I agree with what you are saying.
Just do not see any of it happening with the mechanisms you are describing.
natural scientists? how many ppl killed by a poorly designed experiment would be the cost of such a 'scientist'?
Many of these "poorly designed experiments" would never be performed in the first place. You could identify people with exceptional engineering skills by simply observing their online testing and demonstration of those skills. Of course, you would not just allow somebody who wants to play around with plutonium to do so without knowing that that person has the skills to handle it. What would change is the whole degree mill educational system which accepts people into it for money and graduates them after a number of years just because they paid the tuition. Many post graduate "professionals" are actually quite dull and not really capable of doing the work their degree says they should be able to do.
Imagine instead, an educational system entirely online (only replacing classroom lectures). The physical testing of students would be merited by their activities and performance as measured by their participation online. Once identified as competent, that student would be allowed access to labs, and other advanced tools to further his/her study. Once in those labs, a similar vetting happens, and the next levels are reached. None of this educational infrastructure would be controlled by any specific individuals. Intellectual charlatans would not be able to fool the computer algorithms designed to test real skill (much like the algorithms which target ads, the school computers could target instruction based on the measured aptitudes of students).
Primates do have leaders--the great apes are organized in troops. Every troop has an alpha male with first choice over food and mates. he even has the power of death-by not allowing food for an individual-over the members.
This leadership does change frequently though through violence.
from Dr Goodall- THE pre-eminent expert on primate behaviour-violence is common with primates,as is "leadership" positions:
Dominance Hierarchies & Mating
Within a chimp community, a male hierarchy, ordered more or less in linear fashion, establishes social standing, with one male at the top or "alpha" position. All adult males dominate all females, although females have their own hierarchy, albeit much less straightforward.
Age is a deciding factor in male dominance hierarchies - the alpha-male is usually between the age of 20 and 26. Other factors that determine dominance and social status are physical fitness, aggressiveness, skill at fighting, ability to form coalitions, intelligence, and other personality traits. Status is either maintained or changed through communication and social interactions, such as physical competition and grooming.
The males of a community regularly patrol their boundaries, and if they encounter individuals of a neighbouring community they may attack with extreme brutality. The only individuals who can move freely between communities are adolescent females who have not yet given birth. They may transfer to a new community permanently or, having become pregnant, move back to their own birth group.
Funny you should post this, because when you look around today and back in history, it is not the strong who prevailed. Nobody selected the people who conquered their lands and established themselves as leaders. That is even true to this day. Since around 30 B.C., the shift from merit based leadership to conquest by force has removed the natural order of things from social structures. Take a scrawny man and give him a big gun, and he can conquer you if you are unarmed. In primate communities, the leaders, the Alpha Males become leaders because they are the strongest, biggest and most virile. They pass their strong genes on to the most sexually available females and those strong genes improve future generations. That is the natural order. Today, we have weak men in control of massive weapons systems and that is why they can remain in control. They are not strong. They are not leaders. There is nothing Alpha about them.
You can make people obey when they are ordered to do things at gunpoint. A leader can get people to happily volunteer by simply asking them and giving the reasons why they should help accomplish a goal.
numerous studies have shown that many humans will simply stand by and let the volunteers do everything. they will not work unless forced to do so.
it is called the 'free rider effect' and applies to many layers of human activity
LOL, who did the studies? Depending on what work is being asked to be performed, many people will reject certain types of work. I would not volunteer a single minute of time to clean up after an oil spill, or help rebuild an exploded oil refinery. I would not volunteer a single minute to help repair the sprinkler system on a golf course which might have been damaged by an earthquake and has busted. Neither of those two things benefits society as a whole. Let them do their own work.
You wanna see free riders? Then look to those who sit and do very little as dozens of workers do the actual work and give the profit to some fat bastard. I have met owners of sports teams (most of those teams have several owners). Not one of them could I consider athletic. At least one baseball team investor/owner I know has NEVER played baseball. But he is rich and he owns the team along with other owners. Free riders? People who sit behind desks playing with other people's money on Wall Street. People who sit and sip wine while their slaves do all the work.
this effect's aftermath can lead down many paths for a solution.
1 violence or coercion can be used to make them work
That path leads to totalitarianism, dictatorships and disaster. Not utopia.
2 the free riders will continue to collect and survive off the backs of others and may even come to take control of the group as some will see them as smarter since they got others to work for them--a root ideal of our current state of capitalism?
NOBODY sees them that way, trust me. They see them as dishonest and evil for tricking others to do work for them instead of doing it themselves. That is dishonest and pathetic.
3 this can also lead to a call for a 'central govt/ control authority' who would ensure the equal work/equal benefits ideal. this of course, is a precursor to socialism
so,some form of central control-with all of the bells and whistles, would come into effect, eventually
I disagree. I think the ONLY way that might work is if this "central authority" was a computer AI. You only need one narcissistic, selfish and power hungry human out of 10 in order to ruin utopia by means of manipulation and self-enrichment.
