A link off Slashdot to Scott Adam’s Dilbert Blog raises an interesting notion (Click here. Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) goes all Nostradamus and predicts the emergence of an atheist business leader as a candidate for President of the Unipolar World, with Bill Gates being that ideal candidate.
“His early bachelor life and some of his business practices will come back to haunt him if he runs, but he can still win with this simple slogan: “Who would you rather have on your side?—
I’m not sure what Adam means by “his early bachelor life”, I can’t imagine Bill Gates being a promiscuous scoundrel. In fact, I’m nauseated by the prospect.
While the crux of Adam’s blog-post corncerns the rise of atheism in post-911 America, it raises the interesting prospect of Gates being ‘the most powerful leader in the world’. While many people would shudder at the prospect of this take-no-prisoners technology entrepreneur being the chief of police, I’m strangely attracted to the idea. I agree with Adam’s determination that a rationalist as a leader is the way to go, one thankfully lacking the pro-Christian conservatism that seems to currently plague the western politics at the moment.
Would Bill Gates make a good leader? I’m not sure. However, politics is never about letting the best guy for the job get the reins, but more about, keeping the worse one out. One must admire Gate’s rise from a mere software developer with a knack for business to the world’s richest man. Despite what you might think of his software empire and its products, you must agree that a degree of skill and intelligence is required to make such a swift rise in the western business world. It’s not a ludicrous hypothesis to suggest that these abilities could be transferred to the political world.
From an outsider’s perspective, the current Bush administration carries an air of ineptitude and corruption. If you consider George W grasp of the English language as a measure of his abilities to govern a nation, I’d say you’d be quick to conclude that the current US administration is not the ideal one to have in these ‘uncertain times’.
I’m not really saying anything that would not be new to the casual reader, but would just like to reinforce the point that the world requires semi-sentient leadership and rationalist government that realises that warmongering and religious intolerance are, in the end, self destructive addictions.
“Hail our future rationalist oligarchs!” said Mr Murray, with a hint of a wry grin dying upon the mask of his serious face.
Leave a Reply