Rationalia is yet another unachievable utopia
We all know Neil deGrasse Tyson, that bright representative of this type of eloquent neo-Renaissance guy full of awesome, who's been relentlessly advocating for more rational thinking and the adoption of scientific principles in policy-making. So it was no surprise when he recently came up with an idea about an utopian society that he called Rationalia, of which he started talking via his fave medium: namely, short 140-character long tweets (yeah, I know, that's about the attention span you could initially expect from the general audience, so there).
There was instantly some criticism of his idea, so he felt he needed to double down on Facebook with a more profound explanation of the society he envisions in that utopia. And thus, a new fascinating debate was triggered - about rational approach in policy-making, and the role of science in informing both the populace and the relevant legislatures in making decisions that affect everybody.
Naturally, there comes this piece, which attempts to make a closer point-by-point dissection of NdGT's idea. And I think it does raise some valid points, which could poke holes in his proposal that are so huge as to render it inapplicable in practice. You're welcome to peruse the article at your convenience of course, but there's one bit that I think sticks out most prominently, so I'd like to directly quote it here:
"This is a deep and profound misreading of what politics is. In astrophysics, the solar system can either rotate around the earth, or the planets can orbit the sun. Neither can be true at the same time, or true in equal measure for different people. Yet policy isn’t about deriving universal absolutes through rigorous discovery: it’s about balancing resources and power in society between people with different beliefs and ideas."
Now, I've often voiced some advocacy for what I call a "technocratic form of governance with a human face" (long story: #1; #2). I could talk for days about that, but the point I'd rather make here is just that we should all be aware of the risks that a society and government that strives to be as impartial and passionless about decision-making as possible, is facing. Because it's one thing to imagine that science would inherently bolster policy through providing empirical evidence that sways the ultimate decision one way or another; it's quite another to make the decisions that are morally right, in other words, ones that would not unnecessarily harm groups of people and give advantage to others, just for the sake of providing benefits to society as a whole.
The US Constitution and other similar documents have checks and balances in them for a reason - ones that specifically prevent majorities from abusing minorities with the excuse that their actions are beneficial "overall" for society "as a whole". Not to mention that in the world of politics, what may be deemed beneficial for one group, could actually be rather harmful for another. If a society entirely relies on impartial, almost robotic science to make their decisions for them (such proposals have been made in some fields, and steps have already been made in that direction), they risk losing their humanity, and ultimately devolving into a tyranny, even if unnoticeably and unintentionally.
As much as I love the guy, I think Neil should've factored these things in. In all fairness, I'm not sure I did that properly either, at the time I was first talking about my favoured form of "humanised technocracy".
Ps. There's a Union of Concerned Scientists? Whoah. Who knew.
There was instantly some criticism of his idea, so he felt he needed to double down on Facebook with a more profound explanation of the society he envisions in that utopia. And thus, a new fascinating debate was triggered - about rational approach in policy-making, and the role of science in informing both the populace and the relevant legislatures in making decisions that affect everybody.
Naturally, there comes this piece, which attempts to make a closer point-by-point dissection of NdGT's idea. And I think it does raise some valid points, which could poke holes in his proposal that are so huge as to render it inapplicable in practice. You're welcome to peruse the article at your convenience of course, but there's one bit that I think sticks out most prominently, so I'd like to directly quote it here:
"This is a deep and profound misreading of what politics is. In astrophysics, the solar system can either rotate around the earth, or the planets can orbit the sun. Neither can be true at the same time, or true in equal measure for different people. Yet policy isn’t about deriving universal absolutes through rigorous discovery: it’s about balancing resources and power in society between people with different beliefs and ideas."
Now, I've often voiced some advocacy for what I call a "technocratic form of governance with a human face" (long story: #1; #2). I could talk for days about that, but the point I'd rather make here is just that we should all be aware of the risks that a society and government that strives to be as impartial and passionless about decision-making as possible, is facing. Because it's one thing to imagine that science would inherently bolster policy through providing empirical evidence that sways the ultimate decision one way or another; it's quite another to make the decisions that are morally right, in other words, ones that would not unnecessarily harm groups of people and give advantage to others, just for the sake of providing benefits to society as a whole.
The US Constitution and other similar documents have checks and balances in them for a reason - ones that specifically prevent majorities from abusing minorities with the excuse that their actions are beneficial "overall" for society "as a whole". Not to mention that in the world of politics, what may be deemed beneficial for one group, could actually be rather harmful for another. If a society entirely relies on impartial, almost robotic science to make their decisions for them (such proposals have been made in some fields, and steps have already been made in that direction), they risk losing their humanity, and ultimately devolving into a tyranny, even if unnoticeably and unintentionally.
As much as I love the guy, I think Neil should've factored these things in. In all fairness, I'm not sure I did that properly either, at the time I was first talking about my favoured form of "humanised technocracy".
Ps. There's a Union of Concerned Scientists? Whoah. Who knew.