Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Spread of Ignorance (bbc.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the blissful-Muggles dept.

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.'

59 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    This has been going on for 6,000 years.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's literally as old as the Earth!

    2. Re:Nothing new by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The key quote from his article, and one that I found at some point in the past:

      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

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Nothing new by haggie · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's been happening since the first human rode a dinosaur!

    4. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:Nothing new by AmiMoJo · · 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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Nothing new by kanweg · · 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

    7. Re:Nothing new by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong. Scientists are happy to admit when they are wrong. Descartes' scientific method relies on setting up an enquiry that can be falsified.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    8. Re:Nothing new by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Informative

      Polywater is an example that I remember from university. Today, polywater is best known as an example of pathological science.

    9. Re:Nothing new by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That particular technique is only used because it is effective. If it weren't, people wouldn't use it or would use something else instead. The problem isn't that arguments are being made in that way, it's that all of the different issues you've listed are really complicated and you can hardly expect that average person to have enough understanding of them or the ancillary knowledge necessary to make a reasoned decision. Add in human tendency for confirmation bias and what you've called "frame" becomes the most effective way in a democracy to effect the types of change that you want. We only see it because all of the other tactics or strategies have proven to be less viable and therefor the people who employ them less successful. It's merely natural selection in terms of presenting arguments.

      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.

    10. Re:Nothing new by religionofpeas · · 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.

    11. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People who deliberately promote agnotology for commercial or selfish gain are causing great harm to our civilization, economically, socially, and morally. They cause our society to make incorrect decisions that will make all of us worse off. Let's consider some other people who cause harm in our society.

      Drug dealers lure vulnerable people onto a path that usually leads to ruin. But their damage is limited to a relatively small number of people. Pimps also lure vulnerable young people onto a path of abuse and degradation. They often purposely addict their victims to drugs so that they will be more controllable. They in essence destroy the lives of these young people for profit. Although the damage done by pimps and drug dealers is obvious and clear, their impact is relatively small on society, since they impact so few people.

      Contrast the above examples of unambiguous evil with those who worked to confuse society over the dangers of smoking. Even today, smoking kills millions of people each year worldwide. Anyone who worked confuse smokers and potential smokers about the potential dangers of smoking is complicit in the deaths of those who succumb. Dying of lung cancer is pretty much like dying of suffocation over a period of weeks or months. It is an excruciating way to die.

      Thus, I see equivalence between consciously trying to confuse people about smoking, and being a drug dealer and/or a pimp. Except that those who try to sow confusion about the dangers of smoking are far worse, because in the end they will be associated with the deaths of far more people.

      As for global warming, I think that consciously sowing confusion about the science is morally far worse than any of the above examples I mentioned. The near term consequences of global warming have been/will be higher food prices. For us in the western world, we will find ways of dealing with this, even though it will cause economic harm. But for those of live in North Africa, the consequences are far worse. Political unrest, for example during the "Arab Spring" can be tightly associated with the price of wheat. For those who spend most of their income on food, having the price of wheat go up even by 30% can be devastating. And if high wheat prices were associated with the Arab Spring, they are also indirectly associated with the Syrian war (as is an ongoing water shortage). These conflicts have resulted in many deaths, and have created countless homeless refugees.

      To summarize, I believe that those who deliberately sow confusion about important issues are morally complicit in the deaths that will result from the agnotology they helped induce. I hold such people beneath drug dealers and pimps. If you are too stupid to understand science, well I guess it really isn't your fault. But those who know what they are doing, or worse are paid to sow ignorance and confusion are in my opinion amongst the worst scum of humanity.

    12. Re:Nothing new by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Nothing new by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Donald Trump reckons he's got all the answers - does that count ? :o)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    14. Re:Nothing new by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      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 you, and you would still point to every contradictory fact before you changed your belief. If that person called you an idiot, you would probably get upset, because clearly *they* are the idiot. The problem is that the more complex the issue is, the more room there is for uncertainty, and the less people are willing to change their beliefs without concrete evidence.

      This is exacerbated by the fact that people have an emotional investment in believing that they are not wrong, because it damages the ego to be wrong. When we're corrected by someone else, many of us feel inferior, and have to protect ourselves from that feeling by either denying what's being said, or else diminishing the other person in some way. People who tell us we're wrong are an emotional threat. Politicians, on both sides, capitalize on this, intentionally or not, by appealing to ego. "You're not wrong, they're wrong! Vote for me!"

      It's going to be a while, if ever, before we can figure out how to avoid being manipulated by emotions. Maybe our AI replacements will do a better job. ;)

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  2. So ignorance is caused by.... ignorance? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Good to know.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  3. Re: A lack of credibility. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Doesn't help to have fertile ground by dlenmn · · 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'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.

    1. Re:Doesn't help to have fertile ground by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      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.

  5. Re: slashdot by mspohr · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  6. Re:Gaslighting and other cons by Anonymous Coward · · 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. .

  7. Re:Gaslighting and other cons by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  8. Hmmm by NetNed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So If he is really investigating the spread of ignorance, why did he use a religious term of "denier" to explain people that doubt climate change is as dire as some report? This is a guy that has wrote books about how forward thinking the Nazi's were about science. He has multiple books about tobacco, and testified against the tobacco industry. Does that discount it all? No, but full disclosure wasn't done and it defiantly shows a bit of an agenda on Proctor's part.

    1. Re:Hmmm by serviscope_minor · · 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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Hmmm by Kohath · · Score: 3, 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.

    3. Re:Hmmm by MobyDisk · · 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?

    4. Re:Hmmm by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  9. The Disinformation Age and Foolage by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think these two quotes are relevant:

    “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

  10. Re: slashdot by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    But it's also an opportunity for you to present good evidence in support of your beliefs that can sway other people who are watching the discussion. Some people are just true believers that will refuse to change their mind no matter how many facts you can present or how many contradictions you find in their arguments, but you can't win over everyone.

    If you spend enough time presenting reasoned arguments, eventually most people will come around. It might take years, but it's better than nothing.

  11. The problem starts at childhood by burtosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    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.

  12. Re:Windows 10 by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Informative

    Those kinds of lies and propaganda are called advertising.

  13. Re:Gaslighting and other cons by Layzej · · 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?...

  14. Lack of science in education by Teun · · Score: 2

    Such is only possible because an ever smaller section of people had basic education including solid scientific fundamentals or STEM.
    Especially those working in mainstream media and at all levels of politics show a near wilful ignorance of science and technology.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Lack of science in education by Eric+Eikrem · · Score: 2

      Damn right. The almost total lack of interest from mainstream media is just flabbergasting. Sports, more sports, lots of local fluff and perhaps one big international story (if it cannot be avoided) is the regular fare here (Norway). It's been pretty much the same in other places I have lived (Americas, Europe). The only real exceptions I can think of is the BBC, the Guardian newspaper and - to a certain extent - Die Zeit (German weekly).

  15. Re:Modern charlatans turn ignorance into profits by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't know what your issue is with the pill. Everybody who has even the slightest idea about birth control knows that the pill works by disrupting the natural hormone cycling. Heightened estradiol-levels in the blood caused by the pill affect the pituitary gland not to produce follicle-stimulating hormone, and thus, no follicle lets an egg cell ripe. That's why it causes women not to become pregnant. And hey, that's the whole concept behind the pill in the first place!

    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.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  16. Re:Modern charlatans turn ignorance into profits by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    I'm sorry, but I certainly do not 'come from a monk'.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  17. Re:That's why cutting school funding makes cents! by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wind mills have been generating weirdos for centuries. Cervantes wrote his books in 1605 already and people are still tilting at wind mills.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  18. Orwell was right by plopez · · Score: 2

    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).

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  19. Re:Gaslighting and other cons by Layzej · · Score: 2

    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.”

  20. Re:Like Trump supporters. by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mmm. Looking at the odds, Cruz takes the Republican nomination in a contested election, Hillary beats Sanders 51% to 49% and Trump/Sanders goes on to beat Hillary and Cruz in a massive write-in landslide in the general election.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  21. Re:Questioning by ArmoredDragon · · 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.

  22. Re:Questioning by religionofpeas · · 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.

  23. Re:A lack of credibility. by allcoolnameswheretak · · 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 the people flocking towards the likes of the Tea Party movement or Donald Trump. What a freaking disaster for the world.

  24. Re:Gaslighting and other cons by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A little bit of doubt can be very effective for those people already looking for it.

  25. Re:Questioning by gwm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Consensus is an important part of science, but it is not the only part. The scientific method is strong enough that the truth eventually prevails even if the current consensus is wrong (such as for your Einstein example). People who spread ignorance use the fact that consensus is not always correct to disregard it whenever it disagrees with their point of view. Hence "teach the controversy".

  26. Re: It's the Stupid Smart people by Anonymous Coward · · 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 bags for example), large visible tributes to the gods to show our piety as a social group (huge wind power projects as an example), and most of all a uniting of the ruling and clergy class (politicians and "scientists") to strip the people of their wealth in sacrifices (taxes) to conduct ceremonies and make offerings to the gods to appease them. Human nature is simply human nature and does not change appreciably over thousands of years. These behaviors have made the elites rich through all of human history and the average human alive today is no more wiser about the manipulation the an ancient Egyptian making an offering to a priest to help make sure the Nike flooded again this year to make the soil fertile.

  27. Re: slashdot by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    I haven't noticed anyone changing their mind.

    People who change their minds often do not post about this.

  28. 99% - WTF by huckamania · · Score: 2

    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 can get 99% with that spread
    The availability of new CO2 sinks -- somewhere between none and more than enough -- another tent pole that can fit 99%
    The effects of feedbacks -- somewhere between all negative and all positive -- yay consensus science that can mean anything

    The skeptics are doing more to answer these questions then the so-called scientists who are busy covering their collective asses because nature hasn't cooperated and produced scary hockey sticks or flooding of coastal regions. Instead they keep floating out new adjustments to produce the warmest year ever even if it is only by a few tenths of a degree and within the error bars.

    The funniest thing about all of this is how a few skeptics pointing out the large flaws can produce such vitriol and FUD, of which this paper is just the latest.

  29. Re:Questioning by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In mathematics (not science I know), a proof is one that is agreed upon by consensus.
    So you must be very bad in math ... very bad ...

    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 water ... no brainers.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  30. Re: It's the Stupid Smart people by jimtheowl · · Score: 2

    Why not correct the whole thing and delete the post completely?

  31. Re:It's the Stupid Smart people by Argos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Utterly false. A bunch of examples in Collapse by Jared Diamond. Can you put an example of your "loss of will" nonsense?

  32. Re:Gaslighting and other cons by Opportunist · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  33. Re:A lack of credibility. by blindseer · · Score: 2

    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 wears a sweater indoors to keep warm. Instead we have a guy that takes a vacation to Hawaii, getting there by a jet plane, at least once a year. If global warming is a problem then I expect the politicians to act like it, and POTUS is not alone in his hypocrisy.

    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?

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  34. Re:Questioning by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  35. Re:Questioning by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, 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?... (at 1:38 mark)

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  36. Re:A lack of credibility. by blindseer · · Score: 4, 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/...

    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...

    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...

    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?

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  37. Re: It's the Stupid Smart people by silentcoder · · Score: 3, 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

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  38. Re:A lack of credibility. by Layzej · · Score: 2

    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.

  39. Re: It's the Stupid Smart people by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    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 the best way to avoid people killed by the government. Economics are important but not for this topic. For this topic its like arguing wheter we can increase the safety of the space program by putting a mattress on the moon to land on.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *