Slashdot Mirror
More Complaints About Yucca Mountain
AstroAce writes "I saw this article about the Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste dump, and was doubly intrigued. Not only did I do lab tech work on a YM grant as an undergrad, but my science advisor said the best thing I could do for science would be to become a Congressman, and get hold of the purse strings (remember SSC, the Super-conducting Super Collider?) I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions. However, they don't seem to be gregarious enough to be politicians. Are there examples of both?"
The real problem is that geeks have morals.
You're overly optimistic.
I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions.
So instead of bribing my Joe-Schmoe-congressman with a wad of cash, I'll have to bribe my tech-geek-congressman with the latest WiFi gadget instead?
You think geeks are more rational & objective than other people? You must read Slashdot just for the articles then. Haven't been reading any posts, now have we?
I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens
They could be, but not necessarily.
Just as the rest of the world gets caught up in emotional irrational evaluation of how government ought to be run, so can geeks.
Not a few geeks are emotionally involved with science and technology. That attachment can be an asset when it helps to drive scientific progress.
But it can be a liability when it comes time to evaluate whether it is best to spend money on fish or bicycles, which are the kinds of decisions and value judgements confronting elected representatives.
Probably the most significant contribution an elected geek could make is to push in every possible way for the population to become more educated, more rational, willing more to use powers of analysis than to fall back on emotion and feeling. Unfortunately, the latter traits are becoming too well developed because they are useful pry bars in advertising as well as in their long-standing role in swaying political opinion.
Early childhood education programs will really bring the most bang for the buck if you look in the long term.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Uh, yeah, wasn't the internet invented by a vice president, a few years ago?
My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
I seem to recall a scientist/inventor with political power they talked about in my history class. His name was Thomas Jefferson, anyone heard of him?
He seems to have been responsible for putting into the Constitution the American concepts of intellectual property--copyright, patent, trademark, etc.
If you let an inventor write laws, of course he is going to write laws that favor inventors. Then lawyers, who are much better with laws than inventors, will interpret those laws in the way that makes the most money for whoever hired them.
I think the same would hold true for geek-politicians today.
-
The Progressive movement was based on belief in the Scientific Method and it's application to politics.
The major problem that I see with this idea is the population density of geeks is not significant anyplace in the US (or other countries so as not to be a culturally insensitive clod) to get a congressmen or senator or president elected to significant public office. Between that and the lack of any political consensus on many issues (read: all issues) I find the very concept that we could agree bunk. (Shit we can't even agree that we landed on the moon or that the holocaust happened)
However the point of the statement was the idea that scientific funding is needs to be a more prominent issue in politics today. This we as a community could do. We have to influence the political structure that this is an issue we are all concerned with and should be an issue for political debate in the upcoming election year. This is the greater question to such topics as environmentalism, fuel costs, and space programs. Ask your senator, congressman, presidential candidates what scientific topics interest them. If they say something like environmental aspects of cow droppings in Nevada have them shot. If they say development small nuclear reactors in Alaska for outlying communities give them the benefit of the doubt.
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
The real problem is that we live in a world with limited resources, both with respect to materials and knowledge. For these reason we tend to listen to those people that sound convincing. The best way to prevent corruption, is to prevent concentration of power. (It is a known law that the power attracts the corruptable.) The main disadvantage of preventing this, is the slowdown of decision making and the danger of bureaucracy. There is a general tendency for concentration of power.
It is also true that those that sound convincing often believe that rational decisions are not possible (because no reliable information does exists) and that their popularity amongh the masses affirm the correctness of the decisions they have made.
One could conclude that the qualities of decisions made in any democratic system can never be greater than the average quality of understanding of the people in that democracy. That is one of the greatest weaknesses of true democracy.
The problem with geeks in politics is you realize there are a lot of issues that geeks are not good at. Abortion is a really hot button for many people. Can you deal with it in a way that will not put off so many people that you won't be elected no matter how good you are otherwise? And that is just one hot issue. What is good for the country is not nessicarly what is good for seniors, and seniors control a lot of votes, so Socal Security reform basicly cannot happen no matter how bankrupt it is. How will you as a geek deal with this so that you can get elected.
There is only so much money coming into congress. As a congressman you get to choose how to spend it, and if more should be borrowed if it isn't enough. Want to fund a super collider, but there is not enough money coming in, you either need to convince everyone else to drop something they like for something you like, or you need to borrow more money. And the 533 other people in congress will all be trying to get you to drop your super colider for their pet project.
That is even assuming your other ideals don't get in the way. Which school of ecconomics are you in? Classical, Marix, Keynes, Autstian, (Yeah, I can't spell a one of them), one that I've not hear of yet, or even one of your own design? How do you deal with those of other schools?
One congressman doesn't get anything passed alone. Can you compromise?
What makes me the most nervous is that every one seems to assume that the status quo is peachy?
There is actually no great hurry in moving spent fuel away from reactors--it can be stored safely for many decades in dry casks.
So what if the Yucca site isn't good for 10,000 years, maybe its good for a thousand. At least the waste would be consolidated at one secure site instead of spread out everywhere. If a better repository is found, move it.
There is also a lot more radioactive waste than just spent reactor fuel and it residing in corroding steel tanks that will leak into the water table if breached.
Logic is not Divine.
You mean, like asking a group of two or more geeks...
- Whether Gnome is better than KDE?
- Whether vi is better than emacs?
- Whether perl is really a descendent of BASIC?
- Which flavor/distribution of *nix is best?
Yeah, you get some rational answers there. Face it. Geeks are people. People are irrational. Therefore, geeks are irrational.Now, the computers! That's who should lead us! Perfectly rational, and I see no downside to putting control of our military in their (metaphorical) hands...
It doesn't matter one's background (in fact, the US Congress has quite a diverse background), once you are in politics for a career, you are a "politician". The perception that *anyone* is outside the sphere of influence for debate is absurd. I abhor the concept of "outside the beltway" in Washing DC terms, where someone is marketing themselves to bring new opinions to the floor. The opinions are usually known, it's the votes that count.
Politics is the business of making deals and comprimises according to an ever-shifting value system. One looks out for the constituents, ganering votes, but also one's reputation (perception, not reality, is king here). Also, to afford others the possibility of compromising in your favor, you compromise in theirs at some point.
On top of all that, you have the standard environment of cynicsim, complecency, and cronyism that any organization would have. People organize into parties because they realize a group is stronger than an individual, especially when a complex democratic process is used (quorum, majority, super-majority, comittee, sub-committee).
I don't have a full grasp of all the details, but at least I know BS when I hear it. All people in politics are politicians. This doesn't have anything to do with their morals or the issues they take a position on. And all freshmen arrivials get trained in the procedural steps to move about the houses.
mug
If we had a government which attempted strictly to solve problems *scientifically* instead of 'economically', we'd be in much better shape.
The problem with the existing government is that it is based on economic premises and principles which are, fundamentally, arbitrary.
Science would not have invented the Federal Reserve System.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
You can always get a little karma boost by repeating this crap. Lots of rabid haters out there.
So much for Geeks being qualified as leaders.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
My dad was a politician, and I'm a scientest.
The main problem is the lack of a common view between both types of people. Scientests tend to be able to plan for the future much better than politicians. We don't care as much about what happens next year, or next election cycle, as we do 50 years from now.
The problem is, really planning ahead will not get you re-elected, and in the political world it takes more than one term to really learn how the game works.
Most geeks who find their way into government will end up being advisors and sitting on commitees where long term thinking is appreciated, and the pressure to perform this minute is reduced.
The whole fallacy with your argument is in thinking that politics is about problem solving. It's not. Politics is about getting re-elected, first and foremost. Geeks in general (I didn't say all of us) lack the abilities and desire to perform that type of job.
Al Gore and Ralph Nader are probably the two biggest policy geeks to have run in recent history. Look what happened there. Bush doesn't even read the newspapers and Cheney's followers prefer cherry-picking intelligence they like (aka intellectual dishonesty).
The American media and public it feeds don't have time for in-depth policy discussion, Kobe Bryant, OJ and Scott what's-his-face get more airtime for simple criminal trials. No geek is going to win without a brilliant media campaign that can wrap this in-depth analysis of the issues with some bravado and excitement that will appeal to the news orgs. They only people with the money to do this type of thing are the Republicans, but they'd prefer to spend it controlling the media trying to turn unpopular positions into popular ones (so-called tort-reform and supply-side economics which is thin veil for "starve the beast" strategies).
On the other hand, tech geek objectivity doesn't always translate into policy geek objectivity. Look at Eric Raymond, have you read his political stuff? Anyone who follows history and politics seriously wouldn't tap him as politically insightful. His more like a Libertarian version of the Bush administration, faith-based govenment. Instead of faith in a deity (or non-deity) it's faith in an ideology.
Another bad geek as government worker example is Robert MacNamara under Kennedy and Johnson during Vietnam. He was a former CEO of Ford and Defense Sec. He got the Pentagon so wrapped up in metrics to gauge success (war by body count) that the military couldn't focus on getting the job done. Now we have Rummy who was a former Pharm. exec who's leaked memo yesterday talks about "new metrics" for gauging the success in the war on terror. He's talking about measuring how many fanatics the fundamentalist maddrassas (Muslim version of Catholic school) turn out to measure success. Short story is, business geeks are not a really good choice either, how do you run government like business when it's not supposed to turn a profit and when "profits" (the betterment of citizens) can be so intangable.
So anyway, get policy geeks and history geeks if you want objective, reasoned government. Don't let anyone with strong ties to any ideology (neo-conservatives, commies, religious ideologues) into government. There's a lot of evidence that the founders used seperation of chuch and state to try and accomplish this because the only political ideologues at the time were pretty much on the same page being ideologues of the enlightenment's democratic liberalism.
BTW, what does all this have to do with Yucca Mountain?
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
How about that?
All this "waste" is recycleable. If it is stored onsite, and a headache for management it can help drive them to recycle the stuff, which is a real solution to the problem. Out of sight is out of mind, and when you move this waste to underground nobody sees it and nobody who can do something to solve the problem thinks about it.
Not to mention that Yucca mountain doesn't have the capacity to store all the "waste" that we already have much less what we will produce while it is open.
my science advisor said the best thing I could do for science would be to become a Congressman
And to think, your high school guidence counselor said you'd never amount to anything.
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
Dude, if my advisor told me that the best thing I could do for science was to get elected to congress, I'd be seriously depressed and/or insulted. He's telling you that you suck, man!
no no, no clusters this time.
Imagine a conference:
some guy presents his new invention
-This system controls millions of bacteria...
and a geek from the FreeBSD party shouts from the back:
In Soviet Russia, bacteria controls the system!
Though, the thought of NASA becoming our 'nuclear trash-man' is both sad and amusing at the same time...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
The Progressive movement was based on belief in the Scientific Method and it's application to politics.
First of all, I presume that by "progressive" you're talking about the Leftists and Socialists who were formerly known (incorrectly) as "Liberals"...
"...based on belief in the Scientific Method"? I think not! They ignore HUGE chunks of science in order to promulgate their irrational beliefs into some kind of a Socialist Utopia.
These are the same people claiming that so-called "Global Warming" is going to incinerate the planet, that cultivating trees in the Pacific Northwest is going to precipitate a global ecological disaster and that nuclear power "dangerous." And let's not forget their abject ignorance of the field of economics with their armed-robbery-by-the-State-is-the-solution-to-all- social-problems philosophy....
No, so-called "Progressives" are worse than their enemies on the other end of the political spectrum when it comes to ignoring Science and promoting "junk science." At least the Right Wing keeps their focus on human sexuality and "creationism," which is evil enough without trying to destroy an entire economic system and send us all back to the Stone Age as the "Progressives" are wont to doing.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Point being, there is room for a geek element (as ham radio is certainly geeky) in the halls of congress.
Now here's a counter point - people are right in commenting that we're probably not gregarious enough to be politicians, or at least stereotypical politicians. To take a career in politics, you can be corrupt and follow the stereotype, uber-moral and be like (say) Jesse Helms, and on and on.
As such, and no offense intended to Eric, but perhaps Eric Raymond could run for congress and get the foot in the door for the geeks. Worth a shot, wot?
This sig no verb.
Was Barry Goldwater. Good dude. Also ran
for Prez in ummmm '62? I think
He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obsta
Let's see, there's Herbert Hoover, an engineer credited with being a tough administrator during food shortages caused by World War I and then, some would say, bringing about the Great Depression thereafter.
And we have Jimmy Carter, now seen as a great humanitarian, but often criticized as an ineffective politician.
Yasser Arafat was also trained as an engineer, and I venture to guess that there are probably extremely diverging opinions as to his effectiveness as the 'best representative of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions'.
Add to your review Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Brezhnev, who were both engineers before rising to prominence in Russian politics.
I guess you could use these examples, and many more, to make arguments either way. But aren't we trained to work with the real world around us? Why not do a little field survey and consider the next five specimens that you encounter in their natural habitat?
Do you think that sullen character in the next cube would be a good representative of the people?
How about the Sales Engineer from that company that is trying to get you to buy their expensive, but miracle, cureall application?
I thought that only as a Scientist or at least a curious thinker, all that was needed was a problem to solve. The solution would just be an afterthought.
In this case, where the problem is becoming influential and powerful in our government, how can someone have the solution to a problem and not exercise the answer?
You can't change science and you can't really change the government.
Stop doing science.
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
Personally, I'm fed up. I'm going to get into the fray and fight for what's right. (Which, in my case, is center-left libertarian independent, or about -4, -4 on politicalcompass.org.)
I'm not sure I'm up to the task of getting elected, but I mean to try. I don't have a campaign fund set up, and I haven't even figured out what office I'm going to shoot for. (Congress is right out at this stage.) I might have a shot at the state legislature, but I doubt it. I mean to pick the most interesting office that affords me a decent chance at success.
Anyone in Oregon who wants to support a geek candidate can send me an e-mail, and I'll get back to you when I'm ready to raise money or volunteers.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Think like this "I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions." is what is wrong with DC now.
No one is willing to admit what they do not know.
Of course Slashdotters will think geeks would make great political leaders. Plato thought "philosopher-kings" would be the ideal rulers. Nobles thought the aristocracy had a "divine right" to rule others. Throughout history, there have been rich people advocating plutocracy, priests who liked theocracy, generals using coups to establish martial law, and so on. In the end everyone thinks that their own social class is uniquely qualified to run things, because that's the perspective they're used to looking at the world from. If what you have is a hammer, every problem looks like the proverbial nail.
I think the moon would be a good place to bury it. They said they were having a problem with moisture and I am pretty sure that there isn't that much on the moon. And in 10000 years it will be out of reach unless the ability to go there is rediscovered so they would be able to detect it and take caution.
And IIRC, it would have sucked up the entire science budget of the Feds and left nothing available for any other type of science, in particular the sequencing of the Human Genome. Congress decided that the Human Genome project was more important than the SSC. Physicists are just another interest group (albeit one that I am usually more sympathetic to than most) when it comes to spending my hard earned tax dollars. They must compete with many other useful ways to spend taxes. Sometimes their pet projects lose out. Get over it.