"The unstated premise is that rule by elites may be preferable to rule by the people if science should someday discover that average people will be irredeemably swayed by their prejudices and will not make their political decisions based on their intellects."
I disagreed. In my opinion, the argument of the paper suggests nothing of the kind. While your idea is interesting, I believe it delves too far between the lines and looks for some deeper meaning. The Boston Globe is not challenging our form of government. They're merely commenting on the research that suggests people are hard headed, generally speaking.
While your paragraphs about the US Constitution and system of Checks and Balances are spot on, they have nothing to do with the article in question.
While the idea of increasing nuclear power is one of the leading solutions, it still has to get past some negative fall-out from previous events (i.e. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island). These incidents are the reason why the law (in the U.S. anyway) makes it hard to build one and why there hasn't been one built in the last thirty years. The other critical point nuclear power plant supporters have to break is the popular idea of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). The fear of nuclear meltdowns is so great that coal-plants can't build hyperbolic cooling towers (one of the most efficient type) because the public at large believe the towers are nuclear reactors.
To sum it all up, until the public at large welcomes the idea of nuclear power and gets past previous nuclear mishaps, you won't see many reactors built in America.
On one hand, this is great. It will lead to new technology which will inevitably lead to better video games.
On the other hand, this provides the opportunity for total loss of privacy. Forget freedom of speech, people might start to attack the freedom to think certain thoughts. In other news, China and Iran are thrilled at this new science.
When I click the buttons: * Public Statistics * Per-Visitor Drill Down * Track Multiple Sites * Live Website Stats * Track Visitors without JavaScript - the entire site shakes. I'm using Mozilla Firefox if it's any help.
I disagreed. In my opinion, the argument of the paper suggests nothing of the kind. While your idea is interesting, I believe it delves too far between the lines and looks for some deeper meaning. The Boston Globe is not challenging our form of government. They're merely commenting on the research that suggests people are hard headed, generally speaking.
While your paragraphs about the US Constitution and system of Checks and Balances are spot on, they have nothing to do with the article in question.
This is simply my humble opinion.