We have enough food, water, and resources on this planet to provide everyone with a reasonable standard of living, and to do it in a sustainable way, protecting nature and the environment. This is only possible through science. Instead we leave leadership to bankers, big business, and lastly politicians, with the result of enormous inequality and a rapidly deteriorating environment.
Science is already in decline in the US so to raise the scientific literacy of the country we should allow scientists to rule. Einstein was an against weapons of mass destruction in his later years. I think that many politicians now a day get there guidance from odd places (the bible) and they are easily side tracked by stupid things. Politicians are like dogs because they always want to do things. A mild mannered scientist could promote healthy brain stimulus to create a smarter country. Think of it like a neurological stimulus package.
The main thing is intelligence and we know that scientists are smart...Why do you think most of us don't understand them or their books.
Politician is short for thief, self-centered, bigot, professional liar, mobster, crack head, gangster and/or thug. A scientist is generally interested in truth, discussion, possibilities and solutions. Only actors, well educated in the art of pretending to answer questions, are allowed to obtain the advertised position of a ruler. I would vote for anyone who was not a politician. So would a carpenter, or a mechanic, or a dentist. But a scientist would be very fine.
The world should be run by experts. People who are able to make the necessary decisions if needed, not held back because of personal reasons. People who are able to look at the bigger picture. The climate for example would've never been such a big problem if it wasn't for the politicians who didn't want to ruin their popularity by making tough decisions.
Leaders should be focused on what happens in the long run.
When I say rule the world, I mean govern and set policy. Right now governments are run by politicians, lawyers and lobbyists. They have mostly short term vision motivated by profit. Scientists tend to have long term vision motivated by theory, discovery and facts. Also scientists are capable of changing their minds in light of new facts. They aren't aligned with a political party that forces a blanket policy. You can see this in the opposition of many politicians to accept global warming as real.
Politicians are focused on national issues like security. But scientists see the world as a whole, as it should be. We all share the same air and water. As for the argument that scientists can be cold and inhumane, just look at what politicians are willing to do to the environment to justify progress. They're willing to sell off the Earth and line their pockets with cash. By the time people start getting sick, they're out of office and no one is left to blame. We had to force the government to set up the EPA after our rivers were catching on fire.
I'd rather have global policy set by the people who are doing the research than people who get elected for their speeches.
As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that he was shocked that the only people in Washington DC were lawyers.
There is no one in there who really knows how things operate.
There are only experienced arguers and they will never get the
good things in place.
Mr. DeGrasse Tyson for President!!!! YAY!
I don't think anyone should have the right to "rule the world." This is especially the case for scientists. A scientist has a very analytical mind and they see things as one way and they don't compromise or "give." They are strong willed and they will have us living with robots and computerized homes. We would be living a stepford wife life.
Scientists are poised to be horrible world rulers because they rely entirely on fact and observations, there is no adjusting for human emotion or need. And, that is only in a perfect world. The vast number of successful scientists I know (of which there are many), run best off of feeding their ego, not off of the pure science.
Rather you should say, "Do scientists rule the world?" If the great global warming con is any suggestion, then scientists do rule the world, and control it to achieve financial gain rather than actually providing facts. There is money in 'proving' man made global warming, as opposed to disproving it, they are inadvertently supporting economic damaging leftist ideology.
Firstly lets start of by saying that there is a big reason why the world isn't one giant nation: people have different ideologies and so there is a nation out there to match every ideal. America is(by design at least) ment to cater towards individual freedom or liberalism, expanding the liberty of the individual as far as possible. Nation such as China or Japan are very culuturalistic and societal and express a greater interest in society as a whole versus the individual. Thus this creates two reasons for no one to rule the world and especially not scientists. Firstly not all ideologies would be satisfied and allot of conflict would occur, and no government can keep back the angry mob that consist of several billion people. Secondly they will not be represtantive of their peoples beliefs, even unelected governments are to some extent voted for by their existence. A people can destroy their government if they did not agree with it, in some cases this becomes extremely difficult but in the end a group of scientists could not truly represent the best interests of its people.