|
down with slavery posted:
Yeah, because direct democracy is and has always been terrible. Edit: I guess I should elaborate. For literally as long as we've been writing about politics, people have recognized that the mob (or people, if you're being nice) are dumber than poo poo and reactionary as all hell. They are not good at governing. They're not even that good at electing people to govern them, but it's about as good as we can do. Malmesbury Monster fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Mar 17, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:58
|
|
yes I was hoping you'd go full monty and call for the overthrow of state referendums.
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:
Democracy often has pretty good results so I think it is good, but it's not something I value inherently beyond that. I'm fine with hitting the manual override when it gets something wrong that will hurt people. Now we can discuss how to determine when it is appropriate to ignore the will of the people, as That Is Hard, but that doesn't mean we must never do so, lest we be paralyzed by mob rule. The supreme court is pretty good at this when it wants to be. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I don't care what he believes, making a list of statements about what you agree/disagree with is totally meaningless. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about an actual argument. I was just clarifying myself because I felt I had failed to communicate my viewpoint, I obviously was not trying to convince anyone by listing those opinions, just making sure nobody wastes times arguing things I agree with. I actually hoped you'd clarify which of these statements you disagree with, so I wouldn't waste my time arguing things you already agree with either. It is meaningless but useful. TO be honest, I'm not even sure if you're arguing against all labeling or against making the GMO a warning label (because I don't think it should be a warning label either). I am sorry if I gave the impression these clarifications were supposed to be an argument by themselves. With respect to the food irradiation technique, it is interesting but I felt it did not contradict any of the statements I disagree with so I did not comment on it. Correct me if I'm wrong. To me, labeling GMO is a bit like how (in Europe at least) food should list all ingredients, including emulsifiers, acidifiers, preservatives, flavouring, etc. Despite these labels, there has been no health scare whatsoever against any of these many (obviously safe) ingredients listed there despite most people being totally ignorant about what they do. Are these labels necessary? Perhaps no, since they're all perfectly safe. If the food contained some GMO stuff, it would be on there as well, next to that long list of all the ingredients and below the nutritional values. That's why I don't believe that adding the labeling will cause mass hysteria, since that obviously did not happen when EU law forced companies to be totally transparant with respect to what is in the food. Would you be against people demanding to know the (very specific) ingredients of everything they eat as well? I don't think that people deciding not to eat GMO food negatively affects people who do want to eat GMO food because the food market self regulates with demand & supply well. If the demand of GMO food would decrease because of such labeling, the supply will decrease as well until the price stabilises again. This is just simply economy, although I could probably find examples of such constructs if anyone feels that's necessary. Honestly, I feel the difference in views between us has more to do with a different perspective/ethical viewpoint than with disagreement of facts anyway. quote:Any argument that justifies mandated GMO labeling on food would be equally valid for mandating labeling of food from farms where the owner really loves Metallica, or mandating labeling of food where the phone number of the company's headquarters includes a "4", or mandating labeling of food where a Muslim was involved, or mandating labeling of food produced on Tuesdays but no other day. And so on. I agree that the goverment should only mandate warning labels for products with potential danger. Other labels don't have to be so strict. So yes, I feel that if the majority (or a very significant part) of a population wants to know something silly* like that then so what? Just put it on there, everybody happy. *) unless that silly thing infringes on the privacy of the farmer or is racistic or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:So you think any referendum passed by the public should become law, without the ramifications of it being considered? How about if they violate state or federal constitutions? The will of the people uber alles? What part of GMO labeling violates the federal constitution? You need something better then "your rear end" to override the state constitution allowing these referendums in the first place. Don't go strawmanning about how direct democracy is terrible, what specific thing is worth overriding the will of the people as outlined by their state constitutions for GMO labeling? The sales potential on a 3% crop yield increase? Grapples? pass. EDIT: For reference I'm even against GMO labeling but this is just so loving technocratic it's unbelievable. It's not like we're talking about banning gay marriage in the state constitution. Babby Formed fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:
The State Supreme Court in Washington state does this all the time. Unless you think an initiative should be allowed to legally designate an unpopular person as, and I quote, "a jackass". Now answer my question as to why you don't think raising millions of dollars, successfully adding initiatives to the ballot and the press coverage that comes from that used to scare the poo poo out of the ignorant isn't considered significant. Don't tell me it's insignificant, don't tell me I'm not understanding your nuance, tell me why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:20
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Now answer my question as to why you don't think raising millions of dollars, successfully adding initiatives to the ballot and the press coverage that comes from that used to scare the poo poo out of the ignorant isn't considered significant. Don't tell me it's insignificant, don't tell me I'm not understanding your nuance, tell me why. It's not significant because little to none of the negative policy we see today is a result of their actions. It's also not significant because of how much larger/more significant other issues facing the food market are. Solkanar512 posted:The State Supreme Court in Washington state does this all the time. down with slavery posted:If Oklahoma holds a voter referendum, sure, and when it gets overturned due to first amendment concerns I would support that as well. The federal government is set up in such a way that it allows for these sorts of things to happen. We call it democracy. Here's the "tl:dr" for the crowd of you with reading comprehension issues voter referendums are a good thing. having other institutions in place to check voter referendums is also a good thing. the state just deciding to ignore a referendum because it's not scientifically backed is a bad thing Procedures exist for a reason, and I really see no problem with the current setup when it comes to vote referendums. Personally I think direct democracy is a good approach when it comes to certain issues. Food labeling isn't one of them but to see all of you willing to throw out the baby with the bath water, just surprising. Walh Hara posted:Honestly, I feel the difference in views between us has more to do with a different perspective/ethical viewpoint than with disagreement of facts anyway. Deteriorate will defend the status quo against anyone he sees as a "leftist" (this is somewhat amusing because he labels himself as staunchly progressive) and try to paint their narrative to be as insane as possible using broken analogies, compltely ignoring posts, and just all around being an idiot. It doesn't matter if he agrees with them or disagrees with them, if you have the audacity to defend someone he disagrees with, welcome to his shitlist. D&D.txt. PS Solk, I answered your question, perhaps you'd like to comment on mine which I've asked twice over the past few pages and had a grand total of zero people comment on, which is the role of the status quo in creating these sorts of anti-technology/corporate movements. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Babby Formed posted:What part of GMO labeling violates the federal constitution? You need something better then "your rear end" to override the state constitution allowing these referendums in the first place. Don't go strawmanning about how direct democracy is terrible, what specific thing is worth overriding the will of the people as outlined by their state constitutions for GMO labeling? The sales potential on a 3% crop yield increase? Grapples? pass. You are asking for a legal argument based on a referendum that doesn't exist, as to whether or not it might violate any one of 50 different states' constitutions plus the federal one. This is a demand that is not answerable. Technical legal arguments are not really in the scope of this thread. I would applaud the efforts of a state government that fought such a referendum in the courts, however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You are asking for a legal argument based on a referendum that doesn't exist, as to whether or not it might violate any one of 50 different states' constitutions plus the federal one. This is a demand that is not answerable. What the gently caress? So you get to talk about how GMO labeling should be resisted by all members of government in a position to do so, followed up with a defense based on how direct democracy rides roughshod over federal and state consitutions, and you won't even provide me one possible example of how this measure could do so? So was the post I quoted just a complete non-sequitur? Is GMO labeling such an unclear measure that we can't talk about it at all, as it's too in the void? Then why should everyone resist it sight unseen? If it helps how about a GMO labeling law that required government issued stickers reading "this product contains genetically modified ingredients" in size 8 Times New Roman font with nothing done to make them especially bigger then they have to be that must placed by the company? You can use literally any state constitution you want to since I doubt any of them would find this illegal, and you can use the federal too if you somehow think it applies. EDIT: If you think I'm being too rough on you remember, you're literally positing that GMO Labeling in all forms is so terrible that it should be resisted on every level. I'm going to need either a legal reason or some kind of incredibly compelling moral reason for this one. It's not like libs are trying to ban PKN growing. EDIT2: Yeah GMO labeling is dumb but it's not "the hill democratic government dies on" dumb. GMOs being label free is not the foundation of which civilization stands upon. The right to GMO crop profits is not a moral or constitutional one. It's just a way to minorly increase crop yields that some hippies hate. e3: It's not even as bad as the irradiated food people brought up earlier and I didn't see any government officials falling on their sword over that one. VVV Babby Formed fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
GMO labeling is dumb as hell and has no rational basis whatsoever, especially due to the fact there's an existing labeling method that identifies products that definitely do not contain GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Babby Formed posted:What the gently caress? So you get to talk about how GMO labeling should be resisted by all members of government in a position to do so, followed up with a defense based on how direct democracy rides roughshod over federal and state consitutions, and you won't even provide me one possible example of how this measure could do so? So was the post I quoted just a complete non-sequitur? Is GMO labeling such an unclear measure that we can't talk about it at all, as it's too in the void? Then why should everyone resist it sight unseen? You're not being too rough, you're demanding an answer to an unanswerable hypothetical question. There is no rational or economic argument to be made for such labeling; there are many economic and even regulation-based arguments that might be made against it (for example, food labeling is the province of the FDA, and the label may trample on their Federal authority). I have no idea of the legal validity of such arguments, and I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase just for you. GMO labeling of food could be unconstitutional for a wide variety of possible reasons, and the only way to tell would be to have the actual text of the referendum available, and get some lawyers on the case. My greater point is that such labeling is stupid as all hell and detrimental to the public good, so I would hope any state passing such a referendum would hire a bunch of lawyers and get it overturned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:(for example, food labeling is the province of the FDA, and the label may trample on their Federal authority). This is literally all I wanted. I just wanted to know if you were thinking "which moral reason" like a first amendment claim or if you just meant "which technicality I can nail them on." Glad to know you think the will of the people is literally less important then an FDA jurisdictional claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Babby Formed posted:This is literally all I wanted. I just wanted to know if you were thinking "which moral reason" like a first amendment claim or if you just meant "which technicality I can nail them on." Glad to know you think the will of the people is literally less important then an FDA jurisdictional claim. One part of the Constitution is not more "moral" than another. The FDA jurisdictional claim would boil down to the Supremacy clause, which is just as valid as the 1st Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Babby Formed posted:If you think I'm being too rough on you remember, you're literally positing that GMO Labeling in all forms is so terrible that it should be resisted on every level. I'm going to need either a legal reason or some kind of incredibly compelling moral reason for this one. Here's an incredibly compelling moral reason: quote:Their study, published in the journal Environment and Development Economics, estimates that the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002. That odd sounding metric – not just lives but ‘life years’ – accounts not only for those who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. The majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children. Anti-GMO is literally a death cult and any and all measures taken to stomp it out are justified in the sense that anything else that protects life and civilization from genocide is justified.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Here's an incredibly compelling moral reason: Then, I went through this entire discussion with the hope of finding an argument to bolster my anti-GMO stance. Instead, I've come to realize how terribly misguided my paranoia-laced view has been. Thanks, SomethingAwful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Babby Formed posted:This is literally all I wanted. I just wanted to know if you were thinking "which moral reason" like a first amendment claim or if you just meant "which technicality I can nail them on." Glad to know you think the will of the people is literally less important then an FDA jurisdictional claim. Following our constitution and rule of law is the moral imperative, not "who can hide the fact they failed civics class with dramatic language". Since you long passed that stage, though, I'm glad you put the will of corporate brainwashing victims above the rule of law. Man, that is fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Curtis of Nigeria posted:I took a stance against GMO food, in my personal life, over a year ago now. I finally managed to convince my wife of the dangers of Monsanto, too. Tell me if you unironically use the phrase "frankenfood".
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Babby Formed posted:This is literally all I wanted. I just wanted to know if you were thinking "which moral reason" like a first amendment claim or if you just meant "which technicality I can nail them on." Glad to know you think the will of the people is literally less important then an FDA jurisdictional claim. So how many lives would have to be saved before it is okay to violate "the will of the people"? Regardless of the facts of this particular case, what if the people voted for banning vaccinations? Would it be wrong to ignore that? What about banning medical research on mice? When push comes to shove, do you really put the opinion of the uninformed masses over human life? I mean obviously there is some threshold where ignoring the people is more trouble than it's worth, but that doesn't spare you from weighing the consequences of your decision either way. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
I oppose the labeling of GMO foods for the same reason that I oppose the idea of making doctors tell parents that tens of millions of people believe the vaccine they are about to give to their child is linked with autism. Both items are facts. Both items lead the unsophisticated, unaware or easily misled to incorrect conclusions. The irradiated food discussion is useful as evidence that the implicit warning of a label is sufficient to cause this harm.down with slavery posted:Also, I'd like one of you to comment on the role our political structures played in creating this vehemently anti-corporation/technology environment you see on the left (that is a relatively new thing) I'd comment that anybody who sees the current environment on the left as "vehemently" anti-corporate or anti-technological, and further defines it as "a relatively new thing" is either ignorant of history or discussing topics on a scale where "relatively" spans centuries. Assuming, from your posts, that you're American and "our" refers to the United States, I'd note that the left has a long history of anti-corporate and anti-technological sentiment. What's more, there have been times in the not-distant past in which this sentiment has prompted action. A brief overview of the history of labor movements would certainly suffice to explain why describing anti-corporate sentiment as "new" or "vehement" is questionable, but I'll refrain from a condensing the topic condescendingly. The environmental movement can generally be described as anti-corporate and anti-technological (often with good reason for those views), and the latter certainly applies to the anti-nuclear movement. Much of the commune movement from the 60s and 70s involved a rejection of modern society's technology and/or a return to agrarian living. Even the original Luddities were a group of workers that banded together to prevent societal inequality resulting from the merger of employers and technology. I reject essentially every element of your question for the reasons listed above. If I were to accept the underlying assumptions? The status quo, politically, has left many feeling powerless. This (real or perceived) lack of agency, combined with a likely diminished economic status, will lead one to seek out comforting narratives. Generally, people reflect on these narratives and discover that " That's a feature, not a bug. There are various clear examples of why referendums are somewhere between risky and akin to a suicide pact (Who wants a tax increase in California or Colorado? Anybody?), and our citizenry tends to be atrocious at accurately determining and properly weighting second and third order effects even when they correctly identify the immediate impact of what they're voting on. Sometimes viewpoints are rejected and it's not because someone is evil, it's because it's a bad viewpoint. People also tend to be terrible at identifying when their opinion is the moronic one. Now, if you're satisfied that someone has responded to your tangentially-related question, I'm curious as to what abuses you believe Monsanto has been committing using their GMOs or lobbying power that have more impact than the international Anti-GMO crowd. As a freebie, I'd caution you against discussing windswept-seeds, "lifetime contracts" or toxicity relating to the various thoroughly debunked studies that have already been posted in the thread. If you're going to provide specific examples of anti-competitive behavior, please indicate in what sense that behavior is more damaging to the GMO market than labeling was to irradiated food. I've skimmed some of the last 90 posts, but I don't believe I've seen you back up your original assertion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 09:28
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Now, if you're satisfied that someone has responded to your tangentially-related question, I'm curious as to what abuses you believe Monsanto has been committing using their GMOs or lobbying power that have more impact than the international Anti-GMO crowd. As a freebie, I'd caution you against discussing windswept-seeds, "lifetime contracts" or toxicity relating to the various thoroughly debunked studies that have already been posted in the thread. If you're going to provide specific examples of anti-competitive behavior, please indicate in what sense that behavior is more damaging to the GMO market than labeling was to irradiated food. I've skimmed some of the last 90 posts, but I don't believe I've seen you back up your original assertion. I never said anything about Monsanto, in fact I think this post will be the first time I even write the name in this thread. It concerns me that you and others continue to try to paint me as a supporter for labelling GMO foods when I am not. Save your "freebies", I've never even slightly suggested I believe in those things. The fact that you and others are incapable of understanding a position despite me explicitly coming out and saying exactly what I meant to is concerning. Big players protect their market using any and all tools that they have. Do you really want me to go through Monsanto's history and find all of the law suits they've settled with all sorts of governments and organizations? That whole revolving door, nothing to see there? Geoff Peterson posted:I oppose the labeling of GMO foods for the same reason that I oppose the idea of making doctors tell parents that tens of millions of people believe the vaccine they are about to give to their child is linked with autism. Both items are facts. Both items lead the unsophisticated, unaware or easily misled to incorrect conclusions. The irradiated food discussion is useful as evidence that the implicit warning of a label is sufficient to cause this harm. So do I man, welcome to the club. quote:I'd comment that anybody who sees the current environment on the left as "vehemently" anti-corporate or anti-technological, and further defines it as "a relatively new thing" is either ignorant of history or discussing topics on a scale where "relatively" spans centuries. Assuming, from your posts, that you're American and "our" refers to the United States, I'd note that the left has a long history of anti-corporate and anti-technological sentiment. What's more, there have been times in the not-distant past in which this sentiment has prompted action. So you're saying that this movement was revived in the 60s and 70s... which is exactly what I said. I'm asking you why. quote:I reject essentially every element of your question for the reasons listed above. If I were to accept the underlying assumptions? The status quo, politically, has left many feeling powerless. This (real or perceived) lack of agency, combined with a likely diminished economic status, will lead one to seek out comforting narratives. Generally, people reflect on these narratives and discover that " Ahh yes, "if only the ideas on the left were better," what systemic oppression of anti-capitalist sentiment? quote:That's a feature, not a bug. There are various clear examples of why referendums are somewhere between risky and akin to a suicide pact (Who wants a tax increase in California or Colorado? Anybody?), and our citizenry tends to be atrocious at accurately determining and properly weighting second and third order effects even when they correctly identify the immediate impact of what they're voting on. Sometimes viewpoints are rejected and it's not because someone is evil, it's because it's a bad viewpoint. People also tend to be terrible at identifying when their opinion is the moronic one. There are also clear examples of when referendums did good as well. If you want to argue that referendums shouldn't exist, go for it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I never said anything about Monsanto, in fact I think this post will be the first time I even write the name in this thread. It concerns me that you and others continue to try to paint me as a supporter for labelling GMO foods when I am not. Save your "freebies", I've never even slightly suggested I believe in those things. The fact that you and others are incapable of understanding a position despite me explicitly coming out and saying exactly what I meant to is concerning. Most folks state their view, evidence to support that view and then deal directly with points which are counter to those stated views. So why don't you do that instead of alternatively telling us to do your homework and that we aren't reading your posts. It's becoming really irritating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The State Supreme Court in Washington state does this all the time. See, that actually sounds like a good idea to me. We really could have used this for Sarah Palin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:To me, labeling GMO is a bit like how (in Europe at least) food should list all ingredients, including emulsifiers, acidifiers, preservatives, flavouring, etc. Despite these labels, there has been no health scare whatsoever against any of these many (obviously safe) ingredients listed there despite most people being totally ignorant about what they do. Well, this isn't completely correct everywhere. E.g. Finland: Monosodium glutamate E621 was a subject of a small-scale health scare in late 2000s. It got to the point where producers started to label their food as "no added E621", even if the food itself actually included a natural source for E621. I seem to remember some cases where producers actually started to write complete names instead of E-codes, because E-code -> unnatural -> bad. This kind of thinking is still somewhat prevalent but is mostly underground and not very relevant. There certainly is a large movement that considers all E-codes as "bad". They are commonly ridiculed, but the pervasiveness of anti-E-code media buzz in late 2000s left it's mark and many people try to avoid foods with "too much E-codes" just because.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
I would also point out that US labeling requirements have mandated listing all of those things in exhaustive detail since 1990 or so, and never had code numbers aside from the food dyes. GMO doesn't belong in there for the same reason that the 100 different branded seed names that might have been used to prepare the product doesn't belong there, being as they all grow a known plant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
I'm glad this thread is back, even though it had a bit of a tumultuous start to it. It's really refreshing to see actual critical debate and thought on GMO and Organic and other scientific ignorance, because its so wide swept amongst my group of friends and where I live I am literally in the minority. I'm not claiming I'm some oppressed people of course, however I live around multiple "organic and gmo free" grocery stores, butcher shops, etc. It's getting harder and harder to actually find conventional food around where I live, which I find so ironic. I remember taking University level Political Science courses where we had to read books on the "Perils of science" and discuss the evils of Monsanto and GMO from our weird Larouche-esque tenured professors. Hell, he even brought in Percy Schmeiser for a class discussion, and it was just him ranting about the evils of Monsanto with his "salt of the earth" shtick being the main sticking point. The problem here is that these narratives are all way too obvious. We hear about corporations all the time doing pretty evil things, so its hard for many people to have any sort of sympathy for those dasterdly corporations. I read a newsletter that sits around cafes here that is one of those insane anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, type of letters about the benefits of removing toxins and etc. etc. Unfortunately, narratives and appeals to ethos and pathos will never be as strong as those that appeal to rationality, and never has been. Science has a persuasion problem because the realities of education and knowledge are still stuck in a Justified-True Belief model of epistemology. For science to be actually defending its philosophical position, we cannot just wave aside this debate as those being ignorant. It is not a waste of time, in fact it is the most important part about the fight, is that never ending grind of debating someone without education on the subject. Unfortunately, the reality is it cannot be separated. Its funny because I consider myself pretty leftist, especially in the way I vote. I caution those who generalize leftists as being anti-science because the problem isn't that leftist politics are anti-scientist, its that all politics in inherently anti-science due to the structure and forces that are involved in a competitive, public-relations world that is politics. What in politics is antithetic to science, it has nothing to do with objectivity and never was. Those on the right are equally privy to being swept under the critical-thinking destruction of ideology and standpoint epistemology that is prevalent in the paradigm of politics. Its us vs them knife fight. swagger like us fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:I'm glad this thread is back, even though it had a bit of a tumultuous start to it. It's really refreshing to see actual critical debate and thought on GMO and Organic and other scientific ignorance, because its so wide swept amongst my group of friends and where I live I am literally in the minority. I'm not claiming I'm some oppressed people of course, however I live around multiple "organic and gmo free" grocery stores, butcher shops, etc. It's getting harder and harder to actually find conventional food around where I live, which I find so ironic. I think it was no less a scientist as Phil Plait that said that science has a promotion problem. This comes from discipline's rules wherein an argument stands on its merit to establish reality alone in science; the unfortunate reality is that outside of science, this is not true at all. In short, scientists have done a very poor job of promoting their particular discipline over the last decades and now we're reaping the ill-effects sewn: creationists, alternative medicine, climate change denial, technophobia pertaining to nuclear energy and biotechnology and, I would even argue some conspiracy theories fall under this umbrella too (chemtrails, water fluoridation, 2012, 9/11, etc.). It's a product of the process of education access stratification and rationing effectively by the ability to pay, which I think has necessarily resulted in mass scientific illiteracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:I think it was no less a scientist as Phil Plait that said that science has a promotion problem. This comes from discipline's rules wherein an argument stands on its merit to establish reality alone in science; the unfortunate reality is that outside of science, this is not true at all. In short, scientists have done a very poor job of promoting their particular discipline over the last decades and now we're reaping the ill-effects sewn: creationists, alternative medicine, climate change denial, technophobia pertaining to nuclear energy and biotechnology and, I would even argue some conspiracy theories fall under this umbrella too (chemtrails, water fluoridation, 2012, 9/11, etc.). It's a product of the process of education access stratification and rationing effectively by the ability to pay, which I think has necessarily resulted in mass scientific illiteracy. It's a huge contrast to the post-WWII sentiment that science is great and will improve your life on a personal level (or at least that's the feeling I've gotten from period educational films, articles, and advertisements. All of them seem to have an undertone of "look what our brilliant scientists have cooked up now! it's wonderful!"). Unfortunately the era of Superscience seems to have passed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:I think it was no less a scientist as Phil Plait that said that science has a promotion problem. This comes from discipline's rules wherein an argument stands on its merit to establish reality alone in science; the unfortunate reality is that outside of science, this is not true at all. In short, scientists have done a very poor job of promoting their particular discipline over the last decades and now we're reaping the ill-effects sewn: creationists, alternative medicine, climate change denial, technophobia pertaining to nuclear energy and biotechnology and, I would even argue some conspiracy theories fall under this umbrella too (chemtrails, water fluoridation, 2012, 9/11, etc.). It's a product of the process of education access stratification and rationing effectively by the ability to pay, which I think has necessarily resulted in mass scientific illiteracy. Or maybe it was the fault of the massive anti-science and anti-technology wings of the environmental movement that swept the western world in that time? Like you can debate how much fault lies with environmentalism, but to blame the scientists themselves seems ridiculous. The thesis that lack of access to education had anything to do with it seems to be refuted by the fact that public trust in and love of science has plummeted since the 1950s while college attendance has skyrocketed. Even if students are in debt they're still educated. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
The entire fetishization of the "natural" and confusion of science with the "establishment" can be traced squarely back to the hippie phenomenon, which still exerts huge influence over anyone who grew up in the 60s or had parents who did, as well as the entire left wing (and, in fact, a good portion of the right, since without the Jesus Movement it's unlikely political fundamentalism would have achieved its current form or strength).
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:It's a huge contrast to the post-WWII sentiment that science is great and will improve your life on a personal level (or at least that's the feeling I've gotten from period educational films, articles, and advertisements. All of them seem to have an undertone of "look what our brilliant scientists have cooked up now! it's wonderful!"). To be fair, that era of Superscience also involved things like spraying DDT all over literally everything. People lost faith in "look what our brilliant scientists have cooked up now" because a lot of the promises either didn't pan out or were massive public health hazards. In general science as a discipline is much more cautious now, but public skepticism hasn't worn off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Malmesbury Monster posted:To be fair, that era of Superscience also involved things like spraying DDT all over literally everything. People lost faith in "look what our brilliant scientists have cooked up now" because a lot of the promises either didn't pan out or were massive public health hazards. In general science as a discipline is much more cautious now, but public skepticism hasn't worn off. Even though it was scientists who figured out that this was a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Malmesbury Monster posted:To be fair, that era of Superscience also involved things like spraying DDT all over literally everything. People lost faith in "look what our brilliant scientists have cooked up now" because a lot of the promises either didn't pan out or were massive public health hazards. In general science as a discipline is much more cautious now, but public skepticism hasn't worn off. You're right about DDT. I mean, it was initially seen as pretty marvelous--it eradicated the threat of Malaria in entire regions overnight. And holy poo poo, this stuff is so amazing that we are going to use it everywhere! Of course, the fact that it killed a bunch of birds and was harmful to people helped create the EPA. The human harm was kinda sensationalized at the time (it's harmful, but the long term harm is totally outweighed by not dying of malaria if it is applied purposefully, instead of being sprayed recklessly). This probably lead to a bunch of needless deaths, as Malaria was never much of an issue in the Western world anyway, so it was harder to make the argument that in tropical regions this would still have a huge net benefit to use. I mean, it all boils down to Science creating a goddamn miracle chemical that saved millions of lives, except without a government regulatory structure in place to determine the extent of it's harmfulness and mandate how it could be used. Solkanar512 posted:Even though it was scientists who figured out that this was a bad idea. Another good point. It probably wasn't the scientists telling everyone to spray DDT everywhere, but companies made it, people bought and used it, and there was no one in authority to say, "Hey, maybe that's a bad idea guys"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Even though it was scientists who figured out that this was a bad idea. Yeah, and in fact the scientific community had roughly reached a consensus that it was harmful much earlier than the public realization when "Silent Spring" came out. I suspect the entire episode put a bad taste in people's mouths, combined with the aforementioned naturalist movement of the 1960s, and that's probably a large part of why we don't see the whole "science ho" attitude to sell things anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:It's a huge contrast to the post-WWII sentiment that science is great and will improve your life on a personal level (or at least that's the feeling I've gotten from period educational films, articles, and advertisements. All of them seem to have an undertone of "look what our brilliant scientists have cooked up now! it's wonderful!"). That was the result of legitimately large changes in people's lives as a direct result of technology. Homes had no appliances and no car at the turn of the century and by the 50's most homes had electricity a car and most of the appliances we take for granted today including a fridge, tv/radio, washing machine, vac etc. Basically people went from no technology to lots of technology in a generation and it's the era where our modern expectation of progress stems from. People who had lived through that had every reason to put faith in science and it showed itself in some of the wildly optimistic images of the future at the time. Since then, for a whole variety of reasons (some legitimate, many not) faith in basically every institution has fallen, including science and techlogy as a whole. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Malmesbury Monster posted:Yeah, and in fact the scientific community had roughly reached a consensus that it was harmful much earlier than the public realization when "Silent Spring" came out. I suspect the entire episode put a bad taste in people's mouths, combined with the aforementioned naturalist movement of the 1960s, and that's probably a large part of why we don't see the whole "science ho" attitude to sell things anymore. This and three mile Island.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This and three mile Island.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Nothing particularly happened from three mile island, though. I'd tend to say that the strength of the public reaction to it is more a symptom than a cause. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078966/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086312/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_59 Suddenly nuclear powerplant meltdowns and evil nuclear managers got real popular for movie plots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
I have always wondered how much damage the Simpsons did to idea of nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
FrantzX posted:I have always wondered how much damage the Simpsons did to idea of nuclear power. Honestly, about none. It's a symptom, not a cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078966/ The China Syndrome was a throwaway movie that caught a lucky break when three mile island happened twelve days into its theatrical run. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
I think there is an aspect of attaching a morality to what we eat, be it medicine or food. Heroine and cocaine has been thoroughly demonized now but at the turn of the century, they were a popular medication. Why do we classify medically active substances as "good" and "bad"? In food, this phenomenon has gone crazy. Different foods seem to have this assigned moral character that can change quite rapidly. Part of it is learning more of what everything actually does but there is a lot of hype out there over strange nutritional trends. We have demonized fat, carbohydrates, sugars, starches and a host of other things that I can't remember. Unhealthy and unnatural seems to have these close connections with "evil" or "bad"; though the relationships that define their moral placement can be tenuous at best. There are easy examples to the contrary, like transfats, but there is enough fear over as many benign molecules as there are potentially harmful ones. GMO is the easiest call on the substance morality scale, its foreign nature automatically makes it suspect. It does not help either that everything is so bloody hard to do save for in the simpler species, like Arabidopsis, such that traits that could actually help people or the environment require a lot of patience and money. Golden rice is an example of a wonderful mess in that regard. Producer driven traits makes a lot of sense since there is no moral question generally at that level and it is a lot easier to market for them. They want the most output for the least input, drat your system and whatever could destroy it. The consumer message was probably completely lost in the 1990's; there is no point anymore to make functional foods. The only way I see GMO foods gaining any positive traction in the public is for alternatives to become crippled in the face of increasing demand. Agricultural power shifting to developing nations with strong biotech platforms is also a possibility. Considering climate change, it may be a little of both. Europe has already become a net importer and Australian agricultural strength may be living off of borrowed time. It would be nice to be wrong though and the world not needing genetically engineered crops. I don't think there is enough natural variation in the populations we do have though to allow for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 11:46
|
|
