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.
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?
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
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.
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.,
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.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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!
The reverse of that, burying it in capsules near a subduction zone, is a more viable option, but still controversial. Issues include:
-rates of subduction (geological processes are _slow_)
-no provision for inspection
-They are by definition in zones of high seismic activity, increasing probability of containment breach.
"'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
Ben Franklin was a good businessman and PR man. So he is the one known as the inventor, when in fact TJ probably invented at least as many items as Ben Franklin did. Since Ben Franklin was the shrewd businessman-type, and Thomas Jefferson was the always-losing-money-on-every-business-he-tried type (and his businesses were often based on the newest and latest technologies), you'd think Ben would be more likely to come up with patent, trademark, and copyright laws than TJ would.
TJ created the patent system that was the basis for the patent system in place today, even though he disliked the idea of patents in general. He felt that patents could cause there to be an unfair monopolies.
So he never patented any of his inventions.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.