There’s a gap there, between scientific advisors and government. Whilst scientists want to remain impartial and merely provide the information to ministers on which they can make ultimate decisions, it results in a tragic discontinuity in thinking.
The job of scientists is problem-solving. The very definition of science. Engineers are some of the purest practitioners of taking what’s been learned through science, applying thorough analytical thought and making pragmatic decisions.
When you listen to science podcasts and listen to those same scientific advisors and others, see their quotes in the news, there’s a painful jarring between what they say (as a result of all of this painstaking, careful experiment and thought) and what actually gets done. There is even stated pride in the fact that they don’t purport to lead, but merely guide ministers to decisions. Not even in occasional situations where there is only one choice. And so the thinking and process which they describe is so stunningly-jarring with the outcomes which we see in the news. It’s so wasted.
There is no great requirement on government ministers to be good at or practiced in this kind of rigorous, analytical, problem-solving thinking. And in practice they tend not to be good at it at all, especially given the obvious ego-driven interests which they so often display.
It’s a shame, then, that as we have engineers and architects whom make important, sound decisions in construction projectsβ resulting in some of the world’s great wonders, no lessβ that we don’t have the same kind of process behind decisions on running the country. You could say that we almost do, but then it’s like there’s a thin air gap right at the end across which good ideas are not easily transmitted and received!ΒΉ
ΒΉ The analogy works quite wellβ it’s like a boundary between two different media resulting in the refraction and dispersal of consistent, focused thought. Due to the speed of thought being different on either side of the boundary π.
πͺ
π»πππππ
π πΆπ πͺππππ πͺ 
Scientists try to push us forward and politicians say “No thanks, we want to stay right here… or actually, lets go back to the 1950s because what a great time that was!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You read that quick! Jesus! Lol. I’m amazed. Ok you’re definitely on the left side of that boundary π€. You actually read it faster than I could final-proof-read!
It’s even worse than that. They usually don’t go in any direction at all it seemsβ just the direction which most benefits them in the very short-term π€·ββοΈ. At least going back to the 1950s could be cool in some aspectsβ we’d get to experience all that hippie culture in the next decade, and other things! See what all the Beatles hype was aboutβ¦
LikeLike
We could watch the Kennedy speech live and then the Moon landings! We could still imagine a utopian future and burn all the fossil fuels we want!
LikeLike
We really need politics to be taught in skillsβ to be explained. Everything needs to be aired out, the examples of selfish interest in politicians to be discussed. The logic and mechanisms behind interactions between countries’ governments explained. We need to remove the mysticism of it all and increase everybody’s engagement with it. It’s a huuuge elephant in the room and I’ve never understood why it stands apart from everything else.
LikeLike
Politicians don’t work in skills, they work in pushing their personal beliefs on the public. Just today the government here announced that elementary school kids need to be taught Bible passages as curriculum… because you know, either everyone in the world is a Christian, or the minister of education is one and that’s that.
Sorry that was a tangen rant. But I stand by that politicians work by belief not by fact or science or skill.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what I mean, thoughβ teach THAT. The logic behind being someone like Boris or trumpβ misleading people, creating a cult, the morality of it all.
Teach the logic of trade deals and the way that countries bargain and use leverage. Nuclear stalemate. There is logic and skill behind all of that, it’s just not virtuous. But nevertheless understanding it is all is very important and it’s what people come to learn about eventuallyβ but in a very haphazard, meandering way.
I guess what I am describing is sociology? Teach THAT in schools, it’s all-important!
At least if we can have more awareness and understanding of what’s going on, from an early age, that would help I think. By the time that most people (if they ever do) come to understand any of it in detail, it’s already too late to do much about it. We are learning through events like Brexit and elections and pandemics, once we already feel helpless. But it’s all the same old stuff that’s gone on before. It’s just not out in the open at all.
That bible in curriculum thing, thoughβ¦ in Canada! I’m surprised! I mean I see Canada as between the UK and USA on things like guns and religious stuff, but I’m shocked! That really IS going backwards π€¦ββοΈ.
LikeLike
And of course I know the response could be that politicians wouldn’t want to add that into the school curriculum for the obvious reasonsβ but the first step would be to at least campaign for it. To have greater recognition/discussion of this knowledge-gap.
LikeLike
Hell maybe we need to write politics/sociology books for kids. Maybe I should do that. Or Animal-Farm-esque stories for kids. Or whatever the best modern-day equivalent would beβ youtube videos or something.
LikeLike
Animal Farm would honestly be a VERY enlightening book to read as a child!
LikeLike
It’s science v money.
No contest, unfortunately!
LikeLiked by 1 person
But teaching bible verses is so much more important than teaching actual skills, or an appreciation for science, or an understanding of the economy, or critical skills of any way, shape or form. Let’s just push Christianity on the entirety of the human race.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess the one saving grace is that school is only one aspect of a child’s education and introduction to the world. What goes on at home and the role models that their parents or other family members provide is equally significant. At all stages in life, most of what I learned was through my own reading of books, magazines, websites, following space missions. And the proportion of what I learned which was most important, interesting or inspiring was even more-so from the stuff in my own time.
School was always just a thing to endure for me so I could get home to be outside or play computer games. And even with all of that, there was still the opportunity to gain most of my knowledge outside of school.
The element of choice that you have in your own time outside of school, is part of what makes that part of what makes the home environment so significant. Basically I’m just saying whatever the school system, there is so much that can still be done outside of it.
One of the things which shocks me is how few people can name a passion, or how important they place curiosity in their life. How few people have pure interestsβ learning something or developing a skill for the fun of it, as opposed to passively consuming things. An awful lot of people might’ve been inspired with a better home environment or role models, as well as the same at school. So many people have never escaped that idea that ‘learning’ is something to be done at school, and stops once you’ve left. That’s tragic :|.
LikeLike
is part of what makes the home environment so significant*
LikeLike