Jay Hanson wrote:
>
> I do not understand why people assume that justice can only by
> served by a so-called democracy. IMHO, there isn't a chance of
> a snowball in hell that any kind of "democratic governance" can
> lead to anything but total disaster. Moreover, I see no a priori
> reason why an autocratic government can not produce at least as
> much justice as our present plutocratic government.
>
> Does anyone want to discuss any of the following items?
>
> =================================================================
>
> Current assumptions:
>
> #1. The scientific community is correct -- that we have now
> exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet, and that
> continued "business as usual" will result in a global
> population crash in less than 35 years -- billions may die
> untimely deaths. [ http://dieoff.org/page5.htm ]
Experts from different scientific fields are in a high degree
responsible for the major problems we are confronted with.
It seems to me, that experts are specialists in their field, who are not
able to think about the possibly negative effects of their special
solutions for the social or ecological system.
When I was a students representative, some 25 years ago, I tried to
establish a compulsary program for technology assessment in the study
program for mechanical engineering at the Technical University in
Vienna.
But we were not successful, as the academic teachers and the
representatives of industrial companies said, that there was not enough
time for such unimportant questions.
On the other hand, Austria ( a small country in the heart of Europe) is
the only country I know, where due to a plebiscit a nearly completed
atomic power plant was not allowed to start operating and no new atomic
power plants can be constructed.
I am quite sceptic, that experts without the necessary responsibility
can create a better future.
How should those experts be educated and how can they be controlled?
Robert Neunteufel
