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: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.