Science or Politics?

[CactusKing]

Not sure if this should go in the 'Politics' or 'Science' section but here we are.
So while chatting with a friend of mine he brought up that he thinks politicians are more important for people to progress, because they bring order to the world. Naturally, I rushed to the defence of science, explaining how it's impact on the world is far greater, and that politicians often place profit over progress. This went on for quite some time with no clear conclusion in sight. So being the douche that I am, I thought "hey, why don't I bring this argument to someone else?" so that's exactly what I did. All opinions welcome here, please tell us what you think!

[Aves]

Pro Politics:
Increases in scientific advancement are only used to bring about greater industrial output. Leaders ensure that resources go to where they should and development efforts are focused where they need to be, minimizing waste and working for the common good. Our standard of living today is based mostly on leadership.

Pro Science:
Even with perfect leadership, we can only manage what we have. Without technological growth we would still be hunter-gatherers roving in small packs. Our standard of living today is based mostly on scientific achievement.

For basic summary, does that resemble what you and your friend talked about?

Also, "profit over progress" implies that at some point, there is a mutually exclusive decision to be made between increasing profit, and increasing progress. Some food for thought: If progress is unprofitable, then is it worth the resources spent to produce it?

[CactusKing]

For basic summary, does that resemble what you and your friend talked about?

to quote my friend;
"WITHOUT POLITICIANS, SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS WOULD BE CLOSE TO MEANINGLESS! how would they implement the breakthrough into society?"

Also, "profit over progress" implies that at some point, there is a mutually exclusive decision to be made between increasing profit, and increasing progress. Some food for thought: If progress is unprofitable, then is it worth the resources spent to produce it?

to quote Donald Trump;
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

Either he doesn't understand science at all, or is choosing to ignore it for the sole purpose of being economically competitive.
It's not that progress is unprofitable, but sometimes it isn't profitable in the short term, which is what politicians usually care about.

[Patient666158]

Science = Discoveries
Politics = Communism
Therefore Science is superior.

[Espithel]

You can't have politics without science, and science shapes politics, sometimes for the drastic negative. For every single instance of the internet, the printing press, cars, etc. There's an instance of the use of discovery for intense pain - The holocaust. The first and second world war in general. The nuclear bomb. Transcontinental Slavery. Pre-sanitary-movement cities.

Now, yes, you could argue that these wouldn't have happened without politics, the problem is that politics is simply the "meta" of the resources, human nature, and techniques given to us at a point in time - and all of these had an objective political benefit that was only possible through the use of science.

The nuke is the ultimate force amplifier - you have a nuke? You are NOT getting invaded or nuked.
War? Resources and territory.
Slavery? During the British Crusade against slavery, there was an african king who offered everything - his kingdom, family, house, all his assets - if he could keep his slave trade. That was how profitable it was. Slavery is one of the most insanely profitable things you can do.
Pre-Santiary cities? Cramp them all up for maximum labour. (It should be noted that this one is arguably not political at all)
The holocaust? People hated jews. Sorry.

Politics and science are heavily intertwined, is my point. This question is like asking if geometry or algebra is a more important field of maths.

Also note that the vast majority of scientific discoveries, especially in the 20th century, were during wartime - war accelerates science.

[кłøḱ♭ṧ]

Although Science is important in the progression of society, it is politics that allows science to do this. Politicians create world order (and sometimes disorder) to allow civilisation to develop, progress and prosper overtime. Sure, most of todays politicians are trash (cough cough trump) and yes some put profit over policy; but its truly up to politicians to solve our problems, to create an environment where science is able to do its thing and solve problems such as climate change. Thus politicians are slightly more superior than scientists. No world, no problems to solve...

[Patient666158]

Well now that I think about it. If politics didn't exist, he would be what his name is, ILLEGALMEXICAN, but if politics did exist *cough* Trump *cough*, then that Mexican would have to get legal papers to enter America. But without Science there would be no sex robots so... Science is still superior. 

[Espithel]

tbf, I'd probably burn my country to the ground for a sex robot

[Patient666158]

You can't have politics without science, and science shapes politics, sometimes for the drastic negative. For every single instance of the internet, the printing press, cars, etc. There's an instance of the use of discovery for intense pain - The holocaust. The first and second world war in general. The nuclear bomb. Transcontinental Slavery. Pre-sanitary-movement cities.

Now, yes, you could argue that these wouldn't have happened without politics, the problem is that politics is simply the "meta" of the resources, human nature, and techniques given to us at a point in time - and all of these had an objective political benefit that was only possible through the use of science.

The nuke is the ultimate force amplifier - you have a nuke? You are NOT getting invaded or nuked.
War? Resources and territory.
Slavery? During the British Crusade against slavery, there was an african king who offered everything - his kingdom, family, house, all his assets - if he could keep his slave trade. That was how profitable it was. Slavery is one of the most insanely profitable things you can do.
Pre-Santiary cities? Cramp them all up for maximum labour. (It should be noted that this one is arguably not political at all)
The holocaust? People hated jews. Sorry.

Politics and science are heavily intertwined, is my point. This question is like asking if geometry or algebra is a more important field of maths.

Also note that the vast majority of scientific discoveries, especially in the 20th century, were during wartime - war accelerates science.

Taking your part about how the people hated the jews. If it wasn't for the influence of Hitler who used the power of politics, persuasive speeches and lying to their people to get what they want, then the Germans would have no reason to develop a hate towards the Jews. But because of the influence Hitler had on the German people of that time the Jews had become a target of a Genocide, and there were even German people who did not want to kill the Jews and if their opinion was spoken then they would be hanged, whipped, enslaved or killed. It was the power of politics that influenced the Germans to kill the Jews, and to start WW2.

[Espithel]

It was the power of politics that influenced the Germans to kill the Jews, and to start WW2.

Of course. They wouldn't have been able to kill people with such effectiveness without science, is my point.
Railroads. Concentration camps. An effective and organised method of murdering people using advanced armaments. Organised famine. Without these, you ain't having a genocide that effective. Sames goes for Stalin, and to a lesser extent Mao.

Science, bitches. It works, regardless of how it's used.

[Patient666158]

Of course. They wouldn't have been able to kill people with such effectiveness without science, is my point.
Railroads. Concentration camps. An effective and organised method of murdering people using advanced armaments. Organised famine. Without these, you ain't having a genocide that effective. Sames goes for Stalin, and to a lesser extent Mao.

Science, bitches. It works, regardless of how it's used.

I see your point, however I prefer Science cause I can get a more stable career in life, if I went into politics my source of income would be more unbalanced. Plus Science is fun and Politics requires lying and lying = bad person = Hitler. I would prefer not to be the next Hitler. I'd prefer to be the next Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

[Espithel]

Plus Science is fun and Politics requires lying and lying = bad person = Hitler. I would prefer not to be the next Hitler. I'd prefer to be the next Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Now, while I personally agree with you that all politicians are filthy, imbred, subhuman scum who should be paid less than minimum wage and chained up in a dark room where they're fed stale bread and forced to lay in their own defecation - treated worse than slaves on a good day, in other words - comparing them all to hitler is a bit harsh, don't you think?

Besides, politics can be fun too. Boris Johnson is hilarious.