I doubt that the stats are cherry-picked as there's such a clear difference between the US and the rest of the world:
The articles you cite are pretty superficial in their use of data and analysis. In fact, nobody knows for cerrtain where these differences come from.
However, culturally, there is a big difference between the US and Europe: Americans generally consider it OK to use deadly force to defend themselves, their family, and their property. If a criminal robs someone or breaks into their house, he runs a high risk of getting shot dead and the shooter being found innocent.
And that carries over to police: I may not want to shoot people breaking into my house myself, but I may believe that it's the job of police to do that kind of dirty work for me.
Naturally, these attitudes result in higher rates of killing in self-defense and by police. Is that wrong somehow?
Maybe, but there's a lot less gunning down of civilians by the police in Europe compared to the U.S.
It's unclear whether that's true, since Europeans keep even worse statistics on police brutality than the US.
The media that middle class Europeans pay attention to, however, generally tend to be more favorable to the government side of things and are less likely to report on it in my experience, so that may result in that impression.
(I don't know whether that's down to less racism or less guns or some other socio-political difference).
A lot of violent police/citizen interactions in the US happen at traffic stops. If there is a difference, its primary cause is likely that police in Europe often don't need to stop motorists; they just send a ticket to the registered vehicle owner in the mail.
I've never been stopped on motorways in the EU at 'check points' to present my identifying information like I have been in the US.
Well, I have, many times. Also on the street. Perhaps you just don't drive very much?
Europe does have fewer interactions between police and drivers, however, for the simple reason that in many places in Europe, they don't have to stop you to give you a ticket.
I'd like to add that with employers intruding more and more on our personal lives - we are on the clock 24/7 these days even though we're only paid for 40 hours. They are starting to scrutinize every aspect of our lives.
Nobody is forcing you to be a wage slave; you can run your own small business.
And what I find disturbing is that younger folks, who grew up with facebook and other crap like that, think nothing of...
What I find disturbing is that so many people, old and young alike, subscribe to the idea that the only way of surviving in the world is to become a wage slave.
Even worse is that the very same people (you likely included) then advocate policies that make it harder for others to start their own businesses.
Spending money for the General Welfare IS one of the enumerated powers.
That is incorrect; the General Welfare clause is not a "power" granted to the government, it's a (vague) limit on what taxes can be spent on. That is, you cannot use the General Welfare clause to justify action by the government, only to justify limits on government.
There is nothing in the Constitution saying that the Feds can give people school vouchers,
I agree: the federal government has no business spending money on education at all. However, given that it is spending money on education, there is no constitutional reason why it can't flow to religious schools if the recipients of that money make that choice.
I have no idea why you think scientific truth is fine and well-established science isn't.
I have no idea what "fine" means, and I didn't use those terms. I pointed out that when you use the notion of "well established scientific theories" in government educational policies, you run a high risk of corrupting both science and education, and hurting a lot of people in the process, as numerous historical examples show.
The government does not have to determine what's well-established science,
Great! So whether something is "well established science" should therefore be irrelevant to government policy regarding school curricula or school funding; the choice should be up to teachers and parents.
It does have to determine what's religion, to avoid stepping in or on it.
The only reason it is at risk of stepping on religion is because it steps beyond its enumerated powers, for example by trying to influence school curricula. If it stuck to its enumerated powers, there would be no risk of it stepping on religion, and no need to "determine what's religion".
Even the much maligned Liberal Arts Degree should be enough for any employer to see that this young person can, you know, LEARN THINGS.
"Liberal arts" historically meant everything from Greek and history to science to math. If that's the kind of "liberal arts degree" you get, yes, it does show indeed that you can learn things. However, few if any universities still have those kinds of liberal arts programs.
If you get a "liberal arts degree" in the modern sense, namely "anything but science and math", you demonstrate mostly that you lack the skills and curiosity for jobs that rely on science, engineering, and/or math.
Maybe they had a couple of courses in it, maybe they were self-taught.... echoing President Obama's tech industry-nurtured belief that "what you want to do is introduce this [coding] with the ABCs and the colors."
Well, a lot of people are self-taught and started coding very eary.
See, here's the thing: You're no more evolved than anyone else is, so of course it's difficult to imagine a single world government; you're no more ready for such a thing than anyone else is.
I can perfectly well "imagine" a single world government, which is why I absolutely reject it as a desirable possibility. People are far too diverse to be governed by a single set of rules, and human diversity is increasing, not decreasing.
I also understand what happens when you try to institute a "single world government": all the crooks and psychopaths of the world come out of the woodwork and compete for who gets to run it; no sane person would actually go for those jobs because (1) it's pointless, and (2) you have to be insane to compete with crooks and psychopaths.
You'd think that after eugenics, WWII, and Stalin, people would be a little more self-conscious about peddling your kind of crap, but apparently progressives, communists, and fascists never learn.
As for evolution, all organisms on this planet have evolved for the same amount of time, and you and I are no more evolved than an earthworm or cockroach. Nevertheless, there are obviously huge differences in mental and physical abilities between creatures, and that's not going to change. Humanity will not evolve into (fascists) or be indoctrinated (communists) into perfectly selfless and altruistic individuals that submit to the power of selfless and self-sacrificing leaders. It's biologically impossible. Even if it were to happen, we'd cease to be human or even intelligent.
The problem is essentially the same as with any other technology we've developed: it's evolving orders of magnitude more quickly than humans themselves are evolving, physically
We're getting fat?
and socio-politically.
Well, yeah: technology increasingly gives regular folks the kind of power only kings used to have.
Will there, eventually, have to be one global governing body? In my opinion, yes,
I don't think so. The only way that would happen is through a totalitarian regime, but totalitarian regimes can't exist unless they have some external enemy to blame their failures on.
No, more likely, we will have many more "governing bodies" than we have now, responsible for many different aspects of our lives, and you pick whatever combination suits your needs. Think of it as extending the concept of an HOA, your vacation time share, and your professional associations to your entire life.
And most folks just cave to prosecutors and take the deal regardless of their innocence because they will bury you in legal fees, intimidate you and really screw you over. See, this guy [wikipedia.org] for an idea of the BS prosecutors put you through.
So you are saying that we should screw the Internet because our legal system is already screwed up? I have a better idea: what about getting rid of plea bargains?
In any case, this doesn't apply in much of Europe, because there, often, the press is not allowed to name defendants until they have been found guilty.
And why do you need "something like that" in the first place? I seem to remember going to school with radiator heaters and opening the windows in the summer.
The Constitution does not make it illegal to spend tax money on science,
The Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of government, not a list of limits on government. The Amendments are a clarification, meaning, "these things in particular, are not among the enumerated powers".
Spending money on science isn't one of the enumerated powers of the US Constitution, although you might be able to squeeze it in with some hand waving argument. But defining and mandating school curricula certainly isn't one of the enumerated powers of the US Constitution and should be considered an abhorrent abuse of governmental power.
On the other hand, the Constitution certainly does not make it illegal for the government to give parents money for school vouchers that they then use at a school of their choice, including a religious school, just like they can with their welfare checks or their social security checks.
and teaching well-established science to children is a good thing to do
Teaching scientific truth is a good thing to do; teaching well-established science is not. You're confusing "well-established" with "truth" and setting up the government to be the arbiter of scientific truth; that corrupts science and invites abuse. Scientific racism was "well-established" both in the US and in Nazi Germany, and was taught as such in schools. It just wasn't true.
If you accept the principle that it is the job of government to determine scientific truth, it won't just do so in clear cut cases, like evolution, it will also do so in less clear cut cases, for the purposes of political gain and greed, as it did with scientific racism, Keynesianism, and scientific socialism.
"Madam, we've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we are haggling about the price”
At the risk of invoking Godwin's wrath, was the rise of Naziism in Germany forced upon the masses by a ruling elite, or was it the product of mistaken decisions by the less-than-elite masses? (Not a rhetorical question, I could argue both ways, like to hear other's thoughts)
Neither. The masses willingly gave up power to a ruling elite because they believed that doing so would be an efficient way of having their economic and social problems taken care of. That's not some vague interpretation, that's literally what happened: parliament had a vote on the Enabling Act of 1933, and representatives voted overwhelmingly for it. And that is, of course, what PopeRatzo is arguing.
Prelate Kaas, head of the Catholic party, gave a speech in which he said roughly "We need stop giving speeches and instead we need to act to rebuild the nation and recover from our economic woes. This can only be done if the nation comes together. Our party has long advocated that the nation come together. The small disagreements between parties need to be set aside, and we need to reach across party lines because of the responsibility we all share for our nation. In light of the economic distress the people and the nation currently find themselves in, in light of the gigantic tasks before us, we come together with our former political opponents for the good of the nation."
Hitler himself argued that political squabbling in parliament kept him from doing his important work of helping the German people recover from a serious economic downturn and to deal with social conflicts, and that politics had been corrupted by wealthy capitalists. He also promoted universal public education, free university education for qualified students, universal health care, a state run retirement system, price and wage controls, and Keynesian stimuli before Keynes even had come up with the idea. That's why he asked the legislature to grant the executive branch wider ranging authority, and he got it.
Given that we do have public schools, we do need some sort of curriculum.
There's a much simpler solution: give people school vouchers and school choice.
and no tax money winds up being spent on religion
It's unclear that the Constitution imposes that requirement in the first place.
If you want to teach your kids nonsense based on bad interpretations of allegedly sacred writings, you go ahead. Just don't use any of my tax money to do so.
If you want to teach your kids nonsense based on bad interpretations of science, you go ahead. Just don't use any of my tax money to do it.
If you live in a fascist state, your kids are going to be brainwashed anyway.
Oh, this isn't unique to fascist states, it's the hallmark of totalitarian societies: fascist, communist, socialist, monarchies, theocracies, progressive states.
The only solution is for the people to rise up and destroy the fascist state, not wonder about what marching songs little Timmy is being taught at school.
Well, which is why people like me "rise up" against fascists like you. Fortunately, fascists like you are gradually losing in the political arena, as people are less and less willing to put up with your bullshit.
By that argument, schools should be forced to conduct white supremacist classes because some parents are neo nazi scum.
No, not at all. Schools shouldn't be forced to do anything. Parents should get vouchers and be free to send their kids to schools that reflect their own values and beliefs.
It is entirely reasonable for society's wishes about how and what to teach children to override the deranged beliefs of some idiotic parents.
That means that you're saying that if the majority of people in Louisiana decide that creationism should be taught in school and evolution is a "deranged belief", then people should be forced to comply. Right?
It would be even better to fix the system than to throw a bunch of kids under the knowledge bus
The system is not fixable. Either you force people to make (what some group believes to be) good choices against their will, or some people are going to make bad choices. Furthermore, if you give anybody the power to force others to make good choices against their will, that power is invariably going to be abused. Explain this: assuming that there were superior men who actually possessed the knowledge, wisdom, and honesty to make good decisions for everybody, how would they get into a position of power?
The examples you cited were not of rigorous science, but of claims dressed up in scientific terms, just like creationism.
You're committing a subtle error there resulting in a false dichotomy. Those theories weren't "rigorous science" in the sense that we now know them to be wrong. But then you switch to the term "dressed up", which implies deliberate deception. But those theories weren't caused by deliberate deception either. People simply got the science wrong and then applied their incorrect understanding to politics.
Eugenics wasn't some grand conspiracy by some ill-meaning people deliberately misusing science, it was a rational policy based on an incorrect understanding of limited data and genetics. Scientific socialism and fascist economics weren't deliberate fabrications, they were typical scientific theories in the social sciences.
And today's science is no different: critical race theory, Keynesianism, ordoliberalism, and all the other theories dominating current politics make many of the same mistakes as those older theories. Occasionally, science in politics gets something right (e.g., teaching evolution), but more often, it doesn't.
Science has improved markedly since the days you talk of, rendering your whole point entirely moot.
No, actually science has gotten a lot worse. A lot more people are doing it, meaning the quality has gone done. Many people do science for the money now. There is constant pressure to publish, meaning a lot of sensationalized crap gets published. The "social sciences" have mushroomed. Most scientists don't understand the mathematical, statistical, or computer tools they are using. And every field has gotten so big and specialized that most scientists understand nothing but a narrow slice. Physics, once the solid foundation of science, rooted in sound mathematics and experimental reproducibility, has become speculative, philosophical, and become nearly completely irreproducible at many of its frontiers.
There is a lot more science today, and there is a lot more good science today than there was a century ago; but it is drowned out by an epic flood of bad science. And the bad science is far more likely to be picked up as policy than the good science.
You're suggesting that the only information that can be taken seriously is that which can be understood by the least of us.
No, I'm suggesting that people should be free to make their own choices. Science and technology succeed on their own because objective truth doesn't require state championship.
Only the kind of bullshit you believe in requires state indoctrination and state support.
And nobody should use computers because there are a few trailer park meth heads in West Texas who never took to no technology.
The only way that "trailer park meth heads in West Texas" impede your ability to use a computer is if you are one yourself. Of course, based on your comments, that seems pretty close to the truth.
Are you fucking kidding me? Which one of us is really the totalitarian?
You are, by your own admission: Left-wing extremist. Expertise in critical theory.
Of course, it's also quite ironic that a critical theorist claims to be a champion of objective truth in science. Are you deliberately lying, or merely terminally confused?
Are you suggesting that the only threats we should see as real are those that can be perceived by common plebs with inferior mental capabilities?
Ah, what a beautiful statement of totalitarian ideology: people should be governed by their superiors for their own good.
To answer your question: you can "see" whatever threats you like. However, centuries have shown that it is better to let those with "inferior mental capabilities" make their own mistakes than to give too much power to a ruling elite.
And you should be grateful, because I guarantee you, you wouldn't be part of the ruling elite.
Rational humans apply a discounting to future threats, something that is entirely rational. A certain projected cost of $1000 in a century (in today's dollars) is properly discounted to a current cost of between $1 and $10. If there is uncertainty involved, it's even less.
Climate activists forget about this discounting and reason as if $1000 in a century were the same as $1000 today. Why? I don't know; probably some kind of brain problem.
(That's in addition to the fact that none of the serious climate change models even predict a "grave threat" to humanity, merely some level of inconvenience.)
In an ideal world the state should require schools to educate a curriculum based around scientific facts (such as mathematics, geography, astronomy, biology which includes evolution), critical thinking and satisfying curiosity
The problem with that thinking is that once you give those powers to the state, the state will use it to teach racism, fascism, intolerance, and obedience to the ruling classes. Believe me, I grew up in a country that did just that.
and parents should not be allowed to abuse their children by hamstringing this natural curiosity by teaching them that no-questions-allowed-gawd-did-it.
It is far better that a few parents "abuse" their children by trying to indoctrinate them religiously than that a powerful and wealthy elite use the public education system to indoctrinate everybody.
One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote
In the strict definition, it is a theory which means it's a "hypothesis supported by facts and evidence which leads us to conclude it's the best explanation for what we experience"
So, is your view of education that the state should decide what is true and what is false and then force those truths upon children, even against the wishes of their parents?
Why would that stop with evolution (which I strongly believe to be true myself)? Eugenics and scientific socialism were both, at times, widely held to be true and forcibly taught in public schools in many countries.
Atheists probably value personal choice more than ANY other group of people. Nobody says "You cannot teach that religion" except other religions. Atheists say "You can teach all religions - including atheism and agnosticism and pastafarianism - fairly, inside a religious studies class".
You obviously don't value personal choice since you already accept the idea that a single curriculum should be imposed on everybody, you just quibble about the details of that curriculum. Valuing personal choice means letting people make bad choices. It means letting parents make the choice of having their kids taught creationism in school even though it is objectively wrong. That is what "valuing personal choice" actually means.
Slashdot Mirror
The articles you cite are pretty superficial in their use of data and analysis. In fact, nobody knows for cerrtain where these differences come from.
However, culturally, there is a big difference between the US and Europe: Americans generally consider it OK to use deadly force to defend themselves, their family, and their property. If a criminal robs someone or breaks into their house, he runs a high risk of getting shot dead and the shooter being found innocent.
And that carries over to police: I may not want to shoot people breaking into my house myself, but I may believe that it's the job of police to do that kind of dirty work for me.
Naturally, these attitudes result in higher rates of killing in self-defense and by police. Is that wrong somehow?
It's unclear whether that's true, since Europeans keep even worse statistics on police brutality than the US.
The media that middle class Europeans pay attention to, however, generally tend to be more favorable to the government side of things and are less likely to report on it in my experience, so that may result in that impression.
A lot of violent police/citizen interactions in the US happen at traffic stops. If there is a difference, its primary cause is likely that police in Europe often don't need to stop motorists; they just send a ticket to the registered vehicle owner in the mail.
Well, I have, many times. Also on the street. Perhaps you just don't drive very much?
Europe does have fewer interactions between police and drivers, however, for the simple reason that in many places in Europe, they don't have to stop you to give you a ticket.
Actually, they seem to be using a mix of sizes, reflecting across a range of wavelengths.
In any case, near perfect mirrors for specific wavelengths are very useful: dichroic mirrors have been in use for a long time.
Nobody is forcing you to be a wage slave; you can run your own small business.
What I find disturbing is that so many people, old and young alike, subscribe to the idea that the only way of surviving in the world is to become a wage slave.
Even worse is that the very same people (you likely included) then advocate policies that make it harder for others to start their own businesses.
That is incorrect; the General Welfare clause is not a "power" granted to the government, it's a (vague) limit on what taxes can be spent on. That is, you cannot use the General Welfare clause to justify action by the government, only to justify limits on government.
I agree: the federal government has no business spending money on education at all. However, given that it is spending money on education, there is no constitutional reason why it can't flow to religious schools if the recipients of that money make that choice.
I have no idea what "fine" means, and I didn't use those terms. I pointed out that when you use the notion of "well established scientific theories" in government educational policies, you run a high risk of corrupting both science and education, and hurting a lot of people in the process, as numerous historical examples show.
Great! So whether something is "well established science" should therefore be irrelevant to government policy regarding school curricula or school funding; the choice should be up to teachers and parents.
The only reason it is at risk of stepping on religion is because it steps beyond its enumerated powers, for example by trying to influence school curricula. If it stuck to its enumerated powers, there would be no risk of it stepping on religion, and no need to "determine what's religion".
"Liberal arts" historically meant everything from Greek and history to science to math. If that's the kind of "liberal arts degree" you get, yes, it does show indeed that you can learn things. However, few if any universities still have those kinds of liberal arts programs.
If you get a "liberal arts degree" in the modern sense, namely "anything but science and math", you demonstrate mostly that you lack the skills and curiosity for jobs that rely on science, engineering, and/or math.
Well, a lot of people are self-taught and started coding very eary.
I can perfectly well "imagine" a single world government, which is why I absolutely reject it as a desirable possibility. People are far too diverse to be governed by a single set of rules, and human diversity is increasing, not decreasing.
I also understand what happens when you try to institute a "single world government": all the crooks and psychopaths of the world come out of the woodwork and compete for who gets to run it; no sane person would actually go for those jobs because (1) it's pointless, and (2) you have to be insane to compete with crooks and psychopaths.
You'd think that after eugenics, WWII, and Stalin, people would be a little more self-conscious about peddling your kind of crap, but apparently progressives, communists, and fascists never learn.
As for evolution, all organisms on this planet have evolved for the same amount of time, and you and I are no more evolved than an earthworm or cockroach. Nevertheless, there are obviously huge differences in mental and physical abilities between creatures, and that's not going to change. Humanity will not evolve into (fascists) or be indoctrinated (communists) into perfectly selfless and altruistic individuals that submit to the power of selfless and self-sacrificing leaders. It's biologically impossible. Even if it were to happen, we'd cease to be human or even intelligent.
We're getting fat?
Well, yeah: technology increasingly gives regular folks the kind of power only kings used to have.
I don't think so. The only way that would happen is through a totalitarian regime, but totalitarian regimes can't exist unless they have some external enemy to blame their failures on.
No, more likely, we will have many more "governing bodies" than we have now, responsible for many different aspects of our lives, and you pick whatever combination suits your needs. Think of it as extending the concept of an HOA, your vacation time share, and your professional associations to your entire life.
So you are saying that we should screw the Internet because our legal system is already screwed up? I have a better idea: what about getting rid of plea bargains?
In any case, this doesn't apply in much of Europe, because there, often, the press is not allowed to name defendants until they have been found guilty.
And why do you need "something like that" in the first place? I seem to remember going to school with radiator heaters and opening the windows in the summer.
The Constitution is a list of enumerated powers of government, not a list of limits on government. The Amendments are a clarification, meaning, "these things in particular, are not among the enumerated powers".
Spending money on science isn't one of the enumerated powers of the US Constitution, although you might be able to squeeze it in with some hand waving argument. But defining and mandating school curricula certainly isn't one of the enumerated powers of the US Constitution and should be considered an abhorrent abuse of governmental power.
On the other hand, the Constitution certainly does not make it illegal for the government to give parents money for school vouchers that they then use at a school of their choice, including a religious school, just like they can with their welfare checks or their social security checks.
Teaching scientific truth is a good thing to do; teaching well-established science is not. You're confusing "well-established" with "truth" and setting up the government to be the arbiter of scientific truth; that corrupts science and invites abuse. Scientific racism was "well-established" both in the US and in Nazi Germany, and was taught as such in schools. It just wasn't true.
If you accept the principle that it is the job of government to determine scientific truth, it won't just do so in clear cut cases, like evolution, it will also do so in less clear cut cases, for the purposes of political gain and greed, as it did with scientific racism, Keynesianism, and scientific socialism.
"Madam, we've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we are haggling about the price”
Neither. The masses willingly gave up power to a ruling elite because they believed that doing so would be an efficient way of having their economic and social problems taken care of. That's not some vague interpretation, that's literally what happened: parliament had a vote on the Enabling Act of 1933, and representatives voted overwhelmingly for it. And that is, of course, what PopeRatzo is arguing.
Prelate Kaas, head of the Catholic party, gave a speech in which he said roughly "We need stop giving speeches and instead we need to act to rebuild the nation and recover from our economic woes. This can only be done if the nation comes together. Our party has long advocated that the nation come together. The small disagreements between parties need to be set aside, and we need to reach across party lines because of the responsibility we all share for our nation. In light of the economic distress the people and the nation currently find themselves in, in light of the gigantic tasks before us, we come together with our former political opponents for the good of the nation."
Hitler himself argued that political squabbling in parliament kept him from doing his important work of helping the German people recover from a serious economic downturn and to deal with social conflicts, and that politics had been corrupted by wealthy capitalists. He also promoted universal public education, free university education for qualified students, universal health care, a state run retirement system, price and wage controls, and Keynesian stimuli before Keynes even had come up with the idea. That's why he asked the legislature to grant the executive branch wider ranging authority, and he got it.
The rest is, as they say, history.
There's a much simpler solution: give people school vouchers and school choice.
It's unclear that the Constitution imposes that requirement in the first place.
If you want to teach your kids nonsense based on bad interpretations of science, you go ahead. Just don't use any of my tax money to do it.
Oh, this isn't unique to fascist states, it's the hallmark of totalitarian societies: fascist, communist, socialist, monarchies, theocracies, progressive states.
Well, which is why people like me "rise up" against fascists like you. Fortunately, fascists like you are gradually losing in the political arena, as people are less and less willing to put up with your bullshit.
No, not at all. Schools shouldn't be forced to do anything. Parents should get vouchers and be free to send their kids to schools that reflect their own values and beliefs.
That means that you're saying that if the majority of people in Louisiana decide that creationism should be taught in school and evolution is a "deranged belief", then people should be forced to comply. Right?
The system is not fixable. Either you force people to make (what some group believes to be) good choices against their will, or some people are going to make bad choices. Furthermore, if you give anybody the power to force others to make good choices against their will, that power is invariably going to be abused. Explain this: assuming that there were superior men who actually possessed the knowledge, wisdom, and honesty to make good decisions for everybody, how would they get into a position of power?
You're committing a subtle error there resulting in a false dichotomy. Those theories weren't "rigorous science" in the sense that we now know them to be wrong. But then you switch to the term "dressed up", which implies deliberate deception. But those theories weren't caused by deliberate deception either. People simply got the science wrong and then applied their incorrect understanding to politics.
Eugenics wasn't some grand conspiracy by some ill-meaning people deliberately misusing science, it was a rational policy based on an incorrect understanding of limited data and genetics. Scientific socialism and fascist economics weren't deliberate fabrications, they were typical scientific theories in the social sciences.
And today's science is no different: critical race theory, Keynesianism, ordoliberalism, and all the other theories dominating current politics make many of the same mistakes as those older theories. Occasionally, science in politics gets something right (e.g., teaching evolution), but more often, it doesn't.
No, actually science has gotten a lot worse. A lot more people are doing it, meaning the quality has gone done. Many people do science for the money now. There is constant pressure to publish, meaning a lot of sensationalized crap gets published. The "social sciences" have mushroomed. Most scientists don't understand the mathematical, statistical, or computer tools they are using. And every field has gotten so big and specialized that most scientists understand nothing but a narrow slice. Physics, once the solid foundation of science, rooted in sound mathematics and experimental reproducibility, has become speculative, philosophical, and become nearly completely irreproducible at many of its frontiers.
There is a lot more science today, and there is a lot more good science today than there was a century ago; but it is drowned out by an epic flood of bad science. And the bad science is far more likely to be picked up as policy than the good science.
No, I'm suggesting that people should be free to make their own choices. Science and technology succeed on their own because objective truth doesn't require state championship.
Only the kind of bullshit you believe in requires state indoctrination and state support.
The only way that "trailer park meth heads in West Texas" impede your ability to use a computer is if you are one yourself. Of course, based on your comments, that seems pretty close to the truth.
You are, by your own admission: Left-wing extremist. Expertise in critical theory.
Of course, it's also quite ironic that a critical theorist claims to be a champion of objective truth in science. Are you deliberately lying, or merely terminally confused?
Ah, what a beautiful statement of totalitarian ideology: people should be governed by their superiors for their own good.
To answer your question: you can "see" whatever threats you like. However, centuries have shown that it is better to let those with "inferior mental capabilities" make their own mistakes than to give too much power to a ruling elite.
And you should be grateful, because I guarantee you, you wouldn't be part of the ruling elite.
Rational humans apply a discounting to future threats, something that is entirely rational. A certain projected cost of $1000 in a century (in today's dollars) is properly discounted to a current cost of between $1 and $10. If there is uncertainty involved, it's even less.
Climate activists forget about this discounting and reason as if $1000 in a century were the same as $1000 today. Why? I don't know; probably some kind of brain problem.
(That's in addition to the fact that none of the serious climate change models even predict a "grave threat" to humanity, merely some level of inconvenience.)
The problem with that thinking is that once you give those powers to the state, the state will use it to teach racism, fascism, intolerance, and obedience to the ruling classes. Believe me, I grew up in a country that did just that.
It is far better that a few parents "abuse" their children by trying to indoctrinate them religiously than that a powerful and wealthy elite use the public education system to indoctrinate everybody.
Yet, that is exactly what you are advocating.
So, is your view of education that the state should decide what is true and what is false and then force those truths upon children, even against the wishes of their parents?
Why would that stop with evolution (which I strongly believe to be true myself)? Eugenics and scientific socialism were both, at times, widely held to be true and forcibly taught in public schools in many countries.
You obviously don't value personal choice since you already accept the idea that a single curriculum should be imposed on everybody, you just quibble about the details of that curriculum. Valuing personal choice means letting people make bad choices. It means letting parents make the choice of having their kids taught creationism in school even though it is objectively wrong. That is what "valuing personal choice" actually means.