I will continue doing as I always have . Sigh loudly knowing that I ' m just another pawn in someone else ' s game of chess and then go back to burning holes in my pocket to distract myself from the reality of it all . <| sep |> MPs are not exempt . The difference for targeted interception against MPs is that the PM has to approve the warrant , rather than it being just being signed off by the appropriate Secretary of State . IOC COP 5 . 511018 I n t e r c eptioncodeofpracticedraft . pdf <| sep |> yeah , , , thankshe is hanging back . the leader most likely she saysand we can ' t do anything but wait <| sep |> there is a most efficient and best way to do somethingYou should be able to build systems that are very effective at achieving certain social results . Yes . I agree . There is a ' best way ' for achieving everything . Including good and bad objectives . But the hitch that people get caught up on is deciding on what we , as a society , want to achieve . It always has been a struggle for our monkey brains to cooperate in the way you describe . Like I pointed out , many people have different objectives and ideals for the society we live in , and for very different reasons . Sometimes , those reasons are not based on science . Rights , morals , religion etc . These are things Western democratic societies have placed significant importance on and are unlikely to be stripped away . With physical science , the result is overbearingly positive for all involved . The objectives , and thus the process , is less controversial . For example , if we cured cancer nobody could argue there ' s a negative to that . Another is propulsion , to get from A to B faster is no burden . E . g . calculus gets us to the moon . Wheres the harm in that ? When it comes to raw science barely anyone is ready to complain apart from antivaxers climate change deniers but they arent people imho but when it comes to societal cultural problems there will always be dissenters , and likely en masse . Many do not appreciate science in the same way you and I do which is sad , and in my opinion for the foreseeable future , inevitable . The point is , politics doesn ' t need to be a boiling cauldron of opinions , as you put it . It could be an objective system built with the purpose of ensuring the long term survival and prosperity of our species . I do wish this was true . But the beauty and the disgusting side to democracy is the variation in its base of voters . So unless we strip away freedom of speech , democracy , bipartisanship etc . all the things that make Western society what it is people will continue to have differing opinions on WHAT we want to achieve . Once we decide WHAT we want to achieve , then science can step in to achieve those goals despite the possibility of there being other options , and in some cases such as climate change , a better option . While this is unfortunate , I just cant agree with you that at some point humans will just decide to dedicate themselves to the ' hive mind ' and do everything strictly scientifically no moral weight , no ' rights ' or preference . Just whatever is clinically most beneficial . Our species is simply too stupid and ignorant . But let me reiterate , I hope I ' m wrong . With time , we could see the same thing happen to social science , though its mathematical tools are currently in their infancy . But maybe in the future we ' ll see the same mathematical breakthroughs we saw in physical science , like the invention of calculus . And in this , I hope you ' re right . But I honestly believe widespread education and higher rates of tertiary studies amongst the populace would be more likely to garner respect amongst the majority for science and the utilitarianism it is capable of providing not to mention more achievable