Hacker News Reader

Comment by carbocation | Hacker News Reader

> I just wish people like him were more attracted to politics. I wonder if it's because nobody would elect people like Elon Musk or because those people avoid politics.

I'm starting to think that I'm OK with the great scientists and entrepreneurs not dabbling in politics. I'd rather have a world where politicians keep doing what they're doing, so long as they don't ruin everything, and entrepreneurs keep doing the same. But maybe this is just a phase in my own thinking.

More succinctly, Mr. Musk would have a much lesser impact as POTUS than as himself in his current role.

View on HN

> More succinctly, Mr. Musk would have a much lesser impact as POTUS than as himself in his current role.

There's no way to know for sure, but I'm curious about your reasoning. I'm not sure if I'd even agree with you. A technology and science focused president could do a lot of good, not least of all changing the mindset of people. Of course it'll be hard to get anything done with all the bipartisanism and opposition but that's a separate issue.

> Of course it'll be hard to get anything done with all the bipartisanism and opposition but that's a separate issue.

That's actually my point though, which is purely pragmatic. In a world where we don't have to account for politics, sure, I'd love to see what would happen if scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs were to govern. In a world where most of the time in government seems, to this observer, to be spent politicking, I'd rather see people like Mr. Musk doing his own thing.

Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer. But a lot of people didn't end up liking what he did. Some still say that he ruined the country. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what he should have/have not done, but I know a lot of people that despise the man.

After stating that, I still would like to see more engineering types in leadership positions because engineers are more data driven. However, most engineers are too busy building things to run for office.

Did Carter show anywhere near as much leadership in pushing the limits of technology as Admiral Rickover did, though?

Nuclear Engineer? From his Wikipedia I wouldn't really categorize him as a scientist. It also says he was really religious, which is also out of character for a scientist.

Woodrow Wilson was an intellectual (though not a scientist) and he was president.

Keep in mind the president's cabinet members probably consist of many scientists and this is probably sufficient for advising and keeping the president knowledgeable on issues.

Obama's cabinet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu - Nobel prize in physics - Secretary of Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Blank - PhD in Econ - Secretary of Commerce

Probably more scientists on board.

Woodrow Wilson was a disaster, and quite the anti-intellectual towards subjects that lent themselves towards one correct answer. Some quotes of his: "I don't let facts cloud my opinions". "The natural man despises mathematics". Also, his Treaty of Versaille was the main cause of WWII. I have no idea why he is revered as a president.

EDIT: After brushing up on a little ww2 history, it seems as though I've attributed too much blame to Wilson. He pushed a liberal approach towards Germany, the French delegation pushed for harsh reparations, and he lost out.

Out of character for a scientist? You mean, besides Werner Heisenberg, Freeman Dyson, Francis Collins, Richard Smalley, and Donald Knuth? This meme needs to die.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com