[Santalum]

Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public are largely science illiterate?

[John Cuthber]

If the problem is that the people are uneducated then there is a solution: educate them.
I'm not sure that's the only issue.

[Santalum]

John Cuthber, on 2 February 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

If the problem is that the people are uneducated then there is a solution: educate them.
I'm not sure that's the only issue.

A great many people will not be educated, fundamentalist muslims and Jew for example.

Even among the general public, if you make some basic science a compulsory subject through high school and university then they are likely to resist even though it is in their wider interests and that of society.

So if people have a tendancy to resist being educated then democracy remains a problem for sustainability.

[TonyMcC]

Santalum, on 2 February 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public are largely science illiterate?

I think that the problem of sustainability within a democracy goes well beyond a lack of scientific knowledge. I think that selfishness and a lack of altruism is a major, perhaps the major, factor. For example in a democracy we vote for our leaders. But when we make our choices we selfishly think "who will do most for me in the short term?" We don't worry about the thought that the promises can't be met without the government borrowing or printing money. The result (IMO) can be seen in the present state of the global economy. I don't know how it is to be achieved, but we need to think "What is best for the world?". Some of the best educated people are among the most selfish.

This post has been edited by TonyMcC: 2 February 2012 - 11:02 PM

[doG]

Santalum, on 2 February 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public are largely science illiterate?

Democracy and sustainability are incompatible largely because the vast majority of the general public is greedy. A growing percentage of the public votes for those that promise the most gifts from the public treasury. The public never votes for those that promise to cut them off from unsustainable programs.

[Santalum]

doG, on 3 February 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Democracy and sustainability are incompatible largely because the vast majority of the general public is greedy. A growing percentage of the public votes for those that promise the most gifts from the public treasury. The public never votes for those that promise to cut them off from unsustainable programs.

Therefore, given the above, democracy is not compatible with sustainability. Perhaps we need authoritarian governments as in China?

[John Cuthber]

"A great many people will not be educated, fundamentalist muslims and Jew for example."


At the risk of being shot by the PC police, religious fundamentalists are generally inconsistent with democracy.
As I said, I don't think scientific illiteracy is the only issue.

I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

[Santalum]

John Cuthber, on 3 February 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

"A great many people will not be educated, fundamentalist muslims and Jew for example."


At the risk of being shot by the PC police, religious fundamentalists are generally inconsistent with democracy.
As I said, I don't think scientific illiteracy is the only issue.

I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

Economists seem to have a vetoing say in scientific and environmental matters so perhaps you should indeed have a say on the above matter John.

[iNow]

John Cuthber, on 3 February 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

Off topic, but... Whatever your background or skills, you should probably vote, no. Having your own currency allows you to inflate or deflate value quickly and cushion yourselves against volatility and market shock. Countries with their own currency have fared FAR better than those holding a shared currency under silo'd leaders.

[John Cuthber]

Even further off topic but...
Way back the different states of the USA had their own currencies. They decided to amalgamate.
As far as I can tell the OP didn't really make sense.
It's like asking "Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public don't know how to make marmalade?"
If the only thing preventing their compatibility was a lack of understanding then that's a relatively easy thing to deal with.

[CaptainPanic]

John Cuthber, on 2 February 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

If the problem is that the people are uneducated then there is a solution: educate them.
I'm not sure that's the only issue.

The people can democratically choose not to be educated. For example, if Americans would vote Santorum for president, that would be a vote against education, and still completely democratic. The public can vote itself into oblivion, and still democracy would function as it is meant to do. It's a weird system, and far from perfect.

I agree with the words of Churchill, who said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

John Cuthber, on 3 February 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

I'm a scientist, but I know little about economics. Should I be permitted to vote on questions like the UK's possible membership of the Euro?

Economists also know little about economics. I agree with your point in general, but I think you chose a poor example, as nobody seems to understand the economy.

[JohnB]

Since "sustainability" is a fantasy that has no meaning in the real world, then "sustainability" and any form of real world government are incompatable.

But don't let reality get in the way of a good fantasy.

[Tres Juicy]

John Cuthber, on 4 February 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

It's like asking "Are democracy and sustainability incompatible given that the vast majority of the general public don't know how to make marmalade?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/marmalade

I've saved us all!

[Santalum]

CaptainPanic, on 6 February 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

The people can democratically choose not to be educated. For example, if Americans would vote Santorum for president, that would be a vote against education, and still completely democratic. The public can vote itself into oblivion, and still democracy would function as it is meant to do. It's a weird system, and far from perfect.

I agree with the words of Churchill, who said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."


Economists also know little about economics. I agree with your point in general, but I think you chose a poor example, as nobody seems to understand the economy.

Churchill also said that the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

The recent global financial crisis is a pretty good indication that most economic experts are largey punching while blind folded.

[CaptainPanic]

Santalum, on 6 February 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Churchill also said that the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

The recent global financial crisis is a pretty good indication that most economic experts are largey punching while blind folded.

Yup.

Our experts are clueless. The voters are clueless. And as a whole, we iterate ourselves forward. There is no plan. And if it all goes horribly wrong, we change course in another random direction.

That's democracy for you.

[iNow]

CaptainPanic, on 6 February 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Economists also know little about economics.

Some do. A few have, in fact, had a remarkably accurate record and been fairly consistently correct these past several years.

[doG]

CaptainPanic, on 6 February 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Economists also know little about economics. I agree with your point in general, but I think you chose a poor example, as nobody seems to understand the economy.

No. They actually know a lot about economics. The problem is that we listen to the ones that spin the truth instead of those that tell the truth. This guy nailed it but no one listened

[CaptainPanic]

iNow, doG,
When you take 1000 economists, and they predict 1000 truths, there are going to be a few who are spot on, and some who are horribly wrong... and you will also get all the opinions in between completely right and completely wrong.

It's just a statistical distribution (perhaps a normal distribution - not sure). In retrospect, it is always easy to say that someone was right.

If the majority of economists would have been right about the crisis, then I would still believe in them. But they weren't. A lucky few had it right. Not enough to make me believe they are anything but ordinary charlatans. Fortune tellers are about as trustworthy.

Take a deck of cards. Ask 100 people to predict the next card. I would estimate (without bothing to do the statistics) that about 2 people will guess it right. Looking back at the event afterwards, you can say: "Those two were the fortune tellers - we should have listened to them!". And you'd be right... you should have listened, because they were right.

But does that give you any guarantees for the future?

Spoiler

No.

[iNow]

As with anything else, there are some who display consistently accurate results, and others who make up explanations to suit their ideology.

Those who have ignored econ 101 to suit an ideology have been wrong practically every time. Those who have adhered to it have been accurate. You cannot blame the entire domain of study because people have chosen to go against its root principles and have been repeatedly wrong.

http://www.economist...comment/1238350

[calabi]

It doesnt help that the people directly in charge of the banks Benanke and Mervyn King dont have a clue about economics.

We dont really have fully functioning Democracies at the moment or ever, so arguing against what we havent had, is moot at this point.

People are generally stupid, its becoming proven that people will vote against their own interests. Science isnt just about teaching people things, some guy rote telling them things. That wont work, some other guy will come along and tell them something else. People have to be taught the scientific method, to think for themselves, to question things.