binary solo said:
I disagree. People who want to be in power are exactly the wrong people who should be in power. They make decisions based on what will keep them in charge, not what is best for the situation. It is merely a matter of chance that sometimes the interest of the people and the interest of the power-hungry allign. I'm not interested taking those chances. A person who is well qualified but has no interest in power will be more likely to base decision on evidence and research, and they will take account of public mood when that is a relevant factor. Sometimes a policy that is very sound in theory fails in practice because the public does not buy into it. So any time you are putting in place a policy that requires public engagement, public sentiment and willingness to comply is a very important factor to take into account. The power hungery will only tend to listen to the people they think are likely to vote for them. Right-wing politicians are more likely to use strike action as a reason to disempower unions than to actually listen to the grievances of those who are striking. Because they know unionists aren't going to vote for them, and they know taking an anti-union stance will appeal more to the base of their support If climate change policy was determined by evidence and scientific research and not populist power hungry politicians we'd be in a better situation. |
Good points. I was thinking along the lines of motivation. What motivates those qualified persons, who will they listen too? The idea of calculating scientists running the country sounds a bit scary to be honest. Yet why not give it a try. Can't be worse than corporate politicians.
Btw isn't this what democracy is about in a nutshell "Right-wing politicians are more likely to use strike action as a reason to disempower unions than to actually listen to the grievances of those who are striking. Because they know unionists aren't going to vote for them, and they know taking an anti-union stance will appeal more to the base of their support" That's the whole point of political parties, to represent the views of their voters. Unless that base of their support is 'donations' / corporate sponsors instead of votes.
The problem with climate change is that its a long term effect. The way politics work nowadays pretty much prevents long term thinking. It's also a failure from the scientific community. 97% of scientists are convinced of climate change, yet they can't think of a way to convinve the public that something should be done. All it takes is a few populist nay sayers to sway public opinion.
Maybe making this part of the educational system would help https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1037798999/eco-global-survival-game/description
