Brido...

I didn't mean to imply that I think that scientists should rule the world....sorry. Just thought the articles raised some pretty good points. However, the figures and stuff quoted aren't from an experiment but based on current values of consumption, and some relatively simple number crunching gives the inputs and outputs required if we grow economically. So it's actually really simple(for their peers) to check those figures and verify them. Every respected article is "peer-reviewed," which whilst not removing fraud of basic results and data, which as you mentioned does happen more often than you would expect in respected publications, pretty much keeps anyone drawing stupid or erroneous conclusions from whatever data has been collected. Since the data used in the articles I referenced is actually taken from freely available stock values and the like which are used daily to calculate banks income etc, it's highly unlikely it's falsified. The conclusions and figures are then derived, which you or I, if our maths is up to scratch, should be able to look at. Economists use the same basic data every day. And the figures of consumption due to market growth in the near future are very, very scary indeed. However a world run by scientists is also a scary prospect. And I totally agree with everything you said, I've had some 2nd hand experience through my supervisor of the work done in scientific research and the amount of absolute fannies he has to deal with somehow. Everyone has a political agenda, and some stuff that is pulled is actually quite sickening in the world of highly expensive physics that I work in, because the stakes are higher. Some people already predict a violent revolution that'll take place as more and more people become aware of just how much the government and finance system needs to change to sustain everything. I'm game. You?