Karen et al, see embedded comments.

On 21 March 2011 14:08, Karen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Jean Schneider <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> If, in 30 years from now, the consequences of global warming render
>> significant parts of our Earth inhabitable, will it be time to see who
>> should be blamed ? ....... The question is : why, and to what extent, does a
>> community delegate. Why, and to what extent, the debate is broken down to
>> experts-who-know against people-who-don't. Why is the fact of that a
>> community says calmly and deliberatly "no" (to nuclear energy, to shale gas,
>> to GM crops, to mining, to dams...) considered primitive and regressive.
>> When imposing this is the local consequence, the upper crust, of an
>> unsustainable society?
>>
>
>
> I think this problem sounds very much like in comparison to what kind of
> leaders we pick to govern policies that will effect the general public.
> Politics can affect decisions and surely we cannot blame the actions of
> certain people especially if they are merely taking orders. Delegation can
> be a problem. I wonder if I am right to say that picking the right leaders
> at every level of the system be the most fundamental aspect? I never see the
> system itself having a flaw and sometimes I see certain fact told analysis
> of what is right / wrong is a  fallacy, merely to overthrow a certain
> 'rule'.

It's important to have good "leaders."  However, what exactly is
"good" is open to some debate.  Sure, one should expect honesty,
competence, and a few other things that seem severely lacking in most
of today's "leaders", but what competencies should be expected?
Literacy is important (witness by contrast the buffoon GW Bush), but
what about numeracy?  I should think numeracy would be essential too.
What about a sense of humour?
Then, even harder: come up with a way of choosing a leader.  People
elected GW Bush.  Twice.  There's Churchill's famous quote: "The best
argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the
average voter."
It's a serious question: how can voters who ON AVERAGE don't or can't
understand the complex issues of governance possibly vote for a good
candidate?

This doesn't help us deal with immediate concerns of energy production
and safety, though.

>
> People demomstrate against GM foods, nuclear etc for the basic reason that
> they have seen and experienced the impact of these new designs in food and
> products.

Eh?  How's that?  What impacts have people experienced, specifically?

> I see them as 'designers' of products and services in their own
> cultural right. They are clearly different from most of us, in terms of
> thinking and methodologies, but they have their belief systems. So I suppose
> the importance here is to decide who should we believe in and what we do?

I think, as I believe Jeffrey suggested, there's a need for debate
between the various groups with different "beliefs."  Only then can an
informed decision be made about these things.  The unfortunate thing
is that, in my experience, facts are not sufficient to quell the
irrational fears of many people.

>
> I often feel that many leaders fail to listen. Few leaders genuinely hear
> the voices of the people.The greatest harmony comes from a balance. That
> balance comes from the people and the leaders. Problems arises because of
> the failure to communicate with understanding; which renders
> insustainability.

My Grade 10 Current Events teacher once said a wise thing that I've
remembered ever since.  There are only 2 reasons for the existence of
political parties: (1) to get power, and (2) to keep power.
Everything else is secondary.  When I was young and stupid, I thought
he was being unnecessarily cynical.  Now I see he was just stating a
fact.

>
> The staus of design would be one that leads via the voices of the people.
> The very people who will be experience the impacts of 'designed' goods and
> services. They used to say that hardcore designs like engineering plays the
> leading role. I'd say all forms of designs should first obey the laws of
> nature and the voices of the people.

This doesn't address the tragedy of the commons, or the local
suboptimization or whatever you want to call it.  Engineering, by the
way, is all about obeying the "laws of nature."  What do you do when
the voice of the people is wrong?

>
>
> Way past bedtime. I have been posting to forums around bedtime for last
> decade. Perhaps its the solitude in the middle of the night that I enjoy
> reading debates, and perhaps post something that sometimes not palatable on
> some people's plate. But at the bare minimum, I mean well.
>
> Night all!
>
> Karen Fu
>

I know you mean well.  It's important that all of us contribute to the
conversation.  We all learn from the experience.

Cheers.
Fil

-- 
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/