Science v. Politics
Debate Rounds (5)
Scientific method has proved invaluable to humanity during its climb from the dark ages to the height of digital evolution. The time has come now for Science to further serve humanity as we face crisis on multiple fronts. Politics presents no answers. I will contend as con that Political system is obsolete and no longer adequate to serve 21st century needs. Pro will take the counter position, that our democratic systems of government is still the best system of government we can have.
Round 1: Acceptance & Brief introduction (1-2 paragraphs)
Round 2: Main argument
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing arguments
The Case against Political systems.
Political systems of government here are being defined as any system of government which makes decisions on methods or motives other than hard data and with intellectual methods other than logical,reasonable thought such as a Scientific method. To begin with I will dress down this political system that can commonly understood as a Democratic Republic. This debate is NOT about what the viability of the democratic system in the past, only about a Scientific system v. A political system of government going forward. - Sources will be located at the end of the post.
Exhibit A : Poverty
In our world today, nearly 80% of our global population lives on less than 10$ a day, most of them living in extreme poverty. Though it is the 21st century, Nearly a quarter of the world lacks access to even such a basic amenity as Electric power. Worse yet, 345 million people on this planet lack access to clean drinking water, killing 3.4 million people a year due to deceases related to dirty water. Millions more suffer from lack of nutrition.
To address this problem, Modern political systems including the economic systems they are attached to have expended massive amounts of effort and resources into making small impacts over the decades. Often measuring their efforts in millions spent rather than people fed or clean access to water gained. There is an even more insidious, While Millions starve and die from lack of water Industrial nations often throw away massive amounts of food because " It did not sell." even while many of their own people go hungry, food is thrown out and water is wasted on something such as a lawn. This process of the Political system is hypocritical,wasteful and frankly barbaric and leads us to the even more damning Exhibit B.
Exhibit B : Excess production
Modern methods of production are extremely wasteful, often using out dated technological methods and while Pro maybe tempted to point out that this issue is economic and not tied directly to the government, Pro would be wrong. To establish the economic and political systems are inseparable from each other I point first to the New deal. At a time when people where in bread lines starving you would assume that supply of food was short and demand was high there for not enough of it was going around but you here too would be wrong. There was so much food that farmers couldn't sell it at a reasonable price. We where literally throwing food away while people starved.
The reason for this among other things was the rapidly advancing technologies in agriculture. Food production was now far easier and far faster and required fractions of the labor as in previous generations. As part of the New deal, Crops and food producing animals where literally destroyed so and farmers paid not to farm, literally paid not to farm a practice that endures to this day. Even though there was a enough food for no one to go hungry at night and more- the Political system destroyed production capacity in order to justify the Price system. To this day, despite massive amounts of production excess- people go hungry from lack of monetary means. Both Globally and nationally- The Political system causes unnecessary hard ship and suffering. Which leads us to Exhibit C
Exhibit C : Profit at any cost.
The inescapable parasitic nature of economics and politics is most evident in the relationships between business and government. The two protect each other from meaningful change. Money flows freely behind closed doors and even overtly despite massive public unpopularity. The evidence is so plentiful that the challenge is to select just a few. Even choosing which examples of corruption,fraud and abuse that run rampant in the modern political systems is the most damning is a challenge. But lets go with the most hypocritical and blatant examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org... Designed to stop insider trading until they realized it ACTUALLY STOPED insider trading. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... The effective repeal of the Stock act passed UNANIMOUSLY. Seems they cant agree on paying bills, handling world issues or any such thing but they can all agree to line their own pockets.
Federal protection agencies and over sight committees are largely controlled by the industries they are suppose to over see, In the western world the Fox guards the hen house and no where is this more overt than in the United States.
FDA & Monsanto : http://ivn.us...
Federal reserve: A private financial institution issuing public money. This could be a whole topic on its own but lets highlight the insider nature. http://en.wikipedia.org... Look no further than good ol' Ben and his overt ties to Goldman Sachs. You can go backwards to Alan Greenspan and more, Janet yellen is perhaps the first truly good choice but she is too little too late and that's its own topic.
Science has the answer
If we cease to look at this as political problems, instead looking at as purely mechanical problem. The problems because easily solvable with modern technologies. These solutions require no political bodies. They are easily handled with out governments and we are going to see through this argument Governments in fact often hinder these efforts.
Solving the worlds Power Shortage.
(1) You are being lied to about the viability of Solar power : http://inhabitat.com...
(2) You are being lied to about the cost of renewable:http://www.rawstory.com...
(3) The Technology has advanced further than you are told : http://gizmodo.com...
So why don't you see these in use? Simple. They aren't profitable.
More efficient and sustainable systems are coming out in the "Market system" but slowly and at unnecessary expense.
Hugely increased, organic yields with much smaller foot prints. Public use of these methods is being actively attacked by the political system: http://www.dailykos.com...#
Not a conspiracy: http://www.permanentculturenow.com...
These methods are not the only solutions, but they cut down massively on wasted resources in the unnecessary packaging and transport of goods. Further the methods of Hydroponics and Aquaponics use no pesticides, advantages of these systems are huge but once more step on many toes in the profit system.
A scientific system has no such concerns; as outlined by prominent societal engineer and Architect Jacque Fresco https://www.youtube.com...
Resource Based Economy ( RBE) is the system which uses science and technology to over come scarcities.
( Embedded video) : https://www.youtube.com...
The Bottom line: To sustain the global population, Only Scientific competence can meet our global demands demands. Political systems are not competent and not capable of meeting this demand.
America's Political System has kept order in this country since it was first established. Science on the other hand is mainly purposed for research and inventions on improving our technology and how we live our daily lives. These advancements however contribute no factor at all in the running of this country and would lose control of the community if put into power. Most of my argument lies within what you have previously stated so I will instantly delve into the problem.
You've stated that multiple of produce factories have thrown their own goods out and have starved millions but this in no way deals with politics. We live in a Capitalist country, meaning all businesses can be privately owned and the politicians and governmental system of America has no power of regulating what factories throw out unless it is a hazardous waste to the environment and to the public. Politics has nothing to do with this, so your argument about poverty is invalid as well as your statement in Exhibit B. You've stated that I would be wrong to assume the waste of products is not tied to the government, but it isn't. If they did control all factories and how they waste their own product, this country would be more of a communism than an actual Capitalist country.
"The reason for this among other things was the rapidly advancing technologies in agriculture. Food production was now far easier and far faster and required fractions of the labor as in previous generations." Isn't it Science's job to make advanced technology to increase rate of production and not Politics? You've basically just stated that Science is the reason of excess crops being thrown out by farmers due to unfair prices. Politicians have no affiliation with the creation of technological advancements, but Science however is the one who is.
#3 'Profit at any cost'
To start off, your whole argument about the Federal Reserve is wrong, it is a private owned business and is not affiliated with the government. You seem to be forgetting that we live in Capitalist America and not Communist Russia, and with the unfair prices, we don't have an unlimited amount of money. If you think "Then why can't the government print more money?", then the net worth of an American Dollar will go down due to the increasing amount of it. Resources aren't limitless either so we do have to increase prices on these due to scarcity. Your argument about Fraud also said literally nothing other than that Federal Protection Agencies and Oversight Committees are controlled by the government, of course they are.
In conclusion, the majority of your argument is both opinionated, false, and hypocritical. Technological advancements are made by Science so you've stated that Science is whats making farming harder for the agricultural population due to excess crops. You've failed to understand that America is a Capitalist country and private owned businesses cannot be regulated by the government due to our current system; And the Federal Reserve is also privately owned. Science is also in no way possible linked to running a country, paying off our debt, keeping the public stable, and choosing who's leader (which would also lead back to our governmental system so if for some improbable reason we did switch to Science, choosing a leader is a part of political events). I suggest you do more research before starting debates on two systems that in no way are alike.
" We live in a Capitalist country, meaning all businesses can be privately owned and the politicians and governmental system of America has no power of regulating what factories throw out unless it is a hazardous waste to the environment and to the public. "
What is this Pseudo-Intellectual none sense? The Government has literally thousands of regulations regarding production and sale and even consumption. Further, you seem to not appreciate that we are talking about systems fundamentally. Modern governments have a stake in virtually everything.
" Politics has nothing to do with this, so your argument about poverty is invalid."
What fantasy world do you live in? Politics in terms of Political systems has a lot of to do with poverty, both the issues of poverty and the would be solutions. (ex. Food stamps) I realize libertarians are Anti-Social programs, but really.. pretending that the government doesn't have a social role is just... delusional.
" You've stated that I would be wrong to assume the waste of products is not tied to the government, but it isn't. If they did control all factories and how they waste their own product, this country would be more of a communism than an actual Capitalist country. "
You missed the point, Resource Based Economics ( a system of government that is scientific rather than political) Is an entirely new system.
" Isn't it Science's job to make advanced technology to increase rate of production and not Politics? You've basically just stated that Science is the reason of excess crops being thrown out by farmers due to unfair prices. "
You missed the point again, Science made the Price system obsolete, Political systems passed laws to protect the obsolete price system by destroying crops and animals. The Political system began protecting Capitalist market systems from the advances in technology that made them obsolete.
"Politicians have no affiliation with the creation of technological advancements, but Science however is the one who is."
This statement depended on the other statements to be true and I clearly established they are not, but I didn't want to ignore just because.
" To start off, your whole argument about the Federal Reserve is wrong, it is a private owned business and is not affiliated with the government."
Did... you... read.... it? AND I QOUTE " Federal reserve: A private financial institution issuing public money." Did you really not know this? ... Do you not understand the relationship between the Federal Reserve bank(s) and the National Economy, or the relationship between the United states Government and the Federal Reserve. or did you skim my argument and not click the links?
" You seem to be forgetting that we live in Capitalist America and not Communist Russia, and with the unfair prices, we don't have an unlimited amount of money. "
What are you babbling about? Unlimited amounts of money? Did you forget that we are talking about fundamentally different systems.
"due to scarcity. "
Funny you should mention that : http://lareviewofbooks.org...#
You already live in a post scarcity world. How ever our Socio-Political systems pretend for all tense of purposes that we live in the 19th century where the majority of resources where hard to get.
Pro spent his main argument making a rebuttal but only even attempted to refute my Criticisms of the current Socio-political situations and its relationships with Economic systems. He provided no meaningful refutes when the "Answers" where given to him and proof of the obsolesce of Political systems was provided. Instead pro chose to ramble, softly accuse me of being communist and than in Comments state that my provided links where-quote-"conspiracies against the government". I propose that Pros ability to argue this issue has collapsed complexly.
You're argument did not fall when you stated Science can take over a completely different system? And you say i'm rambling on about nonsense. I did not know the manners of this debate would fall to the stone age, I am only fifteen and decided to take on the debate due to curiosity on taking on a new subject. Please state to me in ANY WAY that Science can take over a political system, decide how to run the country, deal with debt, and all of the world's problems. I am just sure that if it's so superior then we'd replace Politics with Science long ago. You seem to be the apitimy of arrogance, you lost your proffesionality in the debate you just posted. Instead of keeping your composure you decide to go on the offensive because apparently your offended by someone pointing out how stupid and impossible of a question you've brought up. And I bet that you are with the public on this one right? Because surely this question has been asked more than enough to bring it to the President's attention correct? I was trying to do rushed research on the manner of the subject because I have a busy life, and I apologize if I have offended you in anyway possible. But this argument is just the apitimy of stupidity, who would think that the field of Science would take over Politics? Two completely different fields can just take over one another correct? I am sure that Mitt Romney would be able to conjure up a cure for cancer since these two subjects are SO related. Or Obama can just whip up some kind of medical breakthrough for the disaled. I normally do not lose my composure like this but you need to learn manners and gain a common sense.
I displayed Atleast 3 links that told you how Scientific method could form the basis of a new government system that was not political in nature. Its called a Technocracy, http://en.wikipedia.org... But The System described by Jaque Fresco in The Venus project ( links in rnd.2 ) Details the transition to a Type-1 Civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org... I Have already established that Scientific based government can replace a Political based government. I have addressed how such a system will deal with poverty, access to resources, generation of power and more. Resource Based Economy (RBE) Is the Scientific based replacement for for a Political system. You have several times brought up the Debt but I don't think you really understand what our money is or how it works.
This video produces a reasonable summary:
http://lisgi1.engr.ccny.cuny.edu... <- PDF format booklet.
Once you Understand that the money does not represent anything... the Debt is just... and Literally just.. a number. Its only importance comes from the necessity to the price system to maintain meaning.
I have provided suitable resources to prove my case in the Primary argument. You have one last round to come up with a solid argument against Resource Based economics ( Science based governmental system).
Thoughtispower forfeited this round.
This debate is done. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I thought conduct was horrible by both sides. Con, if you wanted to face a superior opponent, there are ways to do it. Mocking their intellect isn't appropriate. Despite horrible conduct from both sides con loses the conduct point. The reason for this, is because I expect more out of con then I do pro, and for good reason. Con's arguments weren't really adequately addressed so con gets arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.