Comment by psychoslave

> I'm actually OK with experts deciding that a particular policy is the right way to keep people safe.

That's actually the nub of the topic. Humans can accumulate some expertise in this or that topic, to some limited extend. But they can't integrate all the cases that actual people are going to face in an anticipated manner.

There are different kind of attitude with expertise. Some people will grow humility as they realize how little they know and how tiny their individual contribution actually is in the grand scheme of cosmos. Other will grow a metastased ego and leverage on the little few things they believe firmly to grab as much political power as they can to enforce whatever fantasy come to their mind as they get out of touch from feedback from the rest of humanity (except the yes-man court).

If an expert have meaningful things to share, of course it should be considered. But not as an absolute authority. Experts can also be fake people, or bribed, or missing clues about the specific context, just as well as be perfectly on point with well framed context and best intention to the general public at heart. But taking blindly anything that an expert labeled person for unquestionable certitudes is a receipt for the kind of trouble exposed in this thread.