/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6700667
I don't know where you're from, but chances are changing your voting system is a good way to start.

A more intelligent and educated general public. But that's not going to happen.

>>6700667
Among many things a few of them would be:
-Use runoff voting rather than first past the post to eliminate the spoiler effect
-Make representatives salaries' proportional to the average income
-Some how set up a system where news isn't sound bites and buzzwords to support a false dicotomy

>>6700667
Technocracy.
Only people with scientific knowledge about a matter can vote on specific fields.
Running a democracy is the equivalent to a tyranny of the majority over the minority.

I vote for local/state, but never for president as long as electoral college is in effect, even though a lot of times it actually sides with popular vote...

>>6700678
How about techno-anarchy? Only those with the knowledge to command the machines that run our lives and our economy get their way. The most power goes to the most skilled person or group.

Oh wait, that's what we have now.

>>6700672
>90% of the world is dumb
Good luck changing that

>>6700684
>How about techno-anar....

>>6700678

This is an interesting idea, but I wonder how much different it would be in the matter of economy, for instance. Is there a any more of a consensus among economists on tax levels, regulations etc, than there is among the general public?

>>6700667
The solution is to get more scientists into congress. Actively promote, volunteer, and vote for science-based candidates.

>>6700680
yeah that's worked out so well for California

>>6700678
Technocracy isn't based on election, but rather on knowledge and skills of the members of specific needed fields.
Then most qualified in each field are selected to run their part of the government.

General public has very little to do with selection process.

>>6700680
I support the electoral college as I don't trust my fellow citizens to make the right choice should something batshit come up before or a short time after election day. Unfaithful electors are a godsend.

Easy. Drop one to two high school history classes from national curricula (pile them up in middle school if necessary) and replace them with a mandatory decent-quality macroeconomics course and a government course (the AP courses would be enough). The problem will sort itself out from there. Economics is the number one most misunderstood subject by the general public, and it reflects in the polls and in the direction of our country. Seriously, everyone knows a little math and science and history, etc., but ask any adult to define supply and demand in its most basic form and 99% of them would have no fucking clue.

There is one very simple solution to a lot of problems with the (American in this case) government.

Gerrymandering, and removing competition from voting districts.

What gerrymandering does: a district is where a population votes on a representative, this representative must appeal to these voters, and by creating borders of their district to have a population of mostly people subscribed to their ideologies it makes it very safe to stay elected to office, nearly indefinitely.

How to fix it: Set a population for districts (lets say 20,000), take the entire states population, divide by 2... etc etc. until you are down to districts of 20,000.

What it fixes: The lack of competition, by creating competition it lights a fire under the ass of elected officials (not just Senators) to do their job and have more mass appeal to multiple parties and decrease party partisanship and further promote working across the isle rather than ostracizing it because an official would be afraid to offend their voting population.

Enough of democracy.
We need technocracy. We need rulers who understand racial differences in genetics, so whites can learn to seperate themselves from the lesser races. We need rocket scientists setting policy so that whites can remove themselves from this planet altogether one day, aiming for the stars and leaving the nonwhites back on Earth.

>>6700687
>90%
>not above
>not 99%

I'd say at least 95%

>>6700678
I agree with this idea. Equality should be restrained to equality of possibility, giving everyone a way to study and raise in social standing, but everyone shouldn't be on the same pedestal.

>>6700678
>Only people with scientific knowledge about a matter can vote on specific fields.
That could work, but it would still require a larger governing body to oversee all the splintered scientific groups. Also, those groups would be highly politicized since they're the ones who decide who's knowledgeable enough to vote. I can't say that it would be better than what we have now.

I think we're going to need to stick with democracy for the next 200 years or so until we can develop a solid AI. Then, we'll start handing political powers to it.

Basically Hobbes' Leviathan but instead of being another (group of) humans that we relinquish power to, it is an over-human removed from the society which it governs.

Again, we're looking at 200 years or more, but think about how long we had monarchies.

I like this idea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition


Also, every thread like this one leads to some sort of consensus about technocracy.

It coudl be interesting to make a poll by board.

>>6701293
>next 200 years

The current system will only bring us to extinction if it lasts more than a century.

>Problem
>muh 99%
But seriously, capitalism doesn't work for balls and everybody knows it, even libertarians realize this and that's why they come up with increasingly ridiculous justifications for why the highest standard of living isn't Somalia like they would expect.
>Solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_planning_%28economics%29

>Problem
People are politically detached from the day to day goings-on of the country
>Solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

>Problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system#Disadvantages
>Solution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_systems


Many people would argue that all of the cultural problems plaguing our society - glorified criminality, mass scientific illiteracy, lack of interpersonal empathy - would all be significantly improved by re-shaping the society we are raised in and consequently fixing the adversarial and apathetic features of our culture. While some people believe in this rather dogmatically, other - myself included - adopt the position that that while these changes may not be a magic cure-all, they will have a significant positive effect and will put us in a much better position to identify and fix what remains of our problems.

>>6700678
so youd have a tyranny of the few over the many instead?

>>6700692
Yes, actually. In particular, a universal backs income is widely supported by economists, but don't expect to see it implemented any time soon.

>>6701344
>Capitalism doesn't work
>Let's try socialism!

Yeah, no thanks.

>>6701339
We're pretty resilient. Maybe I was being too generous though, I'm assuming relative global stability for 200 years.

500 years assuming one protracted global war and a hard reset of the majority of the world. I don't think extinction is likely. It would require several terrible things happening in a very short period of time (war, several ecological disasters, and a pandemic)

>>6700667
Racial, religious and political diversity is bad.
It results in overall worse societies, as measured by things such as civic participation, surveys on life satisfaction and even hours spent watching television.
It results in voting wars, with black people voting for black people because they are black rather than based on policy.
It results in groups that are biologically predisposed to be poorer voting themselves stuff stolen from the other groups.
It results in groups that are worse for civilisation outbreeding the others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH1aJ-t4plk&list=UUr6gdokI-jE_T1b5AmOOdxg

The solution is closing borders, forced deportation, positive and negative incentives for moving and the formation of separate states for each group.

>>6701229
>>6701344
You're assuming that the problem is a lack of representation.
As much as I dislike Brian Caplan, he did a decent speech called "public opinion for libertarians" or something like that.
It's basically just an analysis of survey results.

The gist of it is that what the government does and what the population wants the government to do are pretty much the same, but the government is slightly less retarded.

People support freedom in the abstract but not specifically.
They want to cut the budget abstractly, but when questioned on cutting specific things they don't want to cut it.
People support freedom of speech, but they think it should be illegal to say mean or "racist" things.

The number one reason given by Americans for subsidising agriculture isn't anything like "we need to ensure that American farmers are competitive on the global market".
Nope. It's "we need to make sure we don't run out of food".

>>6701344
>even libertarians realize this and that's why they come up with increasingly ridiculous justifications for why the highest standard of living isn't Somalia like they would expect.
There is nothing ridiculous about the explanations given by libertarians concerning Somalia.

First off, a majority of libertarians support a state that controls the law, police and military, something which Somalia does not have, so Somalia being shit isn't necessarily a mark against them.

Secondly, that entire area of the world is inherently shit.

Third, you haven't even considered the history of Somalia. Between 1969 and 1991 it was a socialist state, and it was even more of a shithole then.

> capitalism doesn't work for balls and everybody knows it
What "capitalism" are you even talking about?

>>6701747
The only way to survive would be to either colonize something or save the earth. Since we're probably going to kill the earth we'll not have the resources to go in space anymore and will kill ourselves as a modern civilization at least.

>>6700766
Scientists have no idea how to be politicians. They need to be able to do a lot of negotiating with their own party, the opposition, businesses and lobby groups etc, its not all about having the right ideas, but being able to put them into legislation that will become law. They also need to be aware of the economics of it all.
However, there should be a high level of input from academics in all relevant areas.

>>6700667
The UK Parliament, with its unelected upper house, probably employs the best system in the world. Leftists and idiots complain that the Lords is made up of fat old men who have no right to their power, but in truth, only 11% are hereditary, with most having been ennobled because of a lifelong commitment to some issue or another, that they can then continue without having to pander to the electorate.

our generation is pretty much fucked, with less than 40% voter turnout. There's still hope for the next generation. I believe the answer is to involve children in politics from a young age. Include political science in their curriculum. They may not appreciate it, but not many schoolkids appreciate math; you're unlikely to find a 10 year old incapable of calculating basic sums and multiplications.

>>6700667

Since everybody here is going to propose retarded solutions like term limits or obvious ones like eliminating the electoral college, so here's some unpopular but effective ways to fix the political system:

>Multiply representatives salaries by a large factor (5x or 10x). This draws talent towards politics and makes it a more viable field absent lobying.
>Extend individual terms in office but increase election frequency and stagger votes (like in the Senate: 6-year terms, but 1/3 are up for election every 2 years)
>Strengthen the power of the Federal government over states and municipalities. Fuckups like Detroit are not to be tolerated.
>Delegate more authority away from political institutions to the departments in charge of implementing them (eg. move the ability to increase the debt limit to the Fed from the House)
>Give the President increased latitude to appoint non-judicial executive positions without congress

inb4 buttblasted libertarians crying "muh statism"

>>6701802

No I'm not (229) assuming a lack of representation, you completely missed the point of everything that I posted.

Read what I wrote, then read what you wrote.

>>6701958
>>Multiply representatives salaries by a large factor (5x or 10x). This draws talent towards politics and makes it a more viable field absent lobying.

are you actually retarded?

>>6702042

No. As it stands low salaries incentivize representatives to seek rents in alternate fashions (ie through lobbying). Look up the Tullock Paradox- politicans are actually very cheap to bribe. Raising their salaries will correct that, since although it's easy to hide a million dollars in a slush fund to pay in exchange for political favors, hiding a half-billion is both infeasible economically and extremely risky. Essentialialy, you're driving up the cost of corruption to the point where it's impractical for all but a few sources, which of course can then be carefully scrutinized.

Several nations have tried this with great success- Singapore for instance.

>>6701938
This. It is ridiculous that there is no compulsory political education (at least in the UK), given that over your time at school you go from a clueless little kid to a member of the electorate.

>>6700667
>true democracy instead of layered representative "democracy" by using a Public key infrastructure and voting online on _everything_! Not a single decision is met by "some higher ups", if it affects you or even just concerns you - you can vote on it
>if you work for the gouvernment, all your work related stuff is public. All email and phone communications and transactions on the work bank account


>>6700675
>Make representatives salaries' proportional to the average income
median would be better, otherwise the politicians will simply add a few zeroes to the salaries of their favourite lobbyists

>>6702064
>median would be better, otherwise the politicians will simply add a few zeroes to the salaries of their favourite lobbyists

You really don't understand how lobbying works, do you? Lobbyists pay politicans, not the other way around.

>>6701229
if most people in a district have the same ideology and elect someone who shares it, then what is the problem?

>>6702064
democracy is shit

>>6701958
>This draws talent towards politics and makes it a more viable field absent lobying.
Talented people become doctors, engineers, physicists or great artists
most politicians are fullretard faggots with a philosophy or economy "degree"

>>6702082
Why does everyone always hate on philosophy so much? In my experience, the scientists who actually know what philosophy involves are the only ones that show it any respect.
Philosophy =/= religion jeez

>>6702082
>Talented people become doctors, engineers, physicists or great artists

And physicists and engineers sell out and go to Wall Street to become quants, doctors give up their dreams of working for MSF to become anesthesiologists, and artists sell out and hobnob with rich douchebags from Manhattan because that's where the money is in each of those cases.

Maybe if they could make seven figures as a politician those doctors, engineers, and physicists would run for office instead of making JP Morgan more money.

Also, in the US at least, something like over half politicians are lawyers, not economists or philosophers.

you called?

>>6702093
It's important to respect all sciences, including philosophy, since it develops a lot of good ideas for scientists to test.

It is not important to respect religion.

>>6700861
Just because the masses are asses doesn't mean you should trust the secretive minority, you edgy baitman.

1) invent every technology possible, including the ability to reverse aging
2) kill everyone except myself
3) live in a utopia where robots take care of my every need and I dont need to compromise or argue with anyone else

>>6701321

>sortition

I didn't know there was a word for it. I always thought that having politicians randomly selected from the population would be a good way to weed out the narcissists and psychopaths.

Oh my god you people are retarded.

There is no way to fix our government. What you have to understand is that government is a system in place that allows for the legal initiation of force. If you or I steal any other individual's money, it's called theft. It's immoral and wrong, but when the government does it it's called taxation. If you or I print money, it's called counterfeiting. When the government does it, it's called inflation and we're lied to and told it's necessary to grow the economy and just something we have to deal with. Clearly, the initiation of force against another individual is evil and morally wrong. Therefore, because government is the initiation of force against individuals who only wish to live peacefully and engage in peaceful, voluntary transaction for mutual benefit, government is clearly morally wrong and evil.

Another way to look at it is that there is no such thing as government, only people. And what do people do? They always serve their own self interests. So we have a system in place that allows people to legally initiate force against other individuals. Therefore, when you understand it as such, it is fairly obvious how we find ourselves in the situation that we are in. People who wouldn't steal from another person will gladly vote for a politician who advocates for stealing other people's money through taxation and the printing of money for their own benefit. Politicians of course, being self-serving people, will gladly tell people that they are entitled to things like food, healthcare, housing, things that government can only provide to people by stealing other people's money.

Nobody defends slavery today. We all accept it as morally wrong and evil. The next step in human progress is understanding that the initiation of force against another human being is evil, and because government is exactly that, government is morally wrong and evil.

Inb4 hurr durr, "too ideal" and other idiots not making any valid arguments for why what I've said is wrong.

>>6700667
100% transparency in politics would be a start.

Equalising all punishment down to a common denominator (as cruel as it may seem) would be good too. If a human life is valued at say $7.5 million, then a tax fraud of $15 million should bear the same punishment as double homocide.

Anarchism or nonconstitutional monarchy.

No taxation without service representation.

You should recieve a tax bill that clearly states where your tax money has been spent.

If out of your total tax bill you are taxed $1000 on, for example, Education, then that $1000 should only be spent by the Government on Education. Not on welfare, not on the military, or any other item.

When people can see exactly how and where their tax money is spent each year perhaps they would become less apathetic about politics.

Then we would really see some "Change!"

Create a clearer division between politics of morality and politics of administration, and make the latter electable officials. In other words, make, for example, the secretary of education a distinct, electable position, so that person is able to run a campaign that is issue focused and not part of the general "muh feels" campaigns the presidents and congressman.
In turn, significantly reduce the power of legislatures to administrate - it's not what they should be doing anyway. Legislative bodies would be left to focus on moral societal issues (gay marriage and abortion and whatnot)
I don't claim it's a perfect solution, as there will always be some overlapping grey area, but I think it would resolve a lot of deadlock.

is this r9k in disguise? people here seem almost less human than those folks.

Create a gigantic supercomputer that runs everything for us.
Eventually it'll want to kill itself so we'll have to build another one.

>>6702264
That sounds good. Along with that maybe they should be forced to show the breakdown of every candidate's biggest campaign contributors right on the ballot.

>>6702301
>>6702264

Everything except your FICA taxes go straight to the Treasury's general fund, and your FICA taxes are spent buying Treasury bonds which go... into the general fund.

Hate to break it to you, but your taxes go to the same thing as everything else, the breakdown of which is available pretty much anywhere.

>>6701911
That's bullshit. Scientists are the most educated part of the population, while the politician aren't. They know better their shit than some worthless economy faggots. cf. >>6702082

>>6702619
They do know their shit. THEIR shit. I wouldn't expect a lawyer to know how to fix a broken leg any more than I'd expect a medical doctor to be able to cite every traffic law that is in existence.

Politicians, as a general rule, know a lot about politics. Scientists' experience is usually with their field of study.

Apply Austrian Economics and the non aggression principle to every government decision

you will have the greatest economic growth in world history

infallible computer system for optimal allocation of resources.

this would remove 95%+ of major corruption issues and solve most social issues regarding basic human welfare.

the government should be to serve the people, not the businesses, and not itself.

By ending the federal reserve and allowing banking to be in the hands of the people.

>>6702690
>>6702705

yes yes yes!

>making politics more scientific

>>6701344
>But seriously, capitalism doesn't work for balls and everybody knows it, even libertarians realize this and that's why they come up with increasingly ridiculous justifications
Yeah I'll just leave this here.

It seems leftist shills are allergic to facts.
Go live in north korea you piece of shit.

>implying the western world has anything close to capitalism

>>6701344
>socialist

Please get off the science board you delusional naive child.

By freeing the market motherfucker.

>>6702690
>>6702705
>>6702713
>>6702714

Ah, and now the "muh asstrian eckernomics" fags have arrived from /pol/. Little late don't you guys think?

Also,

>shilling for a field that explicitly rejects all empirical evidence in favor of shitty deductive reasoning based on incorrect axioms
>on /sci/

>>6700667
>make it more scientific?

Science is controlled by politics, be it corporate or government.

>>6700667
Create a system to dispose of any humans that can do nothing to contribute to the advancement of humans as a species. Then we won't have to worry about money or anything we just provide everyone with the same necessities to live and thrive then we may focus on conquering more than this planet.

>>6702710
>majority of people now make more than $1.25 a day
that settles it, capitalism works

>>6702713
>Posts pictures saying Socialists shit on ideas without making any actual arguments and simply call Capitalists names
>Does literally that the other way around

If you're going to represent your cause, at least represent it well.

>how can we make [fundamentally unscientific social construct] more scientific?
Not a science question. Fuck off to >>>/pol/