Let Science Rule the World

"Politics and Religion are obsolete. The time has come for Science and Spirituality. " ~Jawaharlal Nehru

So let's say that scientists manage to form a cohesive ruling body and Take Over the World For Science!. Would this be a good or a bad thing, in your eyes? For me, it would be a great thing, but I'll admit I'm biased, so please contribute any rebuttals - I'd love to hear them.

My argument For Science! is kind of simple: it works. It really, really works. So why not extend where we apply science to other areas, including politics, ethics, and the fulfillment of human happiness? Why continue to rely on politicians whose only real qualification for the job is that they had enough money to run a successful campaign, instead of relying on their scientifically educated advisers instead? I'm just saying, maybe it is time to cut out the middle-man here and go straight to the experts when it comes to solving our problems. Sure, they may not have charisma, but last time I checked, science and invention has done far more for the benefit of humanity than our leadership has.

... uh. You realise that there is no such thing as an Omnidisciplinary Scientist, right? Why the hell would a molecular biologist or a paleontologist or an organic chemist know more about running the country than a politician?

You could consider politics a social science.

Exactly, but how many politicians are actually carrying around a degree in political science? Or economics, or ecology, for that matter.

edited 24th Oct '11 5:41:17 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

It would be a Crapsack World of the highest order, methinks.

A very low number I'm sure. Money overrules qualifications in politics.

edited 24th Oct '11 5:43:06 PM by TheRichSheik

Same reason you don't use a sledgehammer to fix your computer, or drinking water to fuel your car. The scientific method is a tool. There are jobs it simply isn't intended for.

You apply ethics to science, not the other way around. We should be applying ethics to our politics as well.

In any case, why would a scientist want to rule the world? I was under the impression that they become scientists because they really, really love whatever field they're going into, and would rather not spend time running a country's day to day affairs.

And Bobby nails it.

Actually, I think a lot of scientists are drawn to the discipline out of desire for power, myself included. Political power is another aspect of that desire. Science is, after all, a human being telling the universe to do what they want it to do - and when that cannot be done, finding a way to trick the universe into doing it anyway.

Science is a human being learning about the universe and how it works. Learning how to play the game. To say that we are telling the universe what to do smacks of arrogance and puts far more worth on human existence than I feel it should have.

Also Bobby has nailed it.

I'm reminded of CS Lewis saying in The Abolition of Man that science and religion are learning about reality so you can submit to it while technology and magic are about learning so you can dominate.

Yes.

Something about that sentence seems wrong. Damned if I could say why.

edited 24th Oct '11 6:04:01 PM by ViralLamb

With what, a silly allegory? Its that same kind of "thinking" that infests the politics I'm talking about. What evidence does Bobby have that science is "not the right tool" for politics? None, because nobody has ever given the scientists a chance to run the planet, so we have no idea if they can do a better job than the current regime.

I think that they could, and I am basing that argument on the fact that in any field where science does play a role, enormous progress for the betterment of humanity has been the only result.

edited 24th Oct '11 6:05:27 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

Please stop referring to 'scientists' like they're some monolithic entity. What type of scientist do you think ought to be running the world?

Just because somebody is an expert in knowing how to manipulate genes, or proteins, or molecules, does not mean they are going to be skilled in knowing how to manipulate political situations and people.

If we're run by scientists, then we would be subjected to a sci-fi authoritarian society that is ruthlessly efficient.

Can I resurrect Sigmund Freud and name him supreme ruler of Earth?

^Well fuck that.

edited 24th Oct '11 6:09:28 PM by Aondeug

To clarify, I'm calling for a committee of experts - scientists from all fields, working together to solve humanity's problems. I have no idea how exactly this new government would be structured, and who the leadership would be, but the point is when there is a problem, it would be assigned to experts familiar with the proper fields.

Freud argued with Einstein about wars. I don't think that will work out.

I think the Progressive movement in part was to make government less political bargaining and more business- and service-like.

edited 24th Oct '11 6:10:55 PM by abstractematics

Actually, this could be made to work, you just have to think of government policies as hypotheses being tested by real-world application. Assuming you dont have to worry about such things as getting people's permission to experiment on them, there is no reason why scientists couldnt run the world. They might even do a better job at such things as actually achieving program goals and measuring unintended outcomes. And of course, any sufficiently powerful global administration eliminates war, so there's that.

edited 24th Oct '11 6:10:34 PM by DeMarquis

Science is not a religion, it is a method for finding truth. It is a tool, one that is not perfect. How the wielder uses the tool matters much more than the tool itself.

Scientists, are not part of an exclusive and mighty club. They are extremely diverse in method and belief....I mean its almost like they're like every other person out there.

edited 24th Oct '11 6:12:46 PM by ViralLamb

But Freud! He is a scientist of people! Alternatively Skinner.

Aon: Pfft, Freud? Everything would be penis- and vagina-shaped.

Do you know why we don't let scientists have power? Why we're not a technocracy? Because scientists are still people. They disagree on the best course of action, they sometimes lack principles, and sometimes, they just have bad principles.

They're somewhat ok with serious oversight and a proverbial "you fuck this up and we shoot you" gun to their head, but given political power? It would be a horrendous nightmare.

@De Marquis: And also assuming that you don't mind people dying constantly as a result of these experiments.

Because, after all, every scientific experiment needs a statistically significant number of controls. In medical trials, sometimes you accept that yes, the controls will die and/or have serious health issues. That's fine when it's lab rats, not so fine when it's neighbourhoods full of people.

edited 24th Oct '11 6:14:53 PM by LoniJay

Come on, rampaging Clanks and Jaggermonsters aside, it wouldn't be ALL bad!