@Oportunist > if higher educated people know better and they run the world, why does the world suck so much?
Some thoughts:
1) Highly educated people do not necessarily "know better". That doesn't mean that they are useless though. Many (policy) problems are too complicated to solve by merely thinking about them. Implement policy A and you will observe unanticipated side effects B, C and D. One must continually observe and address these as they arise.
2) Highly educated people do not "run the world". Nobody runs the world. It's not a global dictatorship or meritocracy. The fate of the world is determined by the continual interplay of countless of different actors, nation states, businesses, etc., each with their own set of unique goals and interests (usually conflicting with the interests of others). It's a great mess. Some of those in the higher echelons are highly educated for sure: many politicians have studied law, many diplomats have studied foreign affairs, many businesspeople have studied business administration for instance. But not all people in positions of power are highly educated.
I agree with the following:
Knowing about the law that is does not necessarily mean you strive towards what ought to be. Knowing foreign affairs does not in itself cause you to value peace and prosperity for all (nationalistic diplomats only want their own country to benefit). And studying business administration cannot guarantee that you will work towards building a business that adds actual value for society in a sustainable way.
But that doesn't mean that one doesn't need any highly educated people for those (and many other) jobs. One does. At least it's usually very bad for a country when its intelligentsia runs away in droves (Human capital flight). One of the most extreme recent examples is that of East Germany (GDR), which lost about 20% of its population between 1952 and 1961 (3.5 million refugees), ultimately deciding to close and heavily fortify the inner German border. You might have heard about the Berlin Wall, but the fortifications were much more extensive than that, thousands of kilometres long:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortifications_of_the_inner_German_border3) The world does not suck. The world has MASSIVELY improved over the past 200 years:
Child mortality (between 30% and 40% in 1800, about 3.8% now), life expectancy (32 years in 1900, 72.8 years in 2019), nutrition (synthetic fertilisers), disease prevention (vaccines), emergency medicine, Universal health care (in more countries than ever before), democracy (hardly any monarchies remain, 26% of countries were democratic in 1975, whereas 62% are now), international cooperation (Geneva Conventions, International Bill of Human Rights, humanitarian aid, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Montreal Protocol, Paris Climate Accords), countless NGOs, fewer wars.
Nearly all of those things were virtually unheard of one or two hundred years ago. Human rights? No. International law? Nope. You get the picture.
The two most prominent recent wars being notable exceptions. It remains to be seen whether or not the trend of fewer and more localised conflicts that has been seen in the last 80 or so years will continue.
You said in #1:
> so called very high iq people make bombs and weapons ,how can you call the people who invented and created mass destruction weapons smart?
Because a lot of intelligence was needed to develop them. This can be acknowledged without conceding that the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project there were wise. Assuming you're talking about nuclear weapons.
It's still inexcusable and it wasn't wise to develop these weapons, I agree. They are the product of one of the worst wars in all of history (WW2). And threaten humanity ever since.
> they have created nothing but hell on earth,
One could argue that those who chose to actually use these weapons (largely on civilians) did, namely Truman, not the people who developed them (some of which spoke up against its use after having witnessed the first test). Then again, those people (Roosevelt, Truman, Curtis LeMay) had already green-lit the fire bombings of Tokyo (and many other cities) beforehand, which killed way more civilians than the two atomic bombs combined. WW2 was a never ending abyss of horror.
> in conclusion we dont need tecnology and high education,we need to spread love,brotherhood,tolerance and create a peacefull world,the world has enuff food and recources for all of us,why not everyone share and be happy?
While I agree with your sentiment of spreading love, brotherhood and tolerance, I feel compelled to point out that the world has enough food for everyone precisely because of higher education, science and technology (namely synthetic fertilisers such as nitrogen fertiliser produced via the Haber process).
Quote:
> With average crop yields remaining at the 1900 level the crop harvest in the year 2000 would have required nearly four times more land and the cultivated area would have claimed nearly half of all ice-free continents, rather than under 15% of the total land area that is required today.
Vaclav Smil, Nitrogen cycle and world food production, Volume 2, pages 9–13
So I disagree with your idea that we don't need technology or higher education. We desperately do.
