First of all, the best and brightest do not join the military. People like Noam Chomsky are bright. Stephen Hawkins was bright. Neil de Grasse Tyson is bright. Why is it that when I talk about bright people, everybody thinks I’m talking about some people with a tertiary education? I’m talking about those rare geniuses – in the top .001% - one in a hundred thousand people.

About 95% of people don’t have much of a character, so the only reason I can think of for insisting that ‘ordinary people’ become responsible for things like when to launch an atom bomb, whether to go to war with China or not, whether some sort of geological invention should be used to stop climate change even though there could be bad side effect, is a complete over-estimation of what they are able to do. Also a complete lack of understanding of just how complex the world is currently.

What on earth makes you think that someone without a high level of education and a brilliant mind is capable of making those sort of decisions?

For the record, there is a direct correlation between people with high ethics and gifted intelligence and those with below average intelligence and criminality.

As for advancing the causes of ‘civilization’ by building or designing military aircraft and weapons, I’m somewhat confused. Weapons have been built for at least 12,000 years by modern man. Weapons do not advance civilization. Science advances civilization. Science and a code of ethics.

I think you’ve stated the real problem here.

“They set up highly complex systems in civilization that only they can understand and benefit from; systems that benefit their favored paradigms, not the best interests of the soil, water, animals and people of the future who will be closest to those things.”

Nope. Businessmen set up those systems. Scientists don’t. But as I don’t know what systems you are talking about, I would need more data in order to comment on it. 😊