The Spread of Ignorance (bbc.com) 416
New submitter Eric Eikrem writes: BBC Future has just published an interesting article on Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who studies how people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge. The spread of ignorance follows certain patterns, whether it is about tobacco or climate change. 'Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups -- like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.'
Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
This has been going on for 6,000 years.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
It's literally as old as the Earth!
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You were doing OK until your tone turned socialist.
Re: It's the Stupid Smart people (Score:3, Insightful)
Very well said.
"Global cooling", oops, now called "Global warming", oops, now called "Climate Change", is, in truth, just the latest Apocalyptic The Gods Are Angry End Of The World Unless We Repent Cult. There's a new such cult every few generations complete with sinners (climate change deniers), purchasing external signs of righteousness and piety (Prius cars as an example), the ability to sin at will by buying forgiveness from the gods (carbon credits), outlawing sins against the gods (banning plastic ba
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the socialist part at the end but your craziness in the first paragraph is an invalid premise and your conspiracy theories are a prime example of the spread of ignorance.
Re: It's the Stupid Smart people (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how you extreme-rightwingers can always quote that number - but have no idea what capitalism's death toll is, and how you ignore that where socialism was achieved democratically rather than through revolution (i.e. most of the world) - it's death toll is lower than where capitalism is achieved democratically. You also utterly ignore that where capitalism is achieved *without* democracy - it's death toll is worse. Citing big numbers without context is a great way to sound scary while saying nothing at all.
100-Million out of how many ? Over how many years ? You need both time and per-capita measures to actually *compare* anything. Pinochet killed at least 40-thousand people in his first 2 years in office - and he was a hardcore capitalist.
So clearly the system of government is a much bigger factor than the economic system in determining how many people the government kills. In the meantime, today, the world's greatest bastion of capitalism is also one of the last bastions of the death penalty in the developed world while the democratic socialist countries have all done away with it - often decades ago, meaning that capitalism has killed more people *just* in America in the past 30 years than socialism has killed globally !
And of course, if you're really going to compare death tolls of economic systems you should count every preventable death within them. Everybody who has ever starved because he was underpaid or couldn't find work and capitalism didn't provide a social safety net (that's a socialist idea). Everybody who ever died because the boss skimped on a critical safety feature in the factory to increase profits (that's easily topping your 100-million all by itself about once a decade - hell *just* goldmines are killing *at least* 3000 people per year - for the most capitalist purpose of all - to stick bars of metal in vaults and never use them for anything), everyone who ever died because they got a curable disease and couldn't afford the medical care they needed to survive. For fairness - you could limit it to the century between 1910 and 2010 - since the Soviet Union sort of began in 1910 and including the Industrial era before that is a number we have nothing to compare with.
Hell you could go as far as to conclude that the extreme death toll of 19th century capitalism, it's rabid exploitation of the poor and the horrible treatment of workers were the *reason* that revolutionary Bolshevist states arose in the first place. Which means that the entire 100-million you cite was *actually* killed by unregulated capitalism, since if the markets (especially labor) had been properly regulated in the 19th century and not had bred all that terrible poverty and suffering the Russian revolution would never have happened.
When you inform your ideas with simplistic big-numbers you get stupid conclusions. Now I'm not saying you should be pro-socialism or pro-mixed-economy or pro-capitalism or pro-something-else-entirely(yes there a literally thousands of economic philosophies in the world that are neither capitalism nor socialism). What I am saying is you ought to base your decision, and what ideas you support based on a careful and analytical consideration of all relevant facts, not some scary big number with no context to give it meaning.
To hammer the point home. Last year the South African AIDS death toll was a frightening 200-thousand people (and considering most of them were just too poor to buy good drugs - you can chalk that up to "killed by capitalism" by the way). That's a big frightening number eh ? Well, no, actually - it was 4 times that much in 2010. The number is proof that South Africa is *winning* the war against AIDs. That it's still so big means we have a lot of work left to do and the war is far from over and nobody denies that, but it does prove our strategies are working. See the point ? Numbers without context is a way to tell lies and decieve people while appearing to tell the truth. Abandon the lie - read a bit wider - and form an informed opinion. You may
Re: It's the Stupid Smart people (Score:3)
Nope. I never said I was fine with anything. I said a big number without any context is meaningless and gave various types of things that one ought to consider.
The most important bit was that blaming socialism for that 100 million is clearly false. Its much more reasonable to say dictatorships killed those people. The particular economic system seems to have almost no impact on death tolls at all. At least compared to the impact of "type of governance system". I argued that keepimg government accoubtable is
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's the Stupid Smart people (Score:4, Insightful)
Utterly false. A bunch of examples in Collapse by Jared Diamond. Can you put an example of your "loss of will" nonsense?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
you are funny, as if religion is the only realm where this occurs. Let's not forget the stupidities of science and medicine and industry in the past five centuries to present either.
Re: (Score:2)
He never said that religion is the only realm where this occurs. He's just making a joke out of a fairly obvious example.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. The article is not talking about stupid people, i.e. willfully ignorant people. Ignorance is simply the lack of knowing, which is what many people and many scientists make as mistakes, which are far more forgivable. What is truly egregious are those spreading misinformation to create ignorance. Scientists often change their position based upon the facts, this isn't ignorance, it's learning. Religion is willfully pushing people to do things known to be harmful to themselves or other around for a perceived payoff in some unproven state that comes after known life, which is why it is called faith. Religion is simply willful ignorance in the belief of something else. While it obviously did not start out as such, the lack of adaptability of many major religions shows that there is no rigor, and the belief system itself is built more on dogma or the people that make up the religion. Even modern religions such as Mormonism struggle with this, where many of the facts are known. Please don't confuse the willful ignorance and stupidity of some religion with the uninformed ignorance of science.
Re: (Score:3)
Most misbelief is willful. It's how our brains work, and it works to our benefit much of the time. It prevents us from spending time confirming things we already "know" so that we can prioritize our actions and focus our attention on things that we deem more important. If someone tells you the world is flat, you don't bother to investigate; you just call them an idiot, because it conflicts with your beliefs and knowledge. Even if it were true, it would take an incredible amount of evidence to convince y
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
"Scientists always think they are right about everything."
Could you quote the study that came to that conclusion?
Or is the statement made up and a sample of ignorance and stupidity spread as per the topic of this thread?
Bert
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Consensus" is a prime example of this.
Consensus has nothing to do with the science itself. Rather, it is what is appropriate to use when converting science to policy. A policy maker does not have the scientific background nor the time to perform science or to judge scientists. Rather, they have to depend on other scientists to do that job, and base the policy on the consensus. Unless, of course, you have a better alternative.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Descartes would not recognize many scientists' thinking today, particularly in the biosciences and chemistry which are dominated by vested corporate interests. They tend to suffer from positivism about the development of industrial products, making their disposition closer to that of engineers. That which is not known in their fields is given short shrift.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. Scientists are happy to admit when they are wrong. Descartes' scientific method relies on setting up an enquiry that can be falsified.
What is more, it is seriously enjoyable finding out that you were wrong. It's alittle hard to explain, but every time I'm proven wrong, it gets me all that closer to being right.
Re:Questioning (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it is a mistake to use consensus as validation when it comes to anything. After Einstein's theory of relativity came about, somebody published a work titled "100 authors against Einstein" that was trying to "disprove" relativity by means of scientific consensus. Einstein correctly pointed out that it should only take one of them to prove him wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In mathematics (not science I know), a proof is one that is agreed upon by consensus. ... very bad ...
So you must be very bad in math
Science doesn't have proofs (it has supporting data for a hypothesis). Maybe this is a problem.
That is nonsense, too. There is plenty of since that has proofs. E.g. the absorption spectrums of elements, or their atomic weight or electron hull. Plenty of science stuff is simply facts and does not need particular proof beyond facts. E.g. that stuff lighter than water swims in
Re:Questioning (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for climate science, where any question of the alleged "Consensus" is heresy suitable for burning at the stake.
That only happens if you ignore the existing evidence, and bring none of your own.
Re:Questioning (Score:4, Funny)
Except for climate science, where any question of the alleged "Consensus" is heresy suitable for burning at the stake.
That only happens if you ignore the existing evidence, and bring none of your own.
Tobacco doesn't cause cancer either. As the Simpsons prove, it is Democrats https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (at 1:38 mark)
Re:Questioning (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for climate science, where any question of the alleged "Consensus" is heresy suitable for burning at the stake.
So how many people have been burnt at the stake for being a denier?
Now if you mean simple ridicule, hell yeah, just that same as people who believe that the earth was created in 4004 b.c.e, or that all life was created at once in it's present form.
Or that the earth is flat.
You are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts. It is getting very difficult to be a denier these days without joinng the camp of the others I just posted. When even Exxon confirms the physics - even if they lied about them, when even the patron saint of the deniers and his one time discrepancies becoming in line with the other data and him as co-author of an article saying just that - there isn't much room left on that limb of denial you are perched on.
What is it you have left? Calling Michael Mann an asshole? Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling neener, neener, I can't HEAR YOUUUUU!
Not much, is it? Michael Mann isn't an asshole, and the laws of physics don't care how loud you yell. Carry on.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
Boko Haram (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you are part of the problem. You read something, it fits in with your world view, and discard it. But there are new things here.
You go and read the article now, pick out something interesting, post that, and stop the cycle of ignorance.
Instead, you posted "nothing new" and got moderated insightful, and you Dunning Krueger Effect yourself and others into ignorance.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' -- Isaac Asimov
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
I attribute it to the increasing use of "frame", first by politicians and political commentators and now by everyone. Figure out how you want to frame an argument and then keep pushing it, tasking about it only in terms of that frame and ignoring everyone else.
It's an effective technique because it makes it impossible to have any meaningful debate or argument. A lot like Newspeak, it prevents people from even discussing the issue in terms that don't fit your frame. It also polarizes groups, especially when combined with some good old fashioned demonizing of the enemy.
Welfare, fairness, taxation, feminism, gun control, foreign policy, men's issues, immigration, the EU... All have become poisoned by this particularly destructive kind of spin.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe it makes it impossible to have a meaningful debate, only that people haven't yet figured out how they should debate against it. Rather than attacking the framing of the opposition, most simply construct one of their own. However, I suspect that if you study a particular frame well enough, the cracks become apparent and it's only a matter of pointing them out and using basic logic to point out the inconsistencies or the contradictions created by a particular frame. In the face of that, a person using a particular frame either has to stop using it, or revise it in such a way that it no longer creates those contradictions, but any frame that continues to be based on subjective beliefs will still continue to have those problems.
Once exposed, it cannot stand on its own. Adherents may continue to hold it up, simply out of stubbornness, but most people will see that the emperor has no clothes. The problem is that people are either too lazy to fully understand a particular issue and to fully explore the nuances and minutiae that are necessary in order to actually solve a problem or they have a vested financial interest in the problem not being solved or their proposed solution (as incorrect as it may be) being used. People are naturally too self-interested to be expected to always and completely cooperate in a way that resolves this problem. Perhaps if we lived in a truly post-scarcity world it might be achievable, but we don't so the discussion is moot.
Re:Modern charlatans turn ignorance into profits (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow you sound like someone who tries to sell us the fact, that cooking food denaturates protein as if that somehow was a really hidden secret some sinister society in the background does not want us to know.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Pathological science (Score:2)
slashdot (Score:2)
Re: slashdot (Score:3)
I see a lot of this here on /.
Every time there is new research on climate change or anything remotely related, the trolls come out of their basements spewing vitriol and confusion.
Re: (Score:3)
If you spend enough time presenting reasoned arguments, eventually most people will come around. It might take years, but it's better than nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't noticed anyone changing their mind.
People who change their minds often do not post about this.
So ignorance is caused by.... ignorance? (Score:3)
Doesn't help to have fertile ground (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that it also helps that there's fertile ground for denial.
For example with climate change, there's a large number of Americans who see hard-core environmentalists as a bunch of hippies who are constantly yelling that the sky is falling and want government intervention in everything. (To be fair, there are vocal environmentalists that fit this mold, and they're very vocal.) So, it doesn't take much to cause a knee-jerk reaction against the claims of environmentalists because of negative perceptions of environmentalists in general. In fact, it might happen even without the prodding of people who want to peddle ignorance. Here [thestewardsjourney.com]'s an interesting example of what I'm talking about: an otherwise thoughtful person who automatically rejected climate change ideas simply because of the source but has since reevaluated his beliefs.
Smoking also had fertile ground for ignorance. Since there was a push for government involvement, anti-nanny-staters were likely to automatically push back. Tobacco companies pedaling ignorance had fertile ground there too.
Doesn't *hurt* to have fertile ground (Score:2)
See revised subject. I need to do a better job proofreading...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and that pollution may only be a partial cause.
Thing is though unless the've actually got good reason to believe that (and by that I mean actual evidence and science)--which the vast majority of non climate scientists---then even that is just an ideological view.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that some people think that way, but I don't see the connection to my previous post. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my "fertile ground" thesis?
Re: (Score:3)
Early on in the climate change debacle, I saw an article trying to discredit another article being discredited by the use of the original discredited articles. Years later, it all was wrong and ignored.
Anyone paying attention knows that the entire premise has been politically hijacked from the start in America. It is not like there isn't tainted concepts on all sides.
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
why did he use a religious term of "denier" to explain people that doubt climate change is as dire as some report?
Because (a) it's not a religious term and (b) 99.9% of them are actual genuine deniers who do not have the background, knowledge or training to make any kind of informed judgement and are flat-out denying the science for ideological reasons, or just sheer ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had to edit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is in this context
No it's not. If you're going to get pedantic then drop the claim that it relates to a deity.
because it's used to deny or disavow a person's beliefs without it's surely not a term of science.
Sometimes people's beliefs are just plain old stupid and do not deserve serious consideration. Flat-earthers, for example...
Speaking in generals and painting all with a broad brush (i.e. "99.9%) isn't scientific either.
I think you are confused about both science and conversations, frankly.
Drop the claim that it relates to a deity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like last years claims of "the warmest year EVER!". Nasa release after the fact that the number had a 38% chance of being right
All the previous years had a lower chance of being the warmest. While it would be more scientifically accurate to claim that "last year has the highest probability of being the warmest", it only adds unnecessary confusion for people. What really matters is not the yearly noise, but the average trend, and the trend is rising relentlessly.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like last years claims of "the warmest year EVER!". Nasa release after the fact that the number had a 38% chance of being right
That was for 2014, by the way. For the year 2015, the probability of it being the hottest was actually 94%. And 2016 has a good chance to beat that.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
why did he use a religious term of "denier"
Virtue signaling and to establish his tribal identity, same reason everyone else says it. If you look into it, you'll probably find that "ignorance" is really more a tribal identity concept to these people rather than anything about knowledge. Their tribe is the one that follows "the good beliefs" vs. the other tribes who are "ignorant" of them.
The key is that the tribes have to be divided and the other tribe is always a dangerous threat. So you must support and empower and enrich your tribal leaders as much as you can, to fight off the other.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Their tribe is the one that follows "the good beliefs" vs. the other tribes who are "ignorant" of them.
This post is not insightful. No, there are *not* two sides to every story. And not everything is about tribal identities. If you believe so, then you should put scare quotes about "good beliefs" when someone asserts the earth is approximately spherical and scare quotes about "ignorance" based on what they say about flat earthers.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as literal flat earthers are portrayed as a dangerous threat to "us", I will.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as literal flat earthers are portrayed as a dangerous threat to "us", I will.
So much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin.
The portrayal of people in the media does not affect whether the science is right or wrong. People who deny the science because of ideology are complete fools no matter what the popular press says. I very much dobt you'd give the popular press so much credence over computer matters, so why do you on science, and particular, global warming?
Re: (Score:2)
The portrayal of people in the media does not affect whether the science is right or wrong.
The correctness of the science isn't necessary or useful to divide the tribes and empower and enrich the leaders. It's a minor concern at best.
If you're talking about observations of the world, and someone else is talking about "them", then those are entirely 2 seperate conversations about 2 entirely separate things. The topic of this article is "them" and their "ignorance".
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Impressive! I think you just applied exactly what the article is talking about! You:
* Associated the author with religion.
* Godwinned
* Gave the author has a secret agenda
* Never actually disagreed with anything the article said.
Are you a professional agnotologist?
Too busy watching Kardahians (Score:2)
The Disinformation Age and Foolage (Score:4, Insightful)
“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.” - Michael Crichton
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain
The problem starts at childhood (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, those who excel at education or in more extreme cases even participate are ostracized and in more severe cases physically beaten for the simple crime of thinking for themselves. It is considered "uncool" to be smart in many circles and further being violent and stupid are sought after qualities. Is it any wonder that these groups tend to have the worst track records with reality acceptance and actual societal productivity?
Sure everyone has an agenda but until all our youth are universally allowed and encouraged to fact find and think for themselves, it will be easy to pull the BS over their eyes and turn them into puppets.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people are brought up to blindly accept authority and facts without evidence or actually thinking it over for themselves. Facts are taught as subjective, with an emphasis that reality itself is subjective. This is problematic because it starts with their family at infancy.
OK, can we stop with this religion bashing now? I know it's fun, but let's keep to the facts, shall we?
The source (Score:2)
How is this news? (Score:2)
Lack of science in education (Score:3)
Especially those working in mainstream media and at all levels of politics show a near wilful ignorance of science and technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Liability (Score:2)
cognative dissonance (Score:2)
People are not generally stupid yet it seems that the majority of people can sincerely hold two conflicting views at the same time. eg. Tobacco kills and "I don't need to worry about its effects on me" or faith vs observed reality or welfare dependency with fiscally conservative views. I'd like to understand how that works because it seems to be part of human nature.
If anything the market seems to be in convincing people that the situation is OK
laughable (Score:2)
Orwell was right (Score:3)
He wrote a lot on the use of propaganda. And by the way, he was as suspicious of corporations and capitalists, as he was of politicians of all stripes (Fascists and "Communists" alike).
I see this with nuclear power (Score:2)
Is nuclear power safe? That's like asking is a car safe, or is an airplane safe. There are many ways to build a car or airplane. When people think of "airplane" they will normally think of a Boeing 747 and not the Wright Flyer. When people think of "car" they will think of what they drive, some iconic car from recent history, but not a car highlighted in Unsafe at Any Speed.
Ask people about nuclear power and often they don't think of the hundreds of nuclear reactors that have operated safely and continu
Re: (Score:2)
I conclude that climate change does not pose the threat to society that people claim largely because of the reluctance to embrace nuclear power.
That's idiotic. Virtually no science paper about climate change even mentions nuclear power. It makes no sense to reject the actual science because you disagree about the mitigation policies.
Re: A lack of credibility. (Score:3, Insightful)
You are the poster child of the OP.
Tell us about the Illuminati Space Alien UN Bankers and their Sputnik mind control lasers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My god. 99% of scientists agreeing that climate change is real and that humans are the cause. And yet still a large part of the US population believes its a socialist conspiracy.
This is the handy work of the Republican party and their network of buddies in big oil and certain "fair and balanced" news networks. Scary how effective propaganda can be when you have an ignorant, gullible audience. This is exactly what this topic is about.
And the pinnacle of all this ignorance that has been spread over decades is
99% - WTF (Score:3)
It's 97% and even that figure is bunk, based on a flawed analysis that excluded the vast majority of studies and then hand-picked through the rest with a bias that even global warming supporters recognize.
This is not FUD, these are open questions that the 97% gloss over:
The heat trapping effects of CO2 -- somewhere between .5 and 2 -- where .5 means a slight warming and 2 means Earth is on a path to become like Venus
The half life of CO2 in the atmosphere -- somewhere between 30 yrs and 1000 yrs -- probably
Re: (Score:3)
99% of scientists believe that global warming is real and we have 99% of politicians handing out subsidies to companies in their districts to build windmills that produce no power, solar panel factories that produce no solar panels, and build a nuclear waste site that cannot contain any waste.
Yet still you wonder why people are not buying into the global warming scare?
If global warming is a problem then we'd have another Jimmy Carter in the White House that lowers the thermostat, puts up solar panels, and w
Re: (Score:3)
If global warming is a problem then I'd expect the federal government to be handing out nuclear power plant permits as fast as the applications come in. We should be building a new nuclear power plant once every month. Since we are not then I am not convinced that the politicians believe that global warming is a problem. If they don't see it as a problem then why should I?
Sane conservative solutions to climate change exist. Left wing solutions of handouts and subsidies are not market efficient.
There is a reason why sane conservative solutions to climate change are not being pursued. Republicans are denying the issue rather than stepping up to the big boy table and pushing for more conservative solutions.
We are basically handing this issue over to the left to solve the only way they know how.
Re:A lack of credibility. (Score:5, Insightful)
Other countries are acting and changing their policies, for example Germany.
Is that the same Germany that is replacing clean nuclear power with brown coal power? The same Germany that has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe and buys as much power as it can from nuclear powered France?
Even China is beginning to invest heavily into renewable energy.
Yes, the same China that intends to double current nuclear power capacity in two years and then double it again two years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's mostly the US with a republican dominated congress and their policy of denial that is doing business as usual. And many developing countries won't even think about going environmentally friendly as long as the US doesn't take the lead.
Tell me, what political party is in charge of the executive branch? Are licenses for nuclear reactors issued by Congress or by the executive?
Read the two party platforms and tell me which one gives nuclear power the best chance of growth?
Is it the RNC?
https://www.gop.com/platform/a... [gop.com]
Nuclear energy, now generating about 20 percent of our electricity through 104 power plants, must be expanded. No new nuclear generating plants have been licensed and constructed for thirty years. We call for timely processing of new reactor applications currently pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The federal governmentâ(TM)s failure to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel has left huge bills for States and taxpayers. Our country needs a more proactive approach to managing spent nuclear fuel, including through developing advanced reprocessing technologies.
Or is it the DNC?
https://www.democrats.org/part... [democrats.org]
That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America's many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas.
Wow, of the entire Democrat platform document nuclear energy gets a mention in one sentence. I did however see a lot of mention of preventing nuclear proliferation. No mention of building new reactors that I could see. They did seem concerned about the amount of nuclear weapon material and the desire to destroy it. Tell me, what methods would those be besides using that material as fuel in a nuclear reactor? Would not the desire to destroy nuclear weapons coincide with expanded nuclear energy? Then why be silent on using this material as fuel? I can only conclude it is because they have no intent to see this nuclear material as fuel. They will likely down blend it with natural uranium and bury it in steel drums somewhere in the desert. Which is fine I suppose. When the Republicans get into power at some future date then it can be dug back up.
The Republicans have a majority in both houses but a 54% majority in the Senate allows for all kinds of methods to hold up bills. A lack of a sympathetic POTUS means vetoes and lots of them.
Democrats held both houses of the 111th Congress and the White House, why didn't we see a nuclear power renaissance then?
Yes and no (Score:2)
Trump is certainly does his best to spread ignorance, but many of his supporters see through at least some of it. I'm somewhat loathed to link to a slate.com article, but this one [slate.com] interviews Trump supporters about climate change. Many of his supporters see climate change as real and caused by humans, but they prioritize other things or thinks that Trump will come around on the issue. Many people support Trump because they think he is a successful business man, a man of action, and is not a dirty Washington
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm still hoping that Sanders can come back and beat Hillary (really long odds, but stranger things have happened) but let's not pretend that some of the political left's supporters aren't the same kind of ignorant, hateful people. They merely spread a different kind of ignorance belief than those individuals on the political right, but beyond tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Like Trump supporters. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OK some people somewhere may want to take away all of your liberties because climate change, it is a big world ya know. However, most of us are open to discussion of the many approaches. It is your side that does not even want to have that discussion. The meme that the only solutions to climate change are ones that, from an economic perspective, will make the sky fall on us is a fantasy of the climate denier industry. .
Re:Gaslighting and other cons (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem has never been that the public disagrees that "smoking is bad for you".
Speaking of gaslighting... it would be nice if you didn't just reinvent history to make a point.
Likewise for climate change as the current cause celebre - It's the solutions, again, being demanded.
Ana again with the gaslighting. No, plenty of people are flat-out denying the science and ignoring the evidence. All you have to do is visit a slashdot thread on global warming/climate change to see this.
Re:Gaslighting and other cons (Score:5, Informative)
The problem has never been that the public disagrees that "smoking is bad for you"
Congressional testimony: "I believe that nicotine is not addictive" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There are certainly forces at work promoting ignorance in order to sustain the status quo. The video shows that this is even promoted in congressional testimonies. And this ignorance pays dividends.
The article quotes a tobacco company memo:
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”
Re: (Score:2)
Switch over all gasoline engines to battery usage (which pollute and damage the environment in just as many other ways as battery creation (and reclamation) will cause pollution and environmental damage of other kinds.
While I agree with you on this point, do you have a better solution? Or should we just throw up our hands and go "Oh well! May as well just keep burning fossil fuels!" and forget about it? We KNOW what damage those are causing. The only problem with you or anyone making the point you're making, is that you and others like you never propose a better solution, or worse, you suggest a solution that might mitigate or even prevent the damage entirely, but that is an unworkable solution; 'forcing everyone to use
Good example of gaslighting! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise for climate change as the current cause celebre - It's the solutions, again, being demanded. Switch over all gasoline engines to battery usage (which pollute and damage the environment in just as many other ways as battery creation (and reclamation) will cause pollution and environmental damage of other kinds. Or rework the economies in favor of socialist ones.
The problem is that the people opposed to those solutions are "solving" the problem by denying it even exists, and thereby relieve themselves of the duty to come up with a solution that's acceptable to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem has always been that some people always promote the idea that smoking is NOT bad for you and some people always promote the idea that we are NOT changing the environment.
The proposed solutions all have a cost (to some people... tobacco and fossil fuel companies) and benefits to others. Narrow self interest leads individuals to come to irrational obfuscations.
Re:Gaslighting and other cons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gaslighting and other cons (Score:4, Insightful)
Odd. Especially considering that Germany was aiming for self-sufficiency during that time and it had a pretty decent car industry even back then. Yet nobody tried to make car (and tank) fuel out of alcohol. Even when the Nazis came to power, they were aiming for coal and wood gas generators rather than alcohol as fuel, and believe me that one, getting rid of that dependency on oil (which was hard to come by for them) was one of the key research topics during that time.
Strikes me as odd.
Re:Windows 10 (Score:5, Informative)
Those kinds of lies and propaganda are called advertising.
Re:That's why cutting school funding makes cents! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't "spread ignorance" like you spread jelly. To fight knowledge you have to block someone else's speech, or spread disinformation to counter it, or harm people's ability to think by drugging them or hitting them on the head.
In other words, more TV shows and breaking news.
people are getting dumber (Score:2)
The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas.