5 ms·

Well, I guess government follows the scientific conclusions and recommendations. Some might turn out to be wrong and we unlearn them. Science does make mistakes

Well, I guess government follows the scientific conclusions and recommendations. Some might turn out to be wrong and we unlearn them. Science does make mistakes, but that's the best we've got. We can't leave it to intuitions of the masses.

bobcostas55 11y ago
>I guess government follows the scientific conclusions and recommendations. Come on now.
clarkmoody 11y ago
A naive view, at best. You're forgetting all about politics and special interests. > We can't leave it to intuitions of the masses. Precisely the mindset of the power elite that gets us into so much trouble.
- enlightenedfool 11y ago
  Well, take vaccinations for example. Would you better leave it to the people to decide? I'm sure half won't take them. EDIT: I do understand the corporate influence, but we could find a way to build unbiased scientific institutions if with collective global will.
  - lackbeard 11y ago
    Letting people choose to not vaccinate their children will self correct. We'll lose herd immunity, a lot of people will die, and then everyone will know how awesome vaccines are, just like they did in the 60s. Then the cycle will begin anew. I lean toward valuing individual rights over all else, but this scenario does present a serious challenge to that worldview. Another contributor to the problem is that people trust science a lot less today than 2 generations ago. They've seen the negative results of a lot of fraud that has been perpetuated under the banner of "science". (E.g. "scientific socialism", the food pyramid, most of psychology, etc...)
  - chrisan 11y ago
    Or insurance. "I don't need that, I will never ____!"
- toolz 11y ago
  What do you mean 'so much trouble'? We're constantly getting healthier, living longer lives, hurting each other lessand doing better by just about all metrics. The only thing that seems to be going downhill is our mental health, and I would argue that's simply because we have more diagnosis recorded, rather than those things simply not existing in the past. Could we be getting better at a faster rate, as a species? Most likely, but it's not like we've halted progress or something.
  - clarkmoody 11y ago
    > We're constantly getting healthier, living longer lives, hurting each other lessand doing better by just about all metrics. Totally agree. But are those improvements due to the decisions of central planners? > What do you mean 'so much trouble'? Things that come to mind: abysmal outcomes for many in the public school system; skyrocketing prices in healthcare; urban families almost completely destroyed by paternalistic welfare programs; massive suffering and death caused by the warfare state; shredding of the Bill of Rights by the TSA; economic calamity caused by Fed-fueled booms and busts; etc. Look at the places with the worst outcomes and you will find the most government involvement.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      > Look at the places with the worst outcomes and you will find the most government involvement. Of course. That doesn't mean they are the problem. It's entirely plausible they are involved because there's a problem. In a system with honey, bees and bears, just because you often see bears involved with honey doesn't mean they are responsible for its creation.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > We're constantly getting healthier, living longer lives LOL, really ? There are more and more obese people in the US, does that count as getting healthier ? What are your metrics exactly ? As for living longer lives, that's already clearly proven most of the life expectancy gains happened since we reduced infant mortality to minimum levels, raising therefore lifetime for all individuals on average.
CapitalistCartr 11y ago
In the US, the Federal Gov't mostly follows the money. And actually we can leave people's lives up to them to lead. Whether you think their decisions are right or wrong, based on intuition, religion, science, etc., the populace aren't children and the gov't aren't parents. Freedom is the right to be wrong.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Freedom is the right to be wrong. Exactly, that's why Freedom is to be left alone to individuals so that they can choose for themselves what best fits their lifestyle. Governments have roles to play, but telling people what to do and not to do at a private level is certainly not one of them.
- Retra 11y ago
  The population is largely children, and nearly 100% of the population were children when they adapted to most of their culture, (specifically the kinds of ideas you are rejecting here.) You don't think "freedom is the right to be wrong" wasn't something you were taught as a child by adults?
  - underdown 11y ago
    Yes, but they aren't the government's children.
    - Retra 11y ago
      They're adopted. Or are you trying to suggest that your genetics have a role in determining what rights you have or who has power over you?
ekianjo 11y ago
> We can't leave it to intuitions of the masses. Usually governments make worse decisions than common folks - in about every area (economics, science, medicine, education). I can hardly think of any area where Governments actually did not divert funds resulting in a bad consequence.
357467 11y ago
I find humans to be pretty funny. Modern day humans no longer trust the instincts they have developed over millions of years and instead put their faith in shitty science and corporate marketing. They no longer trust themselves to know how long to stay in the sun, how many steps to take, or what kind of foods to eat.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Those instincts were evolved to get you to reproduce and live long enough for your offspring to be self-sufficient. The world has changed enormously since the industrial revolution and there's hardly been enough time for new instincts to evolve to account for modern society.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    New instincts aren't necessarily needed for there to be a population that has some sort of advantage in the modern world, some certain bundle of existing instincts/habits can possibly provide it.
  - 357467 11y ago
    I don't agree. The human body tells you when things are right or wrong. It is about the effects, not whether it is a new stimulus that caused those effects.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > The human body tells you when things are right or wrong. The human body won't tell you to avoid lifelong tanning to avoid cancer in your 60s, because living to your 60s isn't all that evolutionarily important (and hell, likely made you a drain on your hunter-gatherer tribe). There's no selection pressure.
      - seren 11y ago
        > (and hell, likely made you a drain on your hunter-gatherer tribe) Apparently there are some arguments that having elders around was a boon for prehistoric tribes. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/24/prehistoric-man-helped-as-elderly-survived http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/24/prehistoric-m... I don't know how much this is validated, but thought it was interesting nonetheless because it seems counter intuitive at first.

bobcostas55 11y ago

>I guess government follows the scientific conclusions and recommendations. Come on now.

clarkmoody 11y ago

A naive view, at best. You're forgetting all about politics and special interests. > We can't leave it to intuitions of the masses. Precisely the mindset of the power elite that gets us into so much trouble.

enlightenedfool 11y ago
Well, take vaccinations for example. Would you better leave it to the people to decide? I'm sure half won't take them. EDIT: I do understand the corporate influence, but we could find a way to build unbiased scientific institutions if with collective global will.
- lackbeard 11y ago
  Letting people choose to not vaccinate their children will self correct. We'll lose herd immunity, a lot of people will die, and then everyone will know how awesome vaccines are, just like they did in the 60s. Then the cycle will begin anew. I lean toward valuing individual rights over all else, but this scenario does present a serious challenge to that worldview. Another contributor to the problem is that people trust science a lot less today than 2 generations ago. They've seen the negative results of a lot of fraud that has been perpetuated under the banner of "science". (E.g. "scientific socialism", the food pyramid, most of psychology, etc...)
- chrisan 11y ago
  Or insurance. "I don't need that, I will never ____!"
toolz 11y ago
What do you mean 'so much trouble'? We're constantly getting healthier, living longer lives, hurting each other lessand doing better by just about all metrics. The only thing that seems to be going downhill is our mental health, and I would argue that's simply because we have more diagnosis recorded, rather than those things simply not existing in the past. Could we be getting better at a faster rate, as a species? Most likely, but it's not like we've halted progress or something.
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  > We're constantly getting healthier, living longer lives, hurting each other lessand doing better by just about all metrics. Totally agree. But are those improvements due to the decisions of central planners? > What do you mean 'so much trouble'? Things that come to mind: abysmal outcomes for many in the public school system; skyrocketing prices in healthcare; urban families almost completely destroyed by paternalistic welfare programs; massive suffering and death caused by the warfare state; shredding of the Bill of Rights by the TSA; economic calamity caused by Fed-fueled booms and busts; etc. Look at the places with the worst outcomes and you will find the most government involvement.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Look at the places with the worst outcomes and you will find the most government involvement. Of course. That doesn't mean they are the problem. It's entirely plausible they are involved because there's a problem. In a system with honey, bees and bears, just because you often see bears involved with honey doesn't mean they are responsible for its creation.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > We're constantly getting healthier, living longer lives LOL, really ? There are more and more obese people in the US, does that count as getting healthier ? What are your metrics exactly ? As for living longer lives, that's already clearly proven most of the life expectancy gains happened since we reduced infant mortality to minimum levels, raising therefore lifetime for all individuals on average.

CapitalistCartr 11y ago

In the US, the Federal Gov't mostly follows the money. And actually we can leave people's lives up to them to lead. Whether you think their decisions are right or wrong, based on intuition, religion, science, etc., the populace aren't children and the gov't aren't parents. Freedom is the right to be wrong.

ekianjo 11y ago
> Freedom is the right to be wrong. Exactly, that's why Freedom is to be left alone to individuals so that they can choose for themselves what best fits their lifestyle. Governments have roles to play, but telling people what to do and not to do at a private level is certainly not one of them.
Retra 11y ago
The population is largely children, and nearly 100% of the population were children when they adapted to most of their culture, (specifically the kinds of ideas you are rejecting here.) You don't think "freedom is the right to be wrong" wasn't something you were taught as a child by adults?
- underdown 11y ago
  Yes, but they aren't the government's children.
  - Retra 11y ago
    They're adopted. Or are you trying to suggest that your genetics have a role in determining what rights you have or who has power over you?

ekianjo 11y ago

> We can't leave it to intuitions of the masses. Usually governments make worse decisions than common folks - in about every area (economics, science, medicine, education). I can hardly think of any area where Governments actually did not divert funds resulting in a bad consequence.

357467 11y ago

I find humans to be pretty funny. Modern day humans no longer trust the instincts they have developed over millions of years and instead put their faith in shitty science and corporate marketing. They no longer trust themselves to know how long to stay in the sun, how many steps to take, or what kind of foods to eat.

ceejayoz 11y ago
Those instincts were evolved to get you to reproduce and live long enough for your offspring to be self-sufficient. The world has changed enormously since the industrial revolution and there's hardly been enough time for new instincts to evolve to account for modern society.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  New instincts aren't necessarily needed for there to be a population that has some sort of advantage in the modern world, some certain bundle of existing instincts/habits can possibly provide it.
- 357467 11y ago
  I don't agree. The human body tells you when things are right or wrong. It is about the effects, not whether it is a new stimulus that caused those effects.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > The human body tells you when things are right or wrong. The human body won't tell you to avoid lifelong tanning to avoid cancer in your 60s, because living to your 60s isn't all that evolutionarily important (and hell, likely made you a drain on your hunter-gatherer tribe). There's no selection pressure.
    - seren 11y ago
      > (and hell, likely made you a drain on your hunter-gatherer tribe) Apparently there are some arguments that having elders around was a boon for prehistoric tribes. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/24/prehistoric-man-helped-as-elderly-survived http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/24/prehistoric-m... I don't know how much this is validated, but thought it was interesting nonetheless because it seems counter intuitive at first.