One of the most misunderstood topics among the people I encounter
is the application of the scientific method for social concern.
There's an old belief that was propagated throughout the centuries
possibly due to an evolutionary cultural baggage that our species has
apparently very difficult to drop
according to which you can’t use science or the scientific method
to figure out how to run a society.
If you're not familiar with the scientific method
and you don’t have the time to read the scientific literature
go to a laboratory, talk to the industry professionals
and researchers at universities
you can find a very good 9-minute introduction called
'The Scientific Method Made Easy' by YouTuber potholer54
link in the video description.
The topics of strategic resource management and ethics
are closely interrelated
and have been the subject of study by politicians, philosophers
and economists in the past.
More recently, it became really an interest of lawyers
bankers and lobbyists.
Here’s an interesting fact:
Out of the 535 members of the US Congress
only 22 have science or engineering backgrounds
and of these, only two might be considered
experienced scientists or engineers.
Most politicians are lawyers or bankers who work for corporations.
And it should be no surprise, that most of the laws that are passed
are advantageous to the higher class.
One could say that this is of little or no importance.
Why should the people who manage society
know how it actually operates on a technical level?
Would we solve our problems
if the people in power were all scientists?
Some advocate a democratic system.
Others believe that a technocracy is the only way
to successfully manage a society.
And then of course you have the free market advocates
who hold a strong belief that the invisible hand
and the power of competition is the driving force
to make people happier and more productive.
I will explain why all of these approaches
are fallacious and display very obvious problems.
Democracy's a word that's been used, and misused, for centuries
so before I go into the details, let’s clarify a few concepts.
The term comes from the Greek 'dēmokratía' (rules of the people)
which was coined from the words 'dêmos' (people)
and 'kratos' (power)
in the middle of the 5th and 4th centuries BC
to denote the political system
that existed in some Greek city-states, such as Athens.
To cut short, democracy is a form of government
in which all citizens have an equal say
in the decisions that affect their lives.
It is important to point out
that no country in the world uses
or has ever used such a system.
In the past, it was due to problems related to logistics.
A small city of a few hundred citizens
might have been able to use it
but as numbers grew larger and larger
it became increasingly more difficult.
With today’s technology it would be, in principle, possible
through systems of e-voting on the Internet
but when one looks at the matter more deeply
serious problems arise. There are literally hundreds of things
that require a decision to be made.
Are we to vote altogether, as a nation, on each of these issues?
Supposing that was the case, how can we be sure
that we took the best choice available at the moment?
To understand why this isn’t such a good idea
let’s use an analogy: Suppose you suddenly discover
that you have a rash on your skin.
What do you do?
Would you call up all of your friends for a democratic vote
on what actions should you take next?
Most people would go to a qualified medical doctor
who will redirect them to a dermatologist
an allergist, or any other specialist
who might be knowledgeable about the subject.
The reason for this is that specialists
use well-established scientific practices
that can be studied, tested, checked and improved constantly.
It is very clear to people when it comes to medicine
what the course of action should be.
That’s because it has a direct effect on their lives
and they can see the result in a relatively short time.
Yet, when it comes to the management of society at large
they reject the idea that science has anything to say
on this regard, having the illusion that the scientific method
is oblivious to the inner workings of society.
At this point, one might think that a technocracy
a form of government in which engineers, scientists
health professionals and other technical experts
are in control of decision-making in their respective fields
would be desirable.
While, in principle, this is partly true
a technocratic government has other, more insidious problems
than a democracy.
Simply having experts taking decisions
does not ensure in any way that they will not be influenced
by some powerful groups to act in a certain way
at the expenses of the unaware majority.
Humans are not born corrupt
but when the conditions for corruption arise
history shows, that they will tend to become corrupted.
In the end, a ruling elite that makes all the decisions
has no obligation to take into account the needs of all the people
and has no interest in sharing this body of knowledge
with the rest of society:
an institution composed of a small minority
self-sustaining and self-[perpetuating].
Social systems, up until now
have largely been based on ideologies
and then imposed on the population
with pretty much disastrous results.
The rules were fairly simple:
if you obeyed and agreed with the current ideology
you were OK! If not, you were likely to imprisoned, killed
or in the best case called a terrorist, or a fanatic.
The most commonly employed strategy for those who have power
to keep their power, is to maintain the population either ignorant
fearful, distracted, or a combination of those.
A technocratic system, in and of itself, is no better
than any other form of government
if certain conditions do not precede
the newly created system of governance.
What exactly are these conditions?
Number one: No form of government should be put in place
against the will of the people.
Often I get asked "What would you do if most people
don’t want to participate in this system, or if they don’t like it?"
This is a non-existent problem
since the new system will only be used
if it becomes emergent from the zeitgeist of society:
the general cultural trend
that underlies the basic values at the given time.
If the values don’t change, then nothing will happen.
Billions of people will continue to starve
and have their access to the necessities of life refused
while the richest 1% keeps accumulating more and more wealth
or, in other words, business as usual.
Number two: Everybody should get free access to relevant education.
The only way to ensure that a small elite
does not take advantage of the situation
is for all to be scientifically literate.
This does not mean that everybody should be a scientist
but rather, that everybody should be able to understand
how the processes of decision-making work
and they should be given all the tools
to be able to give a contribution, if they want to.
The more people checking and cross-checking each others activities
the more likely you are to have a fair and balanced social system.
The more people are ignorant to the inner workings of society
the more likely you end up with a corrupt aristocracy.
Most rational people would agree, that if such conditions apply
then the fear of a ruling elite
or an institution imposing a way of living, is nonsensical.
But the Internet is also house of all sorts of misconceptions
twisted words and meaningless projections, as we will see.
Of all the false dichotomies that people are enslaved to
this has to be one of my favourites:
"There's no scientific theory on whether
you should use nuclear power or solar panels.
You are comparing science with politics
and morality, and that's absurd!
Science, and the scientific method
does NOT tell you which option to choose."
Of course, science will tell you which option to choose from
according to the data provided, and your initial intentions.
If you don’t know how the process works
I will attempt to explain it for you in very simple terms.
You start by asking yourself, what is the desired result?
That is, what is your end goal
and which conditions need to be satisfied to reach it?
Yes, you do have to start from somewhere
and that's what we call the basic values of a society:
something that we all have to agree on
that is beneficial for us. Generally speaking
you want to maximise the well-being of everybody
and that needs to be adapted according to the situation.
For example, The Zeitgeist Movement
is a sustainability-advocacy organization
and recognizes that all countries must disarm
and learn to share resources and ideas
if we expect to survive in the long run
hence the solutions arrived at, and promoted
are in the interest to help everyone on the planet
not a selected group.
One could always argue that peace, sustainability and prosperity
are not desirable conditions
and that they prefer poverty, corruption, pollution
war and mass-starvation.
If you do, I don’t know what you're talking about.
Let’s go back to our example.
In this particular case, the desired result
is to produce the maximum amount of energy
in the most sustainable, efficient and responsible way possible.
Let’s compare the two approaches that are at stake:
the scientific method and the current socio-political system.
This method is fairly straightforward and simple to describe
but for some reason, very hard for the general public to understand.
First, you collect all the data available:
studies, peer-review papers, projections
analysis of currently working technologies
anything that you can find.
It has to be reliable and as objective as possible.
It is utterly futile to pretend that you can achieve
absolute objectivity;
errors may always creep in.
That is why we use the process of peer review and large samples.
Next, you simulate all the possible scenarios
according to the data available:
what are the environmental impacts of extraction
production, usage and disposal of a particular technology;
what are the raw costs of production in terms of energy, materials;
what is the availability of each energy source over time.
The end result will be a list of desired values and coefficients
which will tell you what particular technology you want to use.
It may be, that for a particular geographical area
one will be favored over another, due to the topology of the place
the involvement of the local communities and many other factors.
What is sure, is that it won’t be a one-size-fits-all answer
but rather, a personalized result
that changes accordingly to the initial conditions.
Let’s see how things are decided
in the current socio-political structure.
First, you start by getting yourself elected. Yes!
It matters not whether you have any technical expertise, understanding
or even knowledge of how to solve the problem at hand.
This is a popularity contest!
As such, the following rules of the game apply:
the greater the amount of money at your disposal for your campaign
the greater the probability of success.
In the process, you're going to have to accept compromises
and donations, the great majority of which
will come from multinational corporations and banks
that will ask for your obedient cooperation when the time comes.
You gather up a group of scientists and technicians
for a report on the particular topic
of which you have no technical understanding
and cannot evaluate the validity of the results provided.
Most of these scientists and specialists
are inside men and women from the corporations
that financed your very political campaign
and act on the direct interest of their stockholders
not to the solid, scientific evidence
in the interest of all the people, and of the planet.
In the end, what matters most
is that the expected profits from banks and corporations
are stable and solid.
The stockholders will generously repay you for your efforts
while a media campaign paid by your investors
will secure you a sure victory in the next election.
The reality is that the current, infinite, economic growth paradigm
is not only mathematically unsustainable
but it is ecologically detrimental.
While people can debate the theoretical nature of capitalism
and how it's supposed to function, one thing is historically clear:
It perpetuates and requires constant growth and consumption.
The entire basis of the market system isn't the intelligent management
of our mostly finite resources on the planet
but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them
for the sake of profit and 'economic growth'.
There are other issues that need to be addressed.
With this video I merely wanted to show the basic reasoning
behind the use of the scientific method for social concern.
In the next videos I shall go into the details
and try to resolve some of the doubts that might emerge.
Please keep in mind a few facts:
This, like science, is an emergent process.
Mistakes can always happen, and as they do
they will be corrected and the theory will be upgraded.
This is not a search for perfection.
Understanding science means understanding that perfect systems
when talking about the natural world, are an oxymoron.
All we can do is to strive for a better theory
which can be tested and changed accordingly.
This is why the word 'proof'
is relegated to the fields of mathematics and logic.
In science we have theories, models that are consistent
with the body of observational knowledge available.
I am a human being, and as such I can be wrong. Oh yes!
For that reason, I am open for discussion
and clarification of any of the points I make.
It may be that I miss something, misinterpret some data
have a logical fallacy in the reasoning, or anything else.
If you do see any of these things occurring, please point them out
in a coherent argument that I can check and verify.
"I conclude your reasoning blocked by your sect/cult."
No, this does not count as a coherent argument.
Let’s see if I can find something else:
"You sound more like a brainwashed cult follower, than a scientist."
No, that’s not that either. If this is so hard to grasp
I'll make a video on what a cult is
so that you might stop embarrassing yourself in the future
by showing your lack of understanding
of what the word cult means and how it should be used.
In the meantime I invite everyone to post their comments
and preferably the video responses in a concise and clear manner.
Hopefully we can get a genuine discussion started.
Until next time. Peace!