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?"

Comments

Point of Contention

[Yanray]

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.

Rational decision possible

[Frans Faase]

Rational decisions are only possible when sufficient reliable and objective information is available. The kind of decisions that politicians are facing, generally do not meet these criteria.

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.

Re:Rational decision possible

[mugnyte]

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.

I agree.

But much like any distributed system, all sources of information benefit from more participants than less, if they can be kept organized. This is also the primary argument supporting the open-source movement. Distributed participation.

So, the alternative seems worse: To reduce the sources of information to "official channels" and only trusted advisors, leads to the classic yes-man blindness of a leadership. Even ancient kings went slumming to avoid this.

Perhaps apply layer after layer of organization on the mass of information, and imposing stricter standards of evaluation as issues bubble up and stay longer. This I atribute to a free press. While they too suffer from bias, the "free" aspect should allow for multiple viewpoints to be expressed and thus one can look at any single issue from multiple sides.

Seems similar to what we're doing.

mug

Politics

[bluGill]

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?

Rational decisions, eh?

[Violet Null]

I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions

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...

Politics only has Politicians

[mugnyte]

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

Old Disinformation Karma Whoring.

[Red Rocket]

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.

Re:The real problem

[squiggleslash]

I would question that. The number of geeks I know who'll do something because it's "neat" or "cool" and will do anything to excuse negative repercussions for others is quite remarkable. Ignoring the more controversial examples, look at virus writers, people who hack into other people's email accounts or otherwise use what's available to them to invade privacy, etc.

"We" have a lot of sociopaths amongst us.

science and politics don't really mix

[Goldsmith]

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.

Geeks running for office get Gore'd

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

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?

Re:Geeks should rule for a while.

[4of12]

economic premises and principles which are, fundamentally, arbitrary.

True economic principles are actually quite sterile and free of value-judgements, just as science is.

Science, like economics, can be applied ruthlessly to any problem without regard for fundamental values that people like to hold.

Take taxation policy, for example.

Science and economics can help you evaluate the effects of different policies.

But in real life, people place different value on different propositions. These propositions can be argued forever without resolution because of differing underlying value judgements that people have, Eg.,

"Taxing rich people is unfair to people who deserve wealth."

"Having hungry children raised by incompetent parents is bad and society has a right to fix it."

You will get all kinds of opinions about how what value society should place overall on how happy or unhappy some people will be in certain situations and quantifying things. Once quantified, science and economics can take things from there.

It's clear that people are unhappy when their money is taken away from them and are happy when money is given to them. But saying that one person's happiness outweighs another person's unhappiness is a pure value judgement.

Sound principles of economics and science can be overlaid upon any value system you like: libertarian, socialistic, totalitarian, democracy, nihilism, theocracy.