![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn just a few weeks, the title Most Powerful Person on Earth may or may not change hands...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/19/obama-romney-science-debate-why-it-matters/
Now this shall be interesting. A list of questions concerning scientific development and its application in the policies of a future president - it's not like these issues don't matter. I'm not sure in what form the Scientific American and these other organizations will be able to put these questions to the two candidates, and how the hell they're going to "inject more discussion about critical science issues into the US presidential election campaign" where neither side apparently intends to have them injected... but still, I wish them good luck with that.
A lot of the president's job has to do with science, that's for sure. From energy policy to public health, to climate change, to water issues, nuclear power and nuclear weapons, etc etc. I'm not saying a president should be the ultimate nerd, after all they have their advisors and experts and think-tanks who make recommendations which then the president considers and uses as a basis for their decisions. But ultimately, the decision is to be made by the president, period. Even in the very initial process of selecting their advisors, the president's choice is to a large extent determined by their personal convictions.
So it'll be interesting to observe how the two candidates fare on these subjects.
There was an intriguing documentary from a couple of years ago, The President's Guide to Science (watch full vid here). With Michio Kaku, Richard Dawkins, James Watson, Richard Garwin et al. It's worth watching. It raises an important question: since the further course of development of the world to a great extent depends on who the American people choose to be the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, the question is, is the president aware of the importance of science? Or should they be? That becomes an issue whenever the decisions the POTUS makes directly or indirectly affect everyone on Earth, from nuclear proliferation to climate change, to global food policy, etc.
As Dr Kaku says, "What a president has to know is the amount of uranium necessary to set off a Hiroshima-type bomb... how long it would take, what kind of infrastructure you'd need and how much money it would take to assemble. This is the stuff for which nations go to war."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/19/obama-romney-science-debate-why-it-matters/
Now this shall be interesting. A list of questions concerning scientific development and its application in the policies of a future president - it's not like these issues don't matter. I'm not sure in what form the Scientific American and these other organizations will be able to put these questions to the two candidates, and how the hell they're going to "inject more discussion about critical science issues into the US presidential election campaign" where neither side apparently intends to have them injected... but still, I wish them good luck with that.
A lot of the president's job has to do with science, that's for sure. From energy policy to public health, to climate change, to water issues, nuclear power and nuclear weapons, etc etc. I'm not saying a president should be the ultimate nerd, after all they have their advisors and experts and think-tanks who make recommendations which then the president considers and uses as a basis for their decisions. But ultimately, the decision is to be made by the president, period. Even in the very initial process of selecting their advisors, the president's choice is to a large extent determined by their personal convictions.
So it'll be interesting to observe how the two candidates fare on these subjects.
There was an intriguing documentary from a couple of years ago, The President's Guide to Science (watch full vid here). With Michio Kaku, Richard Dawkins, James Watson, Richard Garwin et al. It's worth watching. It raises an important question: since the further course of development of the world to a great extent depends on who the American people choose to be the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, the question is, is the president aware of the importance of science? Or should they be? That becomes an issue whenever the decisions the POTUS makes directly or indirectly affect everyone on Earth, from nuclear proliferation to climate change, to global food policy, etc.
As Dr Kaku says, "What a president has to know is the amount of uranium necessary to set off a Hiroshima-type bomb... how long it would take, what kind of infrastructure you'd need and how much money it would take to assemble. This is the stuff for which nations go to war."
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 17:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 18:28 (UTC)"First of all, who gives a speech in Deer Hell? I mean, look, I'm neither a hunter nor an interior decorator, but surely there is a happy medium to be had here. Perhaps you could get to stand in front of some of the deer you've killed, and yet we still get to see some wall. Cuz at some point, this stops being hunter's pride, and just looks like ethnic cleansing. "We have always been at war with the deer! Round them up and send them to Deer-chau!""
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 17:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:19 (UTC)What, you mean presidents are not infallible!?!11
(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 00:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 19:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 01:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 07:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 17:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:11 (UTC)Would I prefer my President to be a genius? Sure, but I'll settle for a President who will find and listen to one.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 22:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 01:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 05:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:25 (UTC)Experts are what matters. They're the guys who should be working hard behind the scenes. Let politicking(sic?) to the politicians. Policies are forged, crafted, shaped and thought out in cabinets, labs and on the field, before they're even presented black in white at the House or Senate, or the president's desk in the Oval office.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 18:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 19:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 19:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 19:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/10/12 21:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 05:36 (UTC)Being discerning is a skill that takes a little bit of knowledge to properly utilize. If President is stupid enough to believe in the creation story (or the myths of Mormonism), then no amount of scientific advisors is going to aid great decision making. This makes for a bad president in my humblist opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 17:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 18:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 15:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 17:51 (UTC)Shit, lets have a scientist president
Maybe then the future can start looking a little more like The Jetsons.
(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 18:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/10/12 07:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 17:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/10/12 20:40 (UTC)