3 ms·

I said “science based government” in the HN title, but really it's about adding a relatively small science-based check and balance to an existing system. Not re

by pbw 6y ago

I said “science based government” in the HN title, but really it's about adding a relatively small science-based check and balance to an existing system. Not replacing what we have just inserting something to keep it from going totally off the rails. To tug it back to reality. Political differences are fine. But someone needs to step in if a branch of the government, any branch and any party, goes so drastically far afield of what is known to be true. Next time it might be 10X worse. We need to patch the OS and not just say “boy I’m glad that will never happen again!”

diabeticApe 6y ago
I would agree that in a society that basically measures political success on who is a better liar, we need a truth counterweight but how do we ensure that this does not become a tool of corrupt governments or officials to impose thier ideologies as absolute truth with selective reporting?
- pbw 6y ago
  Yes counterweight is a great way to put it. I don't at all know how to implement this idea, but I feel strong if we don't figure that out, with the best minds we can find, we are doomed. Imagine Trump but more religious, with more power, more aggressive, more grandiose, more ties to dictators. We've seen proof positive the system is vulnerable to single loose cannon. We need to at least attempt to improve the system. To not do that is total negligence.
  - ganafagol 6y ago
    I applaud your idea, but it won't work. There are already checks and balances. The president is not a dictator. Congress is one of them. Both chambers are elected separately and provide a counterweight to a freewheeling president. Unless they also freewheel of course. The Surpreme Court is another one. Supposedly very educated, almost "wise" people sit there to stop things that go wrong if president AND congress go too far. You are proposing another instance that can stop bad things from happening if ALL of the above fail. If the majority in congress joins the president with nonsense. Both Chambers. AND the Surpeme Court too. All of those have to fail for your proposal to kick in and make sense. And you know what? If that happens, it's too late. If all the above fail, your Science Council will just be sucked into the same politicized dark alley that the other branches are in. Why? Becaude they don't exist in a vacuum. No matter how they are appointed, by election, by lifetime appointment, whatever process, once they have real power, this process can be corrupted just as much as for the other branches. You see it right now happening with the Supreme Court. People on the Science Council will live in the real world, they are not infinitely wise (wo)men falling from the sky. They need to be picked and agreed upon. If that process fails for congress AND presideny AND the Supreme Court, then it's going to fail here too. And worse, it can be counter productive. As long as the scientific community is as "independent" as it is today, a global community not answering to a single country, it can't be easily corrupted by one countries gov going crazy. The moment you install an official council with actual power, it can and will be. Now you'll have an official body where by some corrupted process the participants will officially denounce climate change science or covid or whatever, and now your assumed corrupt regime can point at it and use it in their favor. In summary, good idea at first sight, but unworkable when zooming in.

by pbw 6y ago

diabeticApe 6y ago

I would agree that in a society that basically measures political success on who is a better liar, we need a truth counterweight but how do we ensure that this does not become a tool of corrupt governments or officials to impose thier ideologies as absolute truth with selective reporting?

pbw 6y ago
Yes counterweight is a great way to put it. I don't at all know how to implement this idea, but I feel strong if we don't figure that out, with the best minds we can find, we are doomed. Imagine Trump but more religious, with more power, more aggressive, more grandiose, more ties to dictators. We've seen proof positive the system is vulnerable to single loose cannon. We need to at least attempt to improve the system. To not do that is total negligence.
- ganafagol 6y ago
  I applaud your idea, but it won't work. There are already checks and balances. The president is not a dictator. Congress is one of them. Both chambers are elected separately and provide a counterweight to a freewheeling president. Unless they also freewheel of course. The Surpreme Court is another one. Supposedly very educated, almost "wise" people sit there to stop things that go wrong if president AND congress go too far. You are proposing another instance that can stop bad things from happening if ALL of the above fail. If the majority in congress joins the president with nonsense. Both Chambers. AND the Surpeme Court too. All of those have to fail for your proposal to kick in and make sense. And you know what? If that happens, it's too late. If all the above fail, your Science Council will just be sucked into the same politicized dark alley that the other branches are in. Why? Becaude they don't exist in a vacuum. No matter how they are appointed, by election, by lifetime appointment, whatever process, once they have real power, this process can be corrupted just as much as for the other branches. You see it right now happening with the Supreme Court. People on the Science Council will live in the real world, they are not infinitely wise (wo)men falling from the sky. They need to be picked and agreed upon. If that process fails for congress AND presideny AND the Supreme Court, then it's going to fail here too. And worse, it can be counter productive. As long as the scientific community is as "independent" as it is today, a global community not answering to a single country, it can't be easily corrupted by one countries gov going crazy. The moment you install an official council with actual power, it can and will be. Now you'll have an official body where by some corrupted process the participants will officially denounce climate change science or covid or whatever, and now your assumed corrupt regime can point at it and use it in their favor. In summary, good idea at first sight, but unworkable when zooming in.