Followed by 1
Ignored by 1
In United States
Registered Mar 23, 2009
marcus's most recent comments:
- On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, 8:17pm PST
Remember the Monarch Butterfly ? They were ubiquitous not too long ago,
I guess it actually probably is no big deal in one way of looking at it. Goverments will make sure that enough milkweed exists to keep some kind of small population of monarchs going.
And who knows ? Maybe there's even money to be made with special butterfly parks, where people can go, and if they are lucky, they can spot real butterflys !
- On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, 8:01pm PST
Why science is often hard to believe,
I find the theme(s) here fascinating, it's something I've thought about a lot and it gives me concern for our species, and I'm not even talking about whether my opinion is right. It's just that someone is usually wrong in these debates, and I seriously question whether humanity as a group has the ability to find the right path. That is when it comes to the really big and really difficult decisions we'll face in coming decades and centuries.
From the article:
Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more “egalitarian” and “communitarian” mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a “hierarchical” and “individualistic” mind-set respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs; they’re apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to — some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.
In the United States, climate change has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this.
If you’re a rationalist, there’s something a little dispiriting about all this. In Kahan’s descriptions of how we decide what to believe, what we decide sometimes sounds almost incidental. Those of us in the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else, he told me. We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community. When I mentioned to Kahan that I fully accept evolution, he said: “Believing in evolution is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason.”
Some of us (must) manage to get our emotions behind what's right, or true, or what's most achievable given what we know about humans. but everybody has emotion at the forefront of their process for deciding what they believe. I find that very frightening.
- On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, 7:57pm PST
commenting is broken for me,
(that was a test) I realzed shortly after posting this that commenting was off for everyone, that is when I went back in Misc, and saw other threads about it, and when I saw that all the newest threads were empty (of comments).