Science, Religion, and Politics

[Dumpy Dooby]

Let me preface by saying that I haven't thought this all the way through, so bear with me if things get a little convoluted. I'll try to be quick, and people can ask me to be more specific later. I'm not too sure where I want to start, so I'll guess I'll just start at the beginning...

About 12,000 years ago, Earth underwent some climate changes: it got hotter. Humans descended from the mountains and into the valleys. Because of the climate changes, food was no longer available all year round. Humans had to learn to domesticate animals for food, and they took up farming. Alas, we have the invention of the plow in ancient Egypt. With the plow came civilizations. The seeds for various foods needed to be stored in pots. The potters wanted to be compensated for their work, so they began carving unique characters on their pots (first signs of writing), which was supposed to indicate the maker of the pot. In accordance to the agriculture, the seeds had to be planted at the right time for the Nile to flood and fertilize the land to produce the most amount of crops. The astrologists noticed particular stars that would appear and the Nile would flood a certain time later. Given some time, we have the invention of the calendar. Protection is offered to maintain wealth and preserve the agriculture, which eventually turns into law enforcement. To compensate the astrologers, the farmers gave crops to them. The law enforcement eventually starts enforcing the compensation between the farmers and the astrologers, and the compensation eventually becomes taxation. The astrologers eventually turn into priests and invent gods. The calendar remains esoteric, and eventually the prediction of flood levels becomes quite accurate (obviously thanks to the gods, and the priests that communicate with them). The law enforcement that's maintaining the stability obviously reigns over all, and a single entity is given rise. Thus, we have Pharaoh. To summarize: The experts in agriculture invented architecture. The experts in protection invented law and government. The experts in astrology invented gods and organized religion as we know it.

Okay, so that might have just been some quick trivial ramblings about the history of Egypt, right? Well, there is actually a point to this. The point is that the people on the lowest tier were unaware of the complexities of professional fields. They were subordinate because they didn't understand architecture, politics, astrology, etc. While their lack of knowledge was due to coercion, I can't help but notice this same type of ignorance rearing its ugly head in modern times.

Today, we have technology everywhere. Humans of antiquity were subordinate because they didn't understand the most primitive forms of pseudo-science. Imagine the potential of ignorance in today's society. The problem (for lack of a better word ) is, though, that people all have a say in what happens in modern governments. Legislation is ultimately decided by the general public, even in modern monarchies and republics. This, on the surface, seems okay. But how often do people indicate feelings along the lines of, "Oh that's too complicated. Those crazy egg heads will figure it all out. My life is too busy to be bothered with the technicalities." This is precisely the same mentality that is preyed upon by politicians in today's society. People are convinced to vote based on their emotions, rather than science and objectivity. Take the Apollo program, for example. People were unaware of the scientific benefits of the program, and their vote against it was based on the emotion that it was "a waste of money." Imagine if such a vote was cast when the Wright Brothers (hypothetically supposing their project was completely subsidized by the government) wanted to invent the airplane. It doesn't seem that difficult to imagine people saying, "Why would we want to be up in the air?" "That's not natural!" "People have been trying and failing to fly for years, why should we think it will work this time?"

Which brings me to the crux of my complaint: people are ignorant. People don't understand how science works. People don't understand how politics works. We have legitimate fields of science being polluted with politics. Climatology seems to be the most polluted, in contemporary times. The arguments from both sides have to do with funding, right and wrong, big oil, etc. None of these things have anything to do with science, but the debate itself rests on the shoulders of such ignorance. One would think that the societies of antiquity would have taught us a lesson in regards to mixing science, religion, and politics, but I guess we, as humans, are just too stupid to get it.

Love Always,
Dumpy Dooby

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Which brings me to the crux of my complaint: people are ignorant. People don't understand how science works. People don't understand how politics works. We have legitimate fields of science being polluted with politics. Climatology seems to be the most polluted, in contemporary times. The arguments from both sides have to do with funding, right and wrong, big oil, etc. None of these things have anything to do with science, but the debate itself rests on the shoulders of such ignorance. One would think that the societies of antiquity would have taught us a lesson in regards to mixing science, religion, and politics, but I guess we, as humans, are just too stupid to get it.

I'll agree most people don't understand science, they understand what they feel and assume their reasoning is sound. Politicians are merely good manipulators - many of them have a better understanding of how to influence people but they still don't understand science.

Very little in the world is actually driven by science, at least the key decisions. How much of society is based around reason?

[ballz2wallz]

Unfortunately politicians have begun to use science to push their own agendas, issues, etc. Like you mentioned climatology; ie global warming. Most unfortunately it's these same politicians who fund much of the science. So it's certainly a catch 22. Even more unfortunate are the media articles regarding the most 'recent study' on this or that. Most are rubbish.

Here is the latest article on the global warming fiasco; I think scientists are starting to regret the political whirlwind they've created with global warming, and it seems to be a recently developing trend in the scientific climatology community. I suspect you will begin to hear more and more about controversy, dispute, and debates among scientists about this issue in the near future. This is even more a reason why the public and politicians need to remain out of it; if the scientists don't know, then neither does anybody else. I've been claiming this for years now.

[Kytro]

The weather is very complex, so no we don't know everything. The problem has come about because there was an indication of potential problem that would have massive consequences but taking the recommended actions conflict with political /economic goals.

People will often go to great lengths to propagate the agenda they hold, even scientists.

[Dumpy Dooby]

It's easy to toss around funds and push agendas when it's with someone else's money.

This is precisely why such decisions should be left to private sector until it is objectively true.

[Kytro]

The private sector has no interest in being careful unless they believe it will cost them money.

What you have, at least with this issue, is good indications, but fuzzy details.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The private sector has no interest in being careful unless they believe it will cost them money.

What you have, at least with this issue, is good indications, but fuzzy details.

The private sector works in what I call the "thank you/thank you" concept. Let me explain: You go to the store to get some bread. When you're at the register, you pay for the bread. You hand the cashier the money, he/she hands you the bread. During that exchange, the cashier says, "thank you." To which you respond, "thank you." It happens all the time during transactions. You're thanking the cashier (an extension of the supplier itself) for the bread, and the cashier is thanking you for the money. It's a fair exchange.

What you're proposing, with taxing people to help others, works on no such principal. It is not inherently beneficial to both sides because both sides are not in agreement on the terms that are being proposed. It's not a give/take scenario; it's downright thievery. What people don't seem to understand is that having sovereignty granted to the government turns the government into an economic entity that has the power to monopolize whatever industry it deems necessary. Moreover, it gives it the power to coerce citizens into funding the process of monopolization.

The money industry in Europe during the 18th century is an excellent example of what happens when the government entertains the idea of monopolizing a commodity (in this example, the commodity is money). The Bank of England drove England into debt so far that they had to tax the American Colonies to the point that the Colonies were able to fight back. The Colonies fought back because they were able to borrow money from other countries, a privilege that would have never been granted to England due to the lack of value in their money (do you think anyone would loan today's Mexico a substantial amount of money? probably not). "But The Bank of England was a private bank owned by the Rothchilds!" you say? Well, bear in mind that it was also the declared central bank by the king himself. It may have been a pseudo-private bank, but it was also sanctioned by the king; hence, the government attempted to corner a market, then look what happened.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The private sector works in what I call the "thank you/thank you" concept. Let me explain: You go to the store to get some bread. When you're at the register, you pay for the bread. You hand the cashier the money, he/she hands you the bread. During that exchange, the cashier says, "thank you." To which you respond, "thank you." It happens all the time during transactions. You're thanking the cashier (an extension of the supplier itself) for the bread, and the cashier is thanking you for the money. It's a fair exchange.

I'm not going to disagree with this concept, the problem is possible outcome of not acting could be more dangerous than allowing the private sector to figure it out.

I'm not really talking about taxation in essence either, money won't solve this problem by itself anyway - more limitation of what a business is allowed to do.

I doubt anything will change the current path until it damages the current economy significantly.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'm not going to disagree with this concept, the problem is possible outcome of not acting could be more dangerous than allowing the private sector to figure it out.

It's in the best interest of the private sector to keep everything fair. When the economic status of individuals becomes polarized (i.e., no middle class) the private sector benefits only from the upper class, thus reducing its overall revenue.

I'm not really talking about taxation in essence either, money won't solve this problem by itself anyway - more limitation of what a business is allowed to do.

Charging too much for something allows competition to arise. Look at what happened when OPEC raised the cost of their oil to $75/barrel. Venezuela and Canada could process their shale oil and compete in that market. OPEC was forced to lower their prices because of the threat. See? Even a textbook example of a cartel like OPEC needs to fear competition.

I doubt anything will change the current path until it damages the current economy significantly.

And even then, the general population is too dumb to fix the problem.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It's in the best interest of the private sector to keep everything fair. When the economic status of individuals becomes polarized (i.e., no middle class) the private sector benefits only from the upper class, thus reducing its overall revenue.

The problem is the "free market" is a reactive force and is not intelligent. While it will stabilize there is no assurance it will not cause harm in the process and a stable point isn't always the most fair.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

And even then, the general population is too dumb to fix the problem.

Which is why some advocating attacking the source of the problem

[Donkey®]

I don't know how you can intelligently compare science (something based in research and fact) and politics (something based in deceit and fabrication). But I will agree...humans are ignorant.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't know how you can intelligently compare science (something based in research and fact) and politics (something based in deceit and fabrication). But I will agree...humans are ignorant.

I've been comparing politics to the subjectivity of religion and saying it needs to be more on par with the objectivity in science.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I've been comparing politics to the subjectivity of religion and saying it needs to be more on par with the objectivity in science.

I understand, but my point...probably not easily seen...is that there is no logic to politics or religion and it's hard to apply the methodology or mechanisms in Science to them.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I understand, but my point...probably not easily seen...is that there is no logic to politics or religion and it's hard to apply the methodology or mechanisms in Science to them.

There is no "logic" in religion.