferences by choosing the conference speakers from a list of scientists previously known to have a favorable view toward the company's products

Environmental consulting

The engineering firm that renders an opinion about the environmental effects of the latest subdivision faces a conflict of interest between doing an unbiased review and doing a review that will ensure additional business in the future.

Funding for big ticket projects

Scientists explaining to the public what the benefits of projects such as the spacestation and the human genome project are may have incentive to overstate their case. Research funding for their project may depend on the perception by the public that the project is important, as evidenced by the death of the superconducting supercollider.

Furthering political dogma

When scientists decide before gathering any data what the best solution to a problem is, the data and analyses may be selectively presented so as to support an a priori decision about what the researcher wants to show.

Studies Call Attention To Ethics Of Industry Support

gallo

Corruption of Scientific Integrity

Why were genetically engineered foods approved in spite of insuffient safety data?

Are Scientists Arrogant?

Conference on Research Integrity (11/16/02 ($475 and free meals!)
 
Back
Top