• spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Ooh look the monkeys like that one. Funny bees!

    Think of them as 2 methods for determining policy. Sorry for the confusion.

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Think of them as 2 methods for determining policy

      They’re not though.

      Democracy is a strategy some states use to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. Science is a method for producing knowledge.

      Policy is determined by the financial interests of our elites, our global imperial interests, and the form of our bureaucratic institutions.

      Democracy, science and policy are three very distinct domains.

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Science has no goal. It cannot determine policy. It can tell you how certain policies may affect certain metrics, but it matters who decides what metrics matter ie. do we care if people have food, or if line go up.

      • spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Assume that we’ve got self-evident goals. Maximization of health, happiness, security…

        • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Self evident to whom? We are ruled by ghouls who care more about profit than people’s lives. Shouldn’t it be “self-evident” to Biden that committing genocide is bad? Shouldn’t it be “self-evident” that corporations shouldn’t be getting away after poisoning millions of people? Shouldn’t it be “self evident” that if people work all day their wages should be enough to allow them to live decently?

          These things may obviously be good, but it won’t be done until we have a system that puts people over profit.

          • spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Jeez, soapbox much?

            Yes, I think that a sane, self-aware, scientifically-rigorous system would choose public health over that bad stuff you mentioned.

            Like The Federation in Star Trek.

            • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Star Trek has an economic system, it’s not run “on science.” Star Trek is functionally fully automated luxury communism. Under capitalism we have the technology to have no scarcity, but that’s not profitable, so capitalists create scarcity by destroying excess product and not giving it to those in need. In Star Trek they have a duplicator thing so no one is in need and no one can make a profit. It is a communist utopia. If you want to see a rational society that implements policy for scientifically planned good look at China. Their ultimate goal is communism, but today for now their achievements include lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, heavily subsidizing green technology allowing it to be cheap and accessible, and lifting people’s living standards so that the life expectancy is higher the wealthy western countries.

              • spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                But does it have a voting system?

                Because I don’t recall seeing any voting booths in the Enterprise.

                • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Why do you care? Star Trek is fictional, but socialism is real and democratic, moving toward communism (like Star Trek).

                • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I don’t know too much about Star Trek, but with that extreme post scarcity, what do you need a government for? The reason we communists support abolishing police is because you don’t need any coercion if everyone has whatever material thing they could want or need.