Why don't we have a political party based around scientifically literate politicians, who's position on the major issues is "will this advance humanity, or will it hinder the advancement of humanity at any level?".
I think the closest we have is, what, the Green Party? I don't think that is good enough.
Other urls found in this thread:
principia-scientific.org
express.co.uk
forbes.com
iun.edu
ohio.edu
britannica.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Because parties based around """"intellectuals"""" tend to be out of touch with ordinary people and thus unelectable.
Because it takes normies to vote and normies are fucking stupid.
Democrats: great on climate change and evolution (comparatively). not too bad on anti-vaxxer but there's some of it
Republican: horrible on climate change and evolution, worst party for science
Libertarian: climate change is real but the market will fix it hurr durr what is aleppo?
Green: anti-vaxxer joke of a party
Republicans like certain types of science. Like fracking or other industrial science, and weapons research. Also big pharma.
Democrats are also against all nuclear power and all forms of automation
smelly junkie hippie spotted :)
Did I ever say I was against fracking or weapons? No, I actually think they're cool but since you're an imbecile you jump to conclusions.
Brainlet.
Lol as long as people need political parties is as long as politics with be a joke.
Technocrats: Fix global warming by enforcing to go green and electric, remove religion from schools, make mandatory vaxxing and let the kids parents analyze whats in the syringes, build remote nuclear facilities away from homes.
Tell me why techno isn't the best option.
>Tell me why techno isn't the best option.
because we don't have any money for that
It is, but most people are too retarded for this to work.
Because ignorant people dont view the world the same way. They would rather set boundaries that divide us than find a way to work together. This goes for most people in the world, im not just alluding to racists in the US.
So say someone actually gets a platform to run this idea on. Not only will people not understand them, all they will think about is "how is this going to benefit me?". "is this going to help me feed my family?". "are you trying to say that my guns are not good for humanity?" We aren't ready to offer this platform as an option yet until we fix underlying social issues in the world, and they'll tell you to fuck off.
Also, think about the people who majored in business and poly sci for undergrad. Now compare them to the people you went through your STEM courses with. Who do you think knows how to appeal to a crowd more? the quiet number crunching autist in the corner, or the frat/sorority king/queen who threw raging parties and spent their life making connections, discovering what motivates people, how to get along with strangers, etc.
Politicians, and politics in general, are part of a system based around appealing to others as far as I can tell, NOT getting shit done.
because it doesn't exist?
we had a group of people trying to form a trans-humanist party in Holland. they did not get the required amount of people to be elected. i do not think that people are really interested in smart leaders that want to advance humankind. they are fickle and emotional beings that are preoccupied by non issues and xenophobia. most can not even escape thinking politics is a two dimensional right v.s. left wing affair. there is no hope for democracy. it's a dictatorship of the majority. and the majority of people are fucking stupid.
Because:
1. only a small handful of middle class cosmopolitan types will vote for it
2. the Unions (who are more or less what you're talking about) were crushed decades ago for empowering workers
3. legislators are tools, not thinking beings
4. ultimately, all the companies that lobby Congress want to move humanity forward in their own way but want the law to help them generate as much money as possible in the process
5. trying to re-educate the rest of the world will result in everyone getting butthurt over it. Remember, one of the main reasons to go into Iraq was to "liberate" the women there.
Basically this.
No politician is ever going to win anything if he places science at the heart of his policies. People think with their guts.
>most can not even escape thinking politics is a two dimensional right v.s. left wing affair.
That would be one-dimensional.
I have to imagine any "educated" party are gonna be a buncha fucking commies, and delusional shits who think their PHD in economics means they know best about global warming.
What is this "humanity" garbage either? Nationalism or gtfo
There already is one, but STEMfags are clueless classcucks who eat up unscientific capitalist dogma.
>Green Party
>Scientific
hahahahahahahahahaha
no, National Socialists are the scientific ones. They don't care about taboos and see the importance of eugenics.
Thankfully no stupid NEETs make such decisions.
What does "advancing humanity" even means, you retarded brainlet?
There are many real problems to be solved until we have the luxury of wasting hundreds of billions on playing around with rockets.
>National Socialists
>Practice Phrenology
>The whole "Jewish Science" thing
>Hitler would have had an atom bomb if he kept some of Jewish scientists
>climate change
>science
Okay, name one time in the multibillion year history of earth when the climate wasn't changing?
Also, show proof that humans are causing climate to change directly proportional.
granted, that was just retarded, but the germans were trying to get the bomb by themselves anyhow.
You're so fucking stupid. I would point out why, but there's no point. As Andrew Heywood put it "Ideology is the very lens with which we make sense of the world, making it invisible to us."
>2 cents have been deposited into your account
>liberal shill trying to be coy
nice try, shekelstein
principia-scientific.org
express.co.uk
forbes.com
>What is this "humanity" garbage either? Nationalism or gtfo
Seriously. I thought academia loved the left because they got paid more. Turns out their just really dense.
Not him but I'd like to ask you to please return to your containment board. In fact this whole thread shouldn't even be on this board.
But alright, I'll bite.
CO2 is released through combustion reactions, along with water (H2O) [1]. Which means that we're making the atmosphere more moist (briefly, it moves quickly through the water cycle), and have a higher concentration of CO2 as we burn fossil fuels, which undergo combustion reactions. The reason this is a problem is because CO2 and water have higher specific heats than air [2], which means they can hold energy easier than dry air could with minimal CO2.
Now this is a problem because heat energy isn't radiated off into space at the same rate that it's replenished by the sun, which leads to changes in the energy dispersion on the planet. Atmospheric trends (keyword right there, trend) are based on atmospheric pressures pushing air one way or the other [3]. Pressure is related to temperature by following the Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT). As such, changing the average temperature will effect the pressure.
All of this suggests that as you burn coal/petroleum, you get CO2, which holds heat, which changes atmospheric pressure, which changes the wind/water distribution on the planet, which ultimately changes the flora and fauna. You may be thinking that it's a long chain of events that go to that conclusion, and it is. Which is why oil companies have something to sell idiots on for climate change denial, and there's so many variables that scientists have a difficult time predicting the results.
Sources.
[1] iun.edu
[2] ohio.edu
[3] britannica.com
hilarious
back to /pol/ you go, and take your tabloid articles with you
I'm personally totally on board with the Libertarian party ticket this year (like, i've never actually felt this great about a candidate before - despite the lack of affirmative science side of things, i also have other ideological reasons to vote for Gary Johnson)
But I was thinking this EXACT same thing the other day. Oddly enough I twisted it into a bit of "Libertarian leaning centrist" idea that was focused specifically on just a few things
>creating a sustainable economy revolving on allowing every one to live the life they desire (within reason and means) by propelling a renewance of U.S. industrial production - but of the next generation of technologies. America doesn't need to make cars or produce oil. We need to be focusing on implementing the next generation of solar panel, applying supercomputing in ways that can actually add value to society in economic ways, developing the space industry, increasing the efficiency of our electrical grid, finding better ways of generating energy from our energy sources (combined power cycles compared to single steam cycle production, etc)
>energy policy, specifically sustainable energy sources - Energy economics (EROEI), financial economics, wide scale implementability (17+ TW). namely nuclear, though next generation nuclear has to be the focus.
>education, literacy in important things like critical thinking, understanding how to learn, developing an appreciation for all forms of acedemia and rigorously instilling how to use the scientific method (not in the Veeky Forums dogmatic way though)
>spearheading science, technology and engineering for the rest of the world - the third world countries trying to develop are excellent markets for our technological innovation. If our neighbors succeed, that's just more innovation, more production and more commerce for us. We have the ability to show these countries how to come into the 21st century in a successful manner, and we should be helping them learn how to.
Meh, could be cool.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. A sci party would largely libertarian in a lot of ways, but differ in at least a few important ones, especially education.
Most people aren't terribly interested in creating a good future for humanity, and I can agree with them to an extent, we should pump money into research for the benefit of humanity AFTER our social problems are fixed(nosjw). But at the same time, it wouldn't take an insane amount of money to make huge technological advances in things like space travel and research.
Imagine if we used our entire 'defence' budget. We'd easily make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs. by now.
Wew. Peak oil required a meme for eventual fossil fuel rationing and depopulation. AGW is that meme. Without fossil fuels we are talking 1 billion carnivorous bi-peds max.
It would startle the herd to know by the end of this century be will see a depopulation that big.
But user, what is Aleppo?
the Green Party in my country is also known as the Watermelon Party. Because the Communist Party is banned they infested the Green Party with Marxists and pedophiles.
Though our current government likes science more than our opposition government which prefers refugees and gibs
Why would we need globalization when we have robots? Why would we care about gun control with perfect security? You sound more like a Green hippie than. a technocrat.
>green party
>scientifically based
>anti GMO, "chemicals are bad," anti-vaxxers, organic label retards, etc
...
>muh Population Bomb meme that comes up every few years and is disproved every time is totally real
Go away, Greenberg.
because nearly no large group of people can agree on if something will advance humanity
>scientifically literate politicians
What is an oxymoron?
pretty good summary
Only autists understand Science, and autists make for terrible politicians.
Black science man is a freak of nature who might be a good figurehead tho.
>A sci party would largely libertarian in a lot of ways
Except for the part where we need fucking massive amount of tax money to do science?
inb4 "hurr durr just replace research grants with fucking patreon"
mhm. definitely hit the nail on the head with the education. That actually might be my only real strife with johnson
"abolish the department of education - 50 laboratories for innovation and best practice"
ok, yes - what you're saying is technically true, but lets be real. alot of shit is built around the department of education. pulling the rug out from under it is retarded. Is slowly peeling it back and letting states do their own thing but forcing them to adhere to "continuous improvement" standards a bad idea? probably not (if implemented well).
But yeah, I think that would be the general consensus of a "science" party. "live and let live"
You know, I agree and disagree with this at the same time. I do think that in some ways, the government has to "spearhead" or push science in certain directions.
But that being said, I think thats only a good thing if its benefiting every one. Er go, not military technology that only gets used by Le top sekirt military ppls. I'm fine with the government spending a (reasonable) amount of money on R&D as long as it's well orchestrated. Unfortunately, as many conservatives and libertarians understand that doesn't usually happen. Could it? Absolutely. but there's human psycological factors that need to be taken into account to prevent it from turning into garbage.
I think it's important for a platform like this to preach something to the tune of "scientific advancement led by the government, but with full access to all of the public for entrepreneurial, development and private use". Also, yes - that comes with a whole slough of its own legal issues.
>scientific advancement led by the government, but with full access to all of the public for entrepreneurial, development and private use
I don't get it man, we publish all our shit, public research is mostly public.
>based around scientifically literate politician
Australia literally has "the science party". Their policy is exactly what you describe. Noone in the country could handle it and they got just about 0 votes.
Right, I wasn't trying to say that it isn't currently. I think that's how it is. But the party platform (the science party) could be much more vocal about government leading the way, and giving a sort of comradery feel to it.
I really really like what NASA has been doing lately, giving out access to some of their most recent designs / patents for interesting new technology to any one who wants it - i'm thinking more things along the lines of that, and more extensive.
He got absolutely slaughtered by an antivaxxer.
Is there a video? I want to see straya banter
has anyone here even heard of zoltan istvan? google him. transhumanist party.
I don't believe so. I met him at the polling booth and he was literally standing there on his own.
You had Albanese basically just crying poor on behalf of big banks and a woman surrounding herself with flowers talking about homeopathy to choose from.
Australia: No wonder we're fucked.
This. In 40 years the soviet union went from a backwards nation of farmer peasants to the world's first spacefaring civilization. They gave the US a run for its money in technological and scientific achievement even though we had a 100 year head start.
The guy that wrote the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy had it spot on:
>“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
>"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
>"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
>"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
>"I did," said Ford. "It is."
>"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
>"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
>"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
>"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
>"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
>"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
>"What?"
>"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
>"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
>"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
>"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
>"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”
tl;dr nobody is going to read a wall of text
underageb&
i did fag
cute, overall the book still sucked.
>This is what phoneposters actually believe
>100 year head start
It's almost like you don't know how this works.
this right here. I mean his whole campaign is basically just to "raise awareness" but what he's behind is essentially what OP is looking for.
I got to 0:23 before I had to turn it off. What do I win?
>What do I win?
The life you manifest with your decisions
>against all forms of automation
Really, the party full of millenials and uni educated individuals (read: not blue collar workers )?
>book still sucked
WHY ARE YOU ON Veeky Forums?
Really made me think
WHY ARENT YOU ON /X/?
>tabloid articles
It's almost comfortably ironic that a thread denouncing scientific illiteracy is steepled to the cuff with frothing-at-the-mouth /pol/ pseudo-intellects.
If your board had a margin of academic integrity, you shit eating faggots wouldn't need to come banging pots and pans in Veeky Forums all the time.
...true. I get scared easy.
As a nub I agree
ok
Facts are facts. Ideology only distorts facts, and every effort should be made to remove it. We don't give a shit about your pseudointellectual quotes.
>these people
What the fuck even is Australia, I swear to god.
user, what do you not like about the Democrats besides all the Marines that Hillary gunned down in Benghazi?
Johnson isn't a libertarian
Because it would become a despotic shithole.
>what do you not like about the Democrats
Well lets see, they are a buncha whacko leftists & cultural marxists
They endorse anti-white hate groups
They believe whites need to "atone"
Their voter base hates America & white people
Completely controlled by jews
Relentless rampant in your face corruption
Endorsed by all the neo-cons that were so shitty under Bush
Thinks controlling the border is racism
Want to ban guns
Hillary made her living selling american interests and secrets to foreigners
>Muh greater good for humanity
We aren't going to be able to colonize mars, we aren't going to last for shit, humanity is going to die out. A scientific government would just make everyone miserable in an attempt to curb this.
>it's another edition of "I'm an unironic white supremacist"
>Durden turned into a full blown guru
lamo
i made it 45 seconds
>If your board had a margin of academic integrity, you shit eating faggots wouldn't need to come banging pots and pans in Veeky Forums all the time.
/pol/ btfo'd
I kek'd with the pots and pans. They are like toddlers but I'll admit the happening threads can be pretty comfy desu.
To add to the thread though: too many people just vote for what they want to hear and with their emotions. A majority don't want to take the time to even get a modicum of info to make a reasonably informed decision. It amazes me things even get done at all.
1:35 bitches
Okay, so if I am understanding this correctly, despite the fact that they support most of if not the entire platform you proposed in your initial post, you don't like the Democrats because you subscribe to propaganda posited by the right, who are diametrically opposed to most of your proposed platform?
Roger Ailes really is a genius in his own right.
I listened to the first half hour. It's actually a really good talk if you ignore the speaker's abrasive delivery style.
?
I vote for trump
Fedora party
Plus they lived through a revolutionary war and two world wars which devastated much of their infrastructure while no fights took place on the US soil (except for that little one that they keep pretending is a big deal).
>Only autists understand Science
This is often repeated but I don't believe it's true. Sure, in undergrad classes everywhere there are a lot of autists who keep entire integral tables in their heads, but they usually don't get very far, because starting around Master's level even hard science like physics becomes quite collaborative. If you lack social skills people won't want to work with you, you won't be able to ask for help and you will fail.
The only exception is when you are so ridiculously smart that you overcome this with brute force -- i.e., Dirac. Feynman, for example, is a complete antithesis of a modern autistic nerd.
No, grad studies require the ability to obsess about one subject for years.
And no, Feynman would have made a fucking terrible politician, with his inability to conciliate for the sake of being nice, which made him an outstanding scientist but a terrible potential politician.
Oh no no no, I completely agree that Feynman would make a terrible politician.
But I disagree about the grad work. Well, maybe it's special for physics but socialising and getting to know the right people was an important, if not exactly big, part of my Ph.D. programme. Conference culture is peculiar but important.
Getting a good post doc without connections? Good luck.
They're also (by and large) against GMOs, which show promise for the global food supply and have never been proven to be harmful in any way.
They see GMOs as the product of big corporations (even though that's not always the case) and big, evil corporations making money is an evil in itself for the "progressive" left.
The dictators in charge of the USSR were playing with spaceships while their population was starving and dying in gulags.
It's easy for government researchers to make advancements in science if they can steal any resources and personnel they want from the helpless population.
There is no shortage of food though
And liberals feeding the third worlders will be the death of us all.
There may not be a shortage of food per se, but GMO technology has the potential to greatly reduce the loss of crops from pests, disease, and droughts, thus making food more efficient. This lowers the cost of food and in turn makes everyone better off since they can now buy the same amount of food for less money.
continued:
Basically, we have poor working families living with higher grocery bills because some rich urban liberals are squealing, "eeew, frankenfoods are icky!" as they flip through Mother Jones magazine while they dine on their $25 organic tofu and kale salad.
>They're also (by and large) against GMOs
I haven't really observed GMOs to really be a partisan issue. Both parties have many people on both sides.
I see your two statements as being mutually exclusive.
ok but the price of foods is largely set by government regulators rather than the free market