You have to go back to the time of Deng Xiaoping to find leaders who weren't engineers. China's current party doctrine? "Scientific Development Concept," a seemingly engineering-inspired strategy, the concepts of which have Mao rolling in his grave.
One can see the results of this sort of engineering-driven government in projects like the Three Gorges Dam; the Party leaders did an engineering-style cost/benefit analysis, measuring the cost of displacing millions of people versus the benefit of the dam, and decided in favor of the dam.
For better or for worse, China has become the closest thing there is to a country run by engineers.
I have a lot of sympathy for China's rulers. They have a tough situation, and any course of action they take will make them look like idiots or bastards. I think they could definitely stand to be more open, and that it's probably just insecurity and FUD that's causing them to go for a censorship-laden, heavy-handed method of social control, but they're doing a decent job.
Maybe I'm biased because I swoon whenever I think of how easily China decided to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, while the Home of the Brave is still too terrified of miniscule or nonexistent risks.
When I imagine a country run by engineers it's still a democracy.
Having been born and raised behind the iron curtain, I can tell you there's A LOT to being in power in an authoritarian system that has nothing to do with engineering.
As someone with a math major/engineering MS, I was of course pleased to hear Barak say this. But of course, our president himself has a law degree. Most of the politicians who want Americans to become engineers are lawyers themselves.
I remember an absolutely fantastic Onion article titled "Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others"
If most politicians who want Americans to become engineers are lawyers then it's because most politicians are lawyers (or something similar). Selection bias. This explanation is simple and non-malicious.
But maybe the preponderance of lawyers in American politics is part of the problem. Engineering or science is a far more common background among national leaders in Europe and Asia - and this may turn out to provide a massive competitive advantage over the US in the future. Thomas Friedman in "the world is flat" mentions this possibility a few times.
I voted for Barak, and I'm happy to have him as my president. But actions speak a lot louder than words. If this immensely popular president is a lawyer who encourages kids to be engineers, the kids will who admire him will want to become lawyers who encourage people to be engineers.
The man who most wants to rule the universe is the one that is least suited to do so. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So a sneaky scheme has been devised: The ruler of the universe doesn't know, or care for that matter, that he happens to rule the universe.
When irritated, I used to say to friends "When I take over, you'll be up against the wall with the first billion along with X, Y and Z."
I had to find a new joke when my friends noted that the total sums of all the groups I'd promised to be among the first billion up against the wall was at least 10 billion people. (-: Well, I'm not a people person in the mornings. :-)
So when the time for voting for world president/dictator comes around, I promise that everyone voting for me won't be among the first billion up against the wall. "Why settle for the lesser evil, vote berntb!"
The post was actually a bit of an appeal for engineers and innovators to be more powerhungry. I'd rather have Larry Ellison than Hank Paulson run the companies that matter to the economy.
I suspect that the process of pursuing and attaining power would change engineer types into what they detested. You cannot win the game without becoming a player. Unless the game (society itself) changes to favour those who do not desire power. I consider that an extremely unlikely scenario.
To paraphrase Churchill: Democracy is a horrible system, but it's the best we've got.
Democracy opens the way to power hungry people, it's also very sensitive to information manipulation.
I always thought it must be possible to create a government ruled by engineers. The main problem is ofcourse, how do you select the engineers?
I think, create an academic and psychological test, open to everybody, then select two groups randomly.
One group will propose changes with arguments. The other group will decide if they will be accepted.
Obama opposes abstinence-only sex ed. He has said so repeatedly, and worked it into his policies. Also, your link leads to a "no hotlinking" image. So, omnifail.
Jiang Zemin? Electrical Engineer. Hu Jintao? Hydraulic Engineer. Wen Jiabao? Geomechanical Engineer. Zhu Rongji? Electrical Engineer.
You have to go back to the time of Deng Xiaoping to find leaders who weren't engineers. China's current party doctrine? "Scientific Development Concept," a seemingly engineering-inspired strategy, the concepts of which have Mao rolling in his grave.
One can see the results of this sort of engineering-driven government in projects like the Three Gorges Dam; the Party leaders did an engineering-style cost/benefit analysis, measuring the cost of displacing millions of people versus the benefit of the dam, and decided in favor of the dam.
For better or for worse, China has become the closest thing there is to a country run by engineers.