1. The forums are temporarily closed for new registrations
    We expect to re-open for new users towards the end of July.
    Dismiss Notice

‘High likelihood of human civilisation coming to end’ by 2050

Discussion in 'SMB' started by steve30000, Jun 11, 2019.

  1. As we're discovering here the problem with a lot of experts is they think "I'm the expert" so don't listen and have little interest outside of their field. Which is fine in isolation but the real world is joined up, as we are discovering only to well, and we need people with "joined up" thinking. I was reading an article this morning about how Amazon (the company) is developing new (controversial) ideas in which a member of Amazon stated, “It’s a societal discourse and decision - and policy-making - that needs to happen to decide where you can apply technologies.” Experts avoiding the joined up thinking so as to pursue their area of expertise. Of course the next step will be to have their experts lobby the Government and offer their expert opinion. I'm certainly not anti expert but they need to be brought under control not given the carte blanche you propose.

    Lets get angry.;)
  2. fyl2u

    fyl2u Striker

    I'm certainly not proposing carte blanche, merely that qualified people end up in the important jobs instead of "old money" rich folks with no background in the area of expertise in which they work.

    What's the point having a minister for the environment who has no scientific background and doesn't understand the consequences of action or inaction?

    What's the point having a health minister with no background in medicine?

    The problem with the current system is that in order to garner votes or party donations, ministers more often than not ignore the science, ignore the experts, and do their own thing.

    MP's bring in legislation that gets them votes, regardless of whether it is good for the country, and refuse to bring in legislation that would lose them votes, even if doing so is bad for the country.

    Take the example of the environment: environmental experts have been warning us for years about fossil fuels needing to be replaced by clean energy, and yet we've dragged our heels to this point where we may be too late to act. Why? Because banning petrol cars would lose them votes and funding from Big Oil. Because their mates in the coal and gas industries would retract their party donations if our power were created by clean sources instead. All in all, because the MP's either haven't a clue about science or they dismiss the advice of the scientific experts in favour of the advice of the political experts.

    Take the example of medical marijuana: health experts worldwide agree that there are medical situations in which marijuana can help and nothing else can. They've known for years and there have even been numerous studies done by our governments of the past few decades themselves that have come to this same conclusion. And yet none of our governments since this knowledge became known have brought in legislation allowing for its use because they know that being "soft on drugs" will lose them votes in the next election.

    There are countless other examples of ways that our governments have screwed over the people of not only this country but the whole world with short-termist policies that gain them votes and financial backing.

    There are experts and there are experts. Don't think for a second that I'm advocating giving corporations free reign to advance technologies without government oversight. Quite the opposite. I'm advocating that whoever is in charge of making the decision of whether Amazon should be allowed to create a new technology should be a person who understands the science and the implications rather than just being a self-serving politician for whom votes and party donations are more important than helping the people.
    bernardbresslaw likes this.

  3. I agree with your analysis of the problem but disagree with some of your solution. I don't see using experts as the sole solution because experts are already being utilised. Unfortunately there are always experts with alternative views and undoubtedly politicians will use the ones most efficacious to them and their world view even if they are in a minority. The only way for us to bring about change is via public opinion. The public need to be educated not disenfranchised and this will entail experts standing up and being counted rather than being jobsworths. How many intelligent professionals just do their jobs and say nothing, be it politicians, teachers, doctors, etc. Most are terrified of losing jobs and just go along with the flow. Many, if not most, experts are just as self serving as the politicians you have such an issue with. The occasional whistle blower raises a head and speaks out only to end up with a life in ruins. The system is rotten from top to bottom and only by intelligent people speaking out and turning public opinion is there any chance of bringing about change.
    fyl2u likes this.
  4. The_Sultan

    The_Sultan Full Back

    If that's what it takes to get rid of Cattermole, I'm in!!!
  5. fyl2u

    fyl2u Striker

    Looks like we may be barking up the same tree after all. I agree 100% about the public needing to be educated. What better way to encourage that than by saying their vote will be worth more once they finish their degree etc.?

    Experts aren't some separate race or culture, they're just people who are educated.

    Anyone can become an expert in something simply by applying themselves.

    It's not disenfranchisement, it's recognition that some people are better capable of making certain decisions while others are more capable of making other decisions.

    You wouldn't go to your local butcher for heart surgery, so why ask the opinion of your average McDonalds till worker when it comes to making decisions about selecting a minister of transportation, for example?
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
  6. consettsafc

    consettsafc Striker

    I'm an expert at picking winnits off my hoop with no pain and I'm as thick as a castle wall.
  7. fyl2u

    fyl2u Striker

    Well, that's a skill. Right there. +1 Vote Points for you for all decisions relating to healthcare.

    Vote for me. With my system, your vote will already be worth double what it is now with no further study required. :D:cool:
  8. So if the uneducated, minimum waged, poverty stricken, etc., etc., were unable to vote who would elect and represent them - obviously people with no experience of the situation. Pretty much no change then. Or will the said minister(s) be selected from the underclasses of society to bring their expertise to bear. Sorry mate we're going round in circles guess I'll just agree to differ. Enjoyed the craic like.
  9. iansun

    iansun Striker

    Well I never thought I'd reach retirement age anyway
  10. fyl2u

    fyl2u Striker

    They'd perhaps still be able to vote for their local MP or favourite party or PM, but instead of that PM choosing his own cabinet, they would be chosen by people with the relevant experience or qualifications within the necessary field. E.g. The Minister for Health would be chosen from a list of prospective candidates by a national vote by people with healthcare or biology-related jobs or education, e.g. doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, dentists, opticians, biology teachers, professors in medical schools, vets and so on. The Minister for Education would be selected from a list of prospective candidates by a national vote by anyone with a teaching job and/or qualification, from driving instructors and nursery school teachers all the way up to university professors etc.

    A dentist would have no say about the minister for Transportation, but would get full say on the minister for health. An accountant would have no say on the minister for health, but would have full say on the chancellor of the exchequer. A train driver would have no say on the chancellor but would have full say on the minister for transportation.

    Or something along those lines.

    Meanwhile anyone that fits in with one if these categories for choosing a cabinet minister would have a vote in the regular elections that counts as, say, two votes from someone with no education or work history at all.
    Frijj likes this.
  11. Frijj

    Frijj Striker Contributor

    I think the word you are looking for to describe this is (kind of) technocracy.

    I would be very interested to see how well it would work, having government departments overseen by experts in that particular field.

    It’s an interesting concept. How many ministers actually understand the field they oversee?

    I just had a look on Wikipedia. I might have missed one, but by the looks of it, the last Secretary of State for Health to actually hold a medical degree served from 1938 until 1940.
    fyl2u likes this.
  12. fyl2u

    fyl2u Striker

    Yeah, somewhere between technocracy and meritocracy I think.

    If it hasn't been named already, I'd like to call it a fylocracy. :)

    And that last line is horrifying.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
    Frijj likes this.
  13. Frijj

    Frijj Striker Contributor

    Fylocracy? I’m not being ran by Yorkshire
    fyl2u likes this.
  14. Got it! Just reading the American Healthcare thread - privatise everything and you'll probably have your Fylocracy.
  15. fyl2u

    fyl2u Striker

    Nah, I'm a lefty, nationalise everything for my Fylocracy.
    Frijj and defunctdigits like this.
  16. MrBraithwaite

    MrBraithwaite Midfield

    Wasn’t it in the 70s they were predicting another ice age?....

    Free Taxis for everyone - the only way we can tackle climate change!

    What we really need are massive coal-fueled CO2 converters running day and night. We can then sell off the “clean credits” generated, which will allow mass polluters like China to essentially write off their pollution so we become “carbon neutral” on a paper basis, this securing civilization before we build rocket ships to establish colonies on desirable nearby planets like Mercury and Pluto.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  17. MSC

    MSC Winger

    Good shout, some sound ideas although slightly controversial that setting nukes off and presumably resulting in a very brief period of total war, will help the civilisation survive.

Share This Page