• spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
      0·
      5 months ago

      I was thinking straight up science.

      Given these observations, and this bit of sound reasoning, we concluse that these policies should be implemented.

      No voting required.

      • sweng@programming.dev
        0·
        5 months ago

        You forget a piece: “Given these observations, these objectives, and this bit of sound reasoning, …”

        Without objectives, no amount of reasoning will tell you what to do. Who sets the objectives?

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        0·
        5 months ago

        Science has brought us some rather advanced artificial intelligence that can do many amazing things.

        It can model extremely complex protein chains, yet can’t even render a hand properly and doesn’t even comprehend how people consume nutrients.

        You really wanna leave all the decisions up to science and technology?

        • spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
          0·
          5 months ago

          Well that’s the question.

          Voting means lots of dummies, a sea of propaganda… Bad stuff there too.

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            0·
            5 months ago

            While I can agree that dummies shouldn’t be allowed to vote, how would/could/should we go about designing a proper voter verification program that more or less eliminates the actual dummies/sheeple?

            But I don’t think taking the voter factor completely out of the equation in favor of pure raw science is the answer either.

            If you leave everything to science, then science would say the world is overpopulated and we should eliminate half or more of the population…

            • spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
              0·
              5 months ago

              I read a short story where they took a humane approach to population reduction.

              An engineered disease. A short fever and then your uterus stops working. 95% effective.

              Rioting. All scientists hung. But the world was better.