Doesn't that contradict itself? And what's more, I don't agree that nations are "self-destructive". I like nations. That assumes that scientists would make better rulers than non-scientists. I know of no credible evidence that's true. Scientists have tremendous training in and devote tremendous attention to narrow research questions in their areas of interest. But when they address social and cultural issues where their research subjects aren't relevant, their opinions are no better than anyone else's (and often worse). I don't understand the reference to Dubai. The United Arab Emirates isn't ruled by scientists. It's a federation of absolute monarchs, awash in oil money. Do you really believe that scientists possess some wonderful "method" that sets them apart from others and ensures that they are better people? How do you propose to establish your scientistic oligarchy and sweep away democracy, without bloodshed, without violent opposition from "underlings" like myself? There's no way that your utopian vision could ever be established peacefully.