All knowledge can be used for good or bad, and it isn’t always immediately clear which is which. What is more, with original research, there is no way of knowing in advance what the results will be- otherwise it wouldn’t be research but demonstration (for me, those who devise experiments to prove that what they already knew was right all along rather than to highlight any faults in their theory are not scientists but philosophers. Experimental disproof is at the heart of scientific methodology) It is now generally accepted that some lines of research should be avoided- what can’t be agreed upon is which.lines of research should be pusued, and who shoul do the deciding. At the present moment it’s the biological sciences that are in the spotlight, but this could change- but biologicals are the easiest to slip through the net (in a hospital lab, or even at home- you don’t need atom smashers or massive power sources- and even financing is a fraction of say high energy physics) so if an individual gets results in fields the world has classed too dangerous, we’re in schtuk. Some possible candidates.
Democratic 1
oliticians- elected by the people from the people, and thus theoretically reflecting the opinion of the people. They were, however elected for other reasons that their comprehension of scientific matters
Democratic 2 whenever a question arises it is put to a popular referendum, and anyone who has any interest can vote on it . This system, which works in Switzerland now, because it’s such a tiny country, could be extented electronicly to cover larger groups of people- but getting the actual information to them might be more complicated. I suspect that the result would be a tiny minority bothering to vote, and falling fairly neatly into two groups- those who are anti any change and those who embrace all change. This is not the optimum solution to judging the relative merits of different projects.
Plutocratic- Big business and corporations- by controlling the funding for commercial projects they already have the basis for the control mechanism, and a slighly longer term view than the average politician. All that is needed is to install the equation « Extinction of mankind = reduced profits » to have a powerful stimulus for success- though, almost by definition, they’re bribable.
Theocratic The church (temple, whatever) is the traditional judge of morality. It is certain that whatever moral question crops up they will have an opinion- and even if they don’t have the first idea of the science involved they might have a longer term view of the situation than someone who only has to think four years ahead to the next election.
Aristocratic- sounds silly but they do have the long view, and in a number of societies the final decision. As a group, they’re probably no more afraid of change than any other, and tend to have a very wide, if not deep, education.
Meritocratic :- choose your candidatesin early childhood for scientific talent (but not genius) and incorruptibility. Instill in them an almost religious fervour for understanding and balancing the advantages and disadvantages, both social and environmental, of any line of research. Minimal specialisation (since any original findings can spill over into other disciplines, and build small, dedicated international teams giving the widest spread of talents, nationalities, sexes, religions, ages, species- no perhaps that’s going too far. I hate to imagine the enforcement body associated with this organisation- they’d automatically rule against anything with military aplications while national governments would be desparately trying to get an advantage :
Stastisticocratic :- give the job to assurance assessors who’re used to calculating benefits against risks.
Military :- I personally think the world would be insane to put that power into the hands of the military- but perhaps they’d take it without asking first. At least they’d have the means of enforcing their decisions.
Beaurocratic :- Despite the knee jerk negative reaction from all thinking beings, beaurocratic control is probably optimal if what you want to do is slow everything down (a reasonable aim) However, this is a permanent brake- the only way to get rid of beaurocrats is to shoot them, incinerate the remains and fire the ashes into the sun- and even then I wouldn’t be too sure. Which means that, if we learnt that an asteroid was going to hit the Earth in ten years time, you could guarantee that the subcomittee for celestial impacts would take eleven years to be chosen, argued over, their political, sexual and financial discrepancies discussed- and the last year would be in a satelite containing the remains of humanity- all beaurocrats.
Egocentricratic The scientists themselves presumably understand what their experiment entails, but not always its significance on the wider stage
Academocratic- In the « publish or perish » world of higher learning peer pressure can direct the researcher to socially desired fields, and it is assumed that those peers understand the vocabulary and the aims of the project (it will be assumed here that older, established scientists never get petty and block research that could overcome their pet theories, Of course, all scientists are models of probity who desire nothing save that truth prevail)
Comitocratic :- the most insidiously attractive and dangerous solution- don’t decide, choose everything. Put three or four religious authorities (from different religions evidently), some out of work scientists, administrators, representatives of international corporations. A few military leaders, politicians who failed to get voted into other posts, allow them to call experts as required
Democratic 1
oliticians- elected by the people from the people, and thus theoretically reflecting the opinion of the people. They were, however elected for other reasons that their comprehension of scientific matters Democratic 2 whenever a question arises it is put to a popular referendum, and anyone who has any interest can vote on it . This system, which works in Switzerland now, because it’s such a tiny country, could be extented electronicly to cover larger groups of people- but getting the actual information to them might be more complicated. I suspect that the result would be a tiny minority bothering to vote, and falling fairly neatly into two groups- those who are anti any change and those who embrace all change. This is not the optimum solution to judging the relative merits of different projects.
Plutocratic- Big business and corporations- by controlling the funding for commercial projects they already have the basis for the control mechanism, and a slighly longer term view than the average politician. All that is needed is to install the equation « Extinction of mankind = reduced profits » to have a powerful stimulus for success- though, almost by definition, they’re bribable.
Theocratic The church (temple, whatever) is the traditional judge of morality. It is certain that whatever moral question crops up they will have an opinion- and even if they don’t have the first idea of the science involved they might have a longer term view of the situation than someone who only has to think four years ahead to the next election.
Aristocratic- sounds silly but they do have the long view, and in a number of societies the final decision. As a group, they’re probably no more afraid of change than any other, and tend to have a very wide, if not deep, education.
Meritocratic :- choose your candidatesin early childhood for scientific talent (but not genius) and incorruptibility. Instill in them an almost religious fervour for understanding and balancing the advantages and disadvantages, both social and environmental, of any line of research. Minimal specialisation (since any original findings can spill over into other disciplines, and build small, dedicated international teams giving the widest spread of talents, nationalities, sexes, religions, ages, species- no perhaps that’s going too far. I hate to imagine the enforcement body associated with this organisation- they’d automatically rule against anything with military aplications while national governments would be desparately trying to get an advantage :
Stastisticocratic :- give the job to assurance assessors who’re used to calculating benefits against risks.
Military :- I personally think the world would be insane to put that power into the hands of the military- but perhaps they’d take it without asking first. At least they’d have the means of enforcing their decisions.
Beaurocratic :- Despite the knee jerk negative reaction from all thinking beings, beaurocratic control is probably optimal if what you want to do is slow everything down (a reasonable aim) However, this is a permanent brake- the only way to get rid of beaurocrats is to shoot them, incinerate the remains and fire the ashes into the sun- and even then I wouldn’t be too sure. Which means that, if we learnt that an asteroid was going to hit the Earth in ten years time, you could guarantee that the subcomittee for celestial impacts would take eleven years to be chosen, argued over, their political, sexual and financial discrepancies discussed- and the last year would be in a satelite containing the remains of humanity- all beaurocrats.
Egocentricratic The scientists themselves presumably understand what their experiment entails, but not always its significance on the wider stage
Academocratic- In the « publish or perish » world of higher learning peer pressure can direct the researcher to socially desired fields, and it is assumed that those peers understand the vocabulary and the aims of the project (it will be assumed here that older, established scientists never get petty and block research that could overcome their pet theories, Of course, all scientists are models of probity who desire nothing save that truth prevail)
Comitocratic :- the most insidiously attractive and dangerous solution- don’t decide, choose everything. Put three or four religious authorities (from different religions evidently), some out of work scientists, administrators, representatives of international corporations. A few military leaders, politicians who failed to get voted into other posts, allow them to call experts as required
