discord wrote:bunny: no, most 'innovation' as in ideas for direction usually comes from science fiction writers, jules verne is the classic example another good one would be gibson and sterling for the cyber punk era, there are LOTS of others out there, that came up with a idea for a story and later it turns out to be doable, philosophers....lesse who was the first to come up with the idea that the universe began with a bang? the first to write it nicely was edgar allan poe, there is some indication that erasmus darwin was earlier, but that was pure poetry imho.
I wouldn't say that. Verne and the rest didn't give direction to innovation. Much the opposite. Innovation gave them direction, and they advanced it to a logical conclusion. As an example, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Written in 1870, has a submarine with modern characteristics. Cigar tube that can stay underwater for extended periods. But that did not lead to engineers working to make fiction a reality. Rather, engineers had already been advancing down this path with this intent and Verne took it to its end. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Plongeur Elongated sub that rams. Swap the powerplant and call it the Nautilus.
I would say philosophy leads science about like a dumped bowl of spaghetti points you north. Standing north you can say, "Hey look! That noodle points north!" but I wouldn't use it for navigation. Neither does science. Its a lot like evolution in that it doesn't build up and select for or towards but tears down and selects against. This noodle doesn't point north. Or that one... or that one...
or that one... or that one...
They were pretty smart indeed the only mistake I'd say they made was the failure to include term limits in the Constitution cause lord knows it's not gonna happen now.
Term limits are double edged, not a panacea. They make the politician more dependent on the forces, and monies, that can elect them. You can see a bit of their reasoning in their debate over the lifetime appointment of judges, which was a bit more contested so more was written on it. They opted for a balance between the two in the varying term lengths and election methods of the House and Senate. House looks after the interests of the people and is elected often, making it most dependent. Senate looks after the interests of the state legislatures and is elected infrequently. My solution would be to uncap the number of representatives in the House, keep districts small and the power of the House weak individually, and just too numerous to effectively buy off a majority (as was intended originally). Tie Senatorial election back to the states, which are in turn elected by the people, and possibly consider lengthening terms to 8-10 years. This checks Federal authority against local authority and divests special interests of some of their power.
As to the strengths and follies of the US government, in general I defer to Tocqueville.
A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.