Jeez, soapbox much?Yes, I think that a sane, self-aware, scientifically-rigorous system would choose public health over that bad stuff you mentioned.Like The Federation in Star Trek.
Well you'd just have to convince the upper class that science is their friend. Which is arguably what we have.
I read a short story where they took a humane approach to population reduction.An engineered disease. A short fever and then your uterus stops working. 95% effective.Rioting. All scientists hung. But the world was better.
Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It's just that the agenda isn't precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.
We have good models that offer up good decisions, so why put it to the vote? Base our policy on tested models. Audit our reasoning thoroughly. Be rational.Vs consult the masses, 99% of whom don't even understand the question.Seems like a no brainer
Ooh look the monkeys like that one. Funny bees!Think of them as 2 methods for determining policy. Sorry for the confusion.
I was thinking straight up science.Given these observations, these firmly established scientific models and this bit of sound reasoning, we conclude that these policies should be implemented. No voting required.
You had me at dystopian