/sci/ - Science & Math

[SAGE No.3568297]

Just curious; what is your political stance in relation to science? I believe in global authoritarianism, a New World Order, so to speak, in order to advance human kind.
Pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.3568302]

A meritocracy.

[Anonymous No.3568304]

Politics sucks. Everyone in it is dumb. Everyone interested in it is dumb. That's how I tell dumb people from non-dumb people really.

[SAGE No.3568315]

>>3568304
Well. How would you like to see the world/society to be ran in order for the progression of science and knowledge? Thats why I support authoritarianism, because this is what I think would suit it best.

[Anonymous No.3568320]

>>3568297
You would be surprised to learn how much general humanity is uninterested in advancing anywhere

[SAGE No.3568322]

>>3568320
Thats why I think that those very few of us are the "Elite" if you will.

[Anonymous No.3568323]

>>3568315
Sounds like propaganda.

[SAGE No.3568326]

>>3568323
Just my stance

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3568332]

I just... dont know anymore...

I dont really have any answer, but I dont believe in democracy anymore. There is no reason to assume that

1. People know what policy is best for themselves
2. The majority is somehow correct

An ideal circumstance would be some beneficent and isolated class of people for the purpose of policy making. Like how doctors are an isolated and beneficent class of people for the purpose of medical advice.

[Anonymous No.3568334]

I believe in New World Chaos

[Anonymous No.3568386]

>>3568315

You SEEM to be forgetting that humanity is generally horrible, ego-centric, corrupt, and unfit for such endeavors.

It might be more likely that any "global authoritarianism" would be a self-serving endeavor, and not for the benefit of all.

[Anonymous No.3568430]

>>3568332
> 1. People know what policy is best for themselves
Better than the same kind of people in politics representing their own interests.
> 2. The majority is somehow correct
Probably that does happen, but more importantly, the entirety of society is supposed to be represented.

You're not just supposed to work just with "the majority" - which does not exist if people are represented proportionally. You need to try to take every larger group of people into account when possible.

> An ideal circumstance would be some beneficent and isolated class of people for the purpose of policy making.
Obviously, that's supposed to be me and people of the same opinion.

>I dont believe in democracy anymore.
Who even has much of a democracy unless they have direct democratic elements that can correct bad representation (the right to revoke and instate any laws and decisions by public election)?
You vote for representatives based on very casual knowledge of them, then leave them unsupervised for n years, essentially. Given that n usually is something like 2-4 years, that's probably a bit stupid. What group of people would you leave with "your" things for 2-4 years unsupervised? Yea, IRL you can also punish abuses ex post, but you don't want the damage and then additional effort spent on it in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3568454]

Qualified direct democracy. Basically direct internet democracy, but vote weight of the individuals is not equal, but is dependent on education, criminal record, employment etc..

[Anonymous No.3568461]

I believe that people like OP should be killed in order to advance human kind.

[Anonymous No.3568474]

>>3568454
Basically ur saying that voting rights are based on how socially obedient is someone.
Also. If you lose your job, you lose your vote. Wtf.

[Anonymous No.3568481]

>>3568297
>He thinks authoritarianism would benefit human kind in any way.
laughing whores.jpg
so naive.
4chan is 18+, btw. Please leave

[Anonymous No.3568502]

>>3568474

>Basically ur saying that voting rights are based on how socially obedient is someone.

Yes. Its ridiculous that criminals who damage society, or people who do not contribute anything, and even take, have the same vote weight like contributing and law-abiding citizens.
Also its ridiculous that educated people have the same vote weight as uneducated people, since the ability to choose the right policies strongly depends on education in the relevant field. We dont hold a national vote with people who dont know anything about medicine on where a surgeon cuts during brain surgery, but we hold a vote on economic "operations" with people who never read any economics.

This is not so great issue in parliamentary democracy since getting into politics and parliament is at least some filter in itself, but in direct internet democracy, when all people will propose and vote directly about laws and issues, vote weight should not be equal.

>Also. If you lose your job, you lose your vote. Wtf.

If you are longterm unemployed and on welfare, the weight of your vote diminishes. You never lose vote.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3568506]

Currently: Social democrat w/ some elements of a meritocracy enhanced

When technology allows: Manna (http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm))

Pic related, latest political compass test I took.

[Anonymous No.3568529]

>>3568502

THIS. direct democracy with meritocracy/technocracy/sofocracy elements. i like it.

[Anonymous No.3568531]

>>3568297
gb2/toy/

[Anonymous No.3568534]

>>3568506
Sup?

[Anonymous No.3568538]

>>3568502
Your theory assumes that our laws are perfect.
If that is the case, why vote at all?
If that isn't the case, somebody that has broken the law hasn't necessarily damaged society - they might have broken an illogical law.
Like drug use - who does that harm?
You can't seriously claim that it harms the individual and as such should be illegal, because by that logic fast food should be illegal. And cars. And alcohol. And leaving your house. And not leaving your house.
Society benefits from the freedom to do things that might harm oneself, but are fun. Happy societies are productive societies.

[Anonymous No.3568539]

Nutzi.

[Anonymous No.3568540]

centrists rule.

[Anonymous No.3568551]

I believe there is potential for a compromise between a left and right libertarian style government.

[Anonymous No.3568553]

>>3568506
so close to mine its scary

[Anonymous No.3568554]

>new world order
>using a politicized term
Why?

[Anonymous No.3568564]

>>3568538

>Your theory assumes that our laws are perfect.

They are not, and as long as we have some stupid laws like soft drug criminalisation, there will be some collateral damage.
Still, as long as the ratio of people which influence on decisions is more likely to negatively affect society is greater among convinced criminals than among law-abiding citizens, including vote weight reduction for criminal record will have positive net effect.
And people who dont respect the laws of society should not have the same influence on their creation like those who do, thats just basic justice, even omitting positive effect from correlation between criminal, evil and stupid.

[Anonymous No.3568569]

Anyone who enjoys worshipping one side of the liberal versus conservative circus or actually believes in political spectrums should not get the vote. It's meaningless, like astrology or the myer's briggs test.

[Anonymous No.3568570]

A true scientists view of politics:

There may only be one true leader, known as the emperor of the imperium. The emperor governs all aspects of government as the final verdict. His secondary role is for the tactical deployment of imperial guard and space marine units throughout the sector. Below the emperor is the Tal'Shiar which governs telecommunications throught the sovereignty. Public affairs are humbly dealt with by the High Council of Jedi Masters. A series of laws will be passed to force corporations to submit a base percentage of revenue to a research agency of the emperor's choosing. The primary goal of all corporations will be to construct agricultural and residential installations in space, or to support the personell of corporations which will construct said installations. Guns will be banned. However, battery, laser and H-fuel cell efficiency, potency and ordinance (respectively) funding will be increased exponentially. The whole of finance, including the fiscal budget will be managed by Ryoske Takahashi.

[Anonymous No.3568582]

A true scientist's view of politics:

There may only be one true immortal leader, known as the emperor of the imperium. The emperor governs all aspects of government as the final verdict. His secondary role is for the tactical deployment of imperial guard and space marine units throughout the sector. Below the emperor is the Tal'Shiar which governs telecommunications throught the sovereignty. Public affairs are humbly dealt with by the High Council of Jedi Masters. A series of laws will be passed to force corporations to submit a base percentage of revenue to a research agency of the emperor's choosing. The primary goal of all corporations will be to construct agricultural and residential installations in space, or to support the personell of corporations which will construct said installations. Guns will be banned. However, battery, laser and H-fuel cell efficiency, potency and ordinance (respectively) funding will be increased exponentially. The whole of finance, including the fiscal budget will be managed by Ryoske Takahashi.

[Anonymous No.3568588]

>>3568502
>contribute
Who decides who contributes and who not? Does thinking about theoretical cosmology contribute as much as baking bread? I don't think so. The baker provides a much more important contribution to humanity than some guy Hawking in a wheelchair writing about hypothetical blackholes emitting radiation while evaporating. Most people would vote for the baker to have more voting rights than Hawking. Voting based on how "social contribution" is defined will lead to this and all philosophers, mathematicians, cosmologists, etc, will eventually get silenced or forced to adopt some occupation which makes them more likely to look socially obedient.

Also, considering that there are biological factors which influence a person's development of their brain/mind and their criminal behavior, then they have no real free will to break the law or not. SO some people look doomed from the start because of their genetics.

>We dont hold a national vote with people who dont know anything about medicine on where a surgeon cuts during brain surgery, but we hold a vote on economic "operations" with people who never read any economics.
That's because medical science is more evidence-based than "economic science". Economics has a lot of social and political influences in it, so it makes sense that people would be able to pass judgement on some economic issues which will affect their lives. Even surgeons first explain the operation to their patients and ask them for permission to do some stuff, they don't have the freedom to do cut their patients however they want only because they're technically trained and experienced.

>in direct internet democracy, when all people will propose and vote directly about laws and issues, vote weight should not be equal.
Who decides how much voting weight should be given to each and based on what?

[Anonymous No.3568593]

>>3568582
>Guns will be banned.
Of course, disarming civilians would be necessary to support such a totalitarian regime. They would have to be utterly helpless compared to the elite.

[Floyd No.3568606]

>>3568506

Interesting. Here's mine.