3 ms·

Some would say that scientists should be the politicians, and that a government based on science will be more beneficial than anything we've ever had. Star Trek

Some would say that scientists should be the politicians, and that a government based on science will be more beneficial than anything we've ever had. Star Trek did it. Why can't we?

dalke 10y ago
Star Trek is mostly in a post-scarcity economy, and much of what we see takes place in the hierarchical command structure of a starship or starbase. Star Trek did not say that politicians had to be scientists. Archer was UFP president from 2184–2192, and was not a scientist. Star Trek is also, of course, fiction. As is Plato's "Republic", ruled by a philosopher king and thus (supposedly) based on wisdom and reason.
alphapapa 10y ago
I suppose you're referring to Neil deGrasse Tyson's recent pontification. If you want discussion, there are long threads here, on Slashdot, etc. As far as Star Trek goes: that's fiction. In short: scientists are human (i.e. fallible), and science is an amoral process. A "government based on science" might well conclude that taking care of the poor, the elderly, the ill, those born with genetic disorders, etc, is inefficient, a poor use of resources, and that such problems should be "optimized away." Why let a mother give birth to a defective fetus? Why spend resources to sustain a human who uses more than it contributes? What good is an elderly person who is confined to a wheelchair and can't work anymore? Of course, you and I are humane, and we value human life, and we have moral values--but a "rational" government "based only on science" would not be. The 20th century alone is full of examples of where utilitarianism leads: horrific suffering and death on an unimaginable scale. Millions upon millions of people suffered and died due to it. Yet there are always those who think we'll get it right This Time, that they know better. You mentioned science-fiction--there is plenty out there that imagines such dystopias. ST is mostly utopia, punctuated by DS9 and the trend toward "gritty." Both are fiction, but at least balance your sci-fi perspective. ;)
- mseebach 10y ago
  > A "government based on science" might well conclude that taking care of the poor, the elderly, the ill, those born with genetic disorders, etc, is inefficient, a poor use of resources, and that such problems should be "optimized away." It worth mentioning that past governments did exactly that, "based on science". The crimes of the nazis makes it easy to forget that eugenics enjoyed broad popular and scientific support across western Europe and the US (one might even say that the science was considered to be settled) in the first decades of the 20th century.
zeveb 10y ago
> Some would say that scientists should be the politicians, and that a government based on science will be more beneficial than anything we've ever had. Star Trek did it. Why can't we? Some would note that Star Trek is fiction (and rather didactic, poorly-written fiction at that, although an enjoyable-enough diversion on its own), and that the only technocracies the world has ever seen (Soviet Russia, Maoist China) have been hellholes of murder, starvation, human misery and repression.

Some would say that scientists should be the politicians, and that a government based on science will be more beneficial than anything we've ever had. Star Trek did it. Why can't we?

dalke 10y ago

Star Trek is mostly in a post-scarcity economy, and much of what we see takes place in the hierarchical command structure of a starship or starbase. Star Trek did not say that politicians had to be scientists. Archer was UFP president from 2184–2192, and was not a scientist. Star Trek is also, of course, fiction. As is Plato's "Republic", ruled by a philosopher king and thus (supposedly) based on wisdom and reason.

alphapapa 10y ago

I suppose you're referring to Neil deGrasse Tyson's recent pontification. If you want discussion, there are long threads here, on Slashdot, etc. As far as Star Trek goes: that's fiction. In short: scientists are human (i.e. fallible), and science is an amoral process. A "government based on science" might well conclude that taking care of the poor, the elderly, the ill, those born with genetic disorders, etc, is inefficient, a poor use of resources, and that such problems should be "optimized away." Why let a mother give birth to a defective fetus? Why spend resources to sustain a human who uses more than it contributes? What good is an elderly person who is confined to a wheelchair and can't work anymore? Of course, you and I are humane, and we value human life, and we have moral values--but a "rational" government "based only on science" would not be. The 20th century alone is full of examples of where utilitarianism leads: horrific suffering and death on an unimaginable scale. Millions upon millions of people suffered and died due to it. Yet there are always those who think we'll get it right This Time, that they know better. You mentioned science-fiction--there is plenty out there that imagines such dystopias. ST is mostly utopia, punctuated by DS9 and the trend toward "gritty." Both are fiction, but at least balance your sci-fi perspective. ;)

mseebach 10y ago
> A "government based on science" might well conclude that taking care of the poor, the elderly, the ill, those born with genetic disorders, etc, is inefficient, a poor use of resources, and that such problems should be "optimized away." It worth mentioning that past governments did exactly that, "based on science". The crimes of the nazis makes it easy to forget that eugenics enjoyed broad popular and scientific support across western Europe and the US (one might even say that the science was considered to be settled) in the first decades of the 20th century.

zeveb 10y ago

> Some would say that scientists should be the politicians, and that a government based on science will be more beneficial than anything we've ever had. Star Trek did it. Why can't we? Some would note that Star Trek is fiction (and rather didactic, poorly-written fiction at that, although an enjoyable-enough diversion on its own), and that the only technocracies the world has ever seen (Soviet Russia, Maoist China) have been hellholes of murder, starvation, human misery and repression.