I would have to disagree. The facts are that people need housing and food. People prefer the best when they can get it. As far as art goes, I know many scientists that are also artists.

@jayneonacobb My point wasn't about artists specifically, just that a representative government has to represent non-scientists too. We need all the ideas / influences / perceptions in the mix that we can get. I don't see scientists as necessarily dispassionate men in white lab coats, devoted impartially to facts and facts only. The whole reason the Scientific Method exists is to control for the confirmation bias and other mental quirks that scientists have, just like everyone else does. Also -- science tells us HOW to make a nuclear bomb, but not WHETHER we should make or use one. So scientists would not automatically make good policy. Maybe a coalition of scientists, technicians, philosophers and ethicists, would at least be better than Trump. But then again I'D make a better president than Trump.

@mordant I agree with that. I'm just saying that we know art is harmless and brings joy to people. That's an objectively good thing. There is morality to be found in science and facts.

I'm talking about a completely nonpartisan society that needs no leadership. One that doesn't pass laws until there is enough data to make a ruling or policy.

No, just wanted to see if anyone had a better idea. It's not my idea, just one I happen to think is good.