Agreed. That also is what government is for, to protect citizens from abuse and dangers, via regulation. Banks and automobile companies can't sell fraudulent or dangerous products to everyday consumers, for example.
Almost everything politicians - as well as other decision makers from CEOs to investment advisors to you and I - decide is outside their personal expertise. We all retain experts, one way or another, to research and report on the technical details, and our analysis isn't at all limited to the loudest voice.
Governments regulate airplane safety, but the politicians aren't aeronautical engineers and pilots. It doesn't just regulate but operates entire militaries, soup-to-nuts, with incredibly advanced technology, complex situations, and high stakes, yet it is civilians who are in charge (in the U.S. and most advanced countries) - the likely next U.S. Secretary of Defense will be the first ex-military officer since 1951.
That's not the same. It's one thing to have advisors, it's another to be so far out of your league that it's not even debatable nor discussable for you. So you try (ideally) to put people in their best positions to make the best decisions, and hope you have critically thoughtful people. But at some point they don't even know what questions to ask any more.
Military: We have a bunch of super expensive airplanes that nobody wants. Security: We have a former presidential candidate who though she was "above" security protocol and kept her own email server. Personal privacy, Finance: Well, you get my point.
These bad decisions come about because the interested parties have access "loudest voice" and can spin the conversation. Such has always been the case, but now we are getting to an age where a preponderance of decisions require some sort of technical understanding.
I'm certain sometime in our past the leaders went from being the ones who could yell the scariest to the ones who could write. In this age we will be better served, IMHO, if we require our leaders to have some numeracy and some technical literacy.
I disagree with these claims. Ironically, do you know anything about them, or are you repeating what has been said with the 'loudest voices'? For example, I actually do know a little about the F-35, which I assume you are referring to, and though there are reasons to criticize it most in the U.S. military (and in others) desperately want it.
Also, what about other things I mentioned such as airplane safety? Food safety? Public health? These are unqualified successes, though of course flawed.
Problems and flaws are the nature of every human enterprise and institution; there is no solution that won't result in them. But we still accomplish a heck of a lot. Sure, more numeracy and technical literacy would be great, but the idea that our government can't function has little foundation - it's just someone yelling loudly.
Fair point: I only know what I read in the paper.
airplane safety? Food safety? Public health?
That's the funny thing about transition- sometimes you don't see it coming. And it's hard to argue with the fallacy of the consequent: we are here, therefore it's the right answer.
But I'll try to articulate it from something small and (hopefully) that we can relate to and leave aside public health questions like climate change and so on. Again, this isn't the world-beater issue, but it's just an illustration of why I think that we should try to have more scientifically literate people in our government.
When I go to a gas station, there is a sign that says things like "don't smoke, discharge static electricity, fill portable tanks on the ground" and such with is all good advice. But they also have one that says "turn off your cell phone." Now, one of the stations I use that has this sign actually has a television atop the pump. But the kicker is, the whole gas-station-blowing-up thing was an urban legend. The original story was in the '90s, circulated via email, and was about a BP station in Britain blowing up because of someone using a cell phone. I have a tendency to check up on these things (IIRC "snopes" wasn't "snopes" back then; I think they changed their name or else the site I relied upon went out and snopes came in) and found that yes, the story was bullshit and there was no truth to it.
Nevertheless, it became a regulation to turn off your cell phone. Even though they don't cause sparks. And there's a TV set atop the pump.
more numeracy and technical literacy would be great
Agreed.
but the idea that our government can't function has little foundation
Maybe that's why nobody said it.
it's just someone yelling loudly.
Um, yeah, ok.
Gas stations put up signs because there is little cost to them if the advice is unnecessary, and a high cost if it is necessary. These signs do not indicate a "regulation". (Usually, when they do, they don't merely tell you not to do X, but specifically reference the fact that it is illegal to do the particular prohibited thing.)
Government can play a role in the improvement in the everyday life of it's citizens. As an example, I pay 25 euros/month for 200mbps fibre internet thanks to my government's antitrust laws.
How are you doing on this front, Americans?