5 ms·

Mostly true, but conservatives hardly have a monopoly on willful ignorance. Ask the stereotypical liberal what he thinks of nuclear power or GMO crops, and you'

Mostly true, but conservatives hardly have a monopoly on willful ignorance. Ask the stereotypical liberal what he thinks of nuclear power or GMO crops, and you're not likely to get a response based on sound science.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Not to mention anything related to economics, as I mentioned above. All that nonsense about "fair trade", the complaints about Chinese currency (see Chuck Schumer), and on and on, has absolutely no basis in the real science.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Isn't chinese currency idiocy bipartisan? I mean http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/republicans-rip-treasury-for-weakkneed-report-on-chinese-currency.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/republicans-... certainly suggests that powerful Republican leaders believe it wholeheartedly.
sachinag 16y ago
Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. To paraphrase badly, liberals opposed to both are concerned about Black Swan events. Your assessment of the risk and that of those of us who are a bit more "reactionary" are just different, but it doesn't mean that we willfully misrepresent the science.
- LargeWu 16y ago
  Chernobyl is ancient history when it comes to nuclear technology. Pretty much all of the problems with catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants have been solved, yet many on the left still oppose it, almost out of tradition, rather than because of any compelling scientific argument.
  - locopati 16y ago
    There's also a distrust of the companies that would run such operations, seeing as the Republican party is often anti-regulation/oversight. A bad combination when it comes to nuclear power, imho.
    - LargeWu 16y ago
      There are plenty of power plants presently operating quite safely under the current regulatory scheme. Can you point to any specific concerns you have, or is this just FUD?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  ...fail in catastrophic fashion...Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. And the catastrophe was what, exactly? It was so minor that I must have missed it. Incidentally, I don't believe your fear of catastrophic failure is the real motivation. I believe it's a post-hoc rationalization. My reasoning? There has only been one serious nuclear accident ever, and it was caused by deliberate negligence [1]. Various socialist policies, when carried out by people being deliberately negligent or malicious, have failed far more catastrophically than Chernobyl. Yet most liberals don't tend to oppose them. [1] Go read about it. Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems (which would, if left active, have shut the reactor down safely). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
  - crpatino 16y ago
    >>> Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems ... If you think about it, that's pretty scary. Even if the science behind this is fully understood and the engineers flawlessly put alarms, locks and backups for every possible failure mode, it only takes one idiot manager to overrule them all and have the safety systems turned off. Makes you wonder about all those other things you are told "cannot possibly go wrong"...
- brc 16y ago
  Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. One easily prevented, catastrophic failure with relatively minor flow-on effects is not enough to fear nuclear power. Regular power sources drip-feed death and destruction on a regular basis, but because they don't all happen at once, the numbers go unnoticed. Similarly, anti-GM crops is circular logic. All food products we eat are long-since modified from their original native or wild source. The struggle within science to find a place for the bible within the geological record has been going on for at least 2 centuries. As such I don't see the problem being resolved anytime soon. Some of the towering giants of science have bent themselves out of shape trying to retro-fit biblical tales into natural history, and that doesn't invalidate their other contributions. What I'm saying here is that holding an irrational position on evolution doesn't necessarily devalue a scientists value, as long as they aren't primarily studying evolutionary-related fields. If the person who comes up with a cure for cancer doesn't believe in evolution, personally it wouldn't worry me one bit. Of all that, I do think the Republicans have a problem with religious beliefs taking over the party. I don't know of any other major conservative party in the world which puts things like evolution in question the way they do. Although I suspect it's not endemic within the party, the moderates within the party should be doing more to establish a more mainstream view as the primary position.
  - gaulinmp 16y ago
    ~Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. Your opening statement is pointlessly inflammatory. He obviously just has a different risk preference than you do. Why be so antagonistic? Personally I'm all for having a Nuclear power plant in my back yard, but I would also respect other's aversion without mockery.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  We are a long way from Chernobyl, the state of the art in nuclear power generation is not at all the same. Pardon the snarkiness a little bit, but your fear nuclear power because of catastrophes like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island is about as rational as my fear of flying because jetliners in the 50s weren't very safe.
hugh3 16y ago
True, but on the other hand arguing against nuclear power or GMO crops isn't nearly as crazy as arguing against evolution. One is based on a misconstruing of risks (some of which remain a bit fuzzy anyway) while the other is based on being a complete fricking wacko. To put it another way, you can easily have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about whether nuclear power is a good idea; you can't have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about evolution.
- orangecat 16y ago
  Agreed. Religion is the differentiator, not political ideology. You can also have rational disagreements about whether global warming is a serious threat.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Indeed you can (despite the attempts of some folks who attempt to claim that you can't).
zcid 16y ago
I completely agree with you about nuclear power. I don't understand why people fail to realize the vast improvements in safety made over the last 20 or 30 years. I won't claim they're 100%, but I would live next to a reactor without any fear. The GMO crops issue is a little more complicated though. The human body is extraordinarily complex and small changes in our environment and diet can create totally unexpected and undetectable chain reactions with results appearing decades later. I put enough effort into my health and well-being that I try to avoid anything that could negatively affect my body. GMO crops might be worth the chances in 3rd world countries where starvation is an ever-present reality, but they will not be seen on my plate any time in the near future.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Not to mention anything related to economics, as I mentioned above. All that nonsense about "fair trade", the complaints about Chinese currency (see Chuck Schumer), and on and on, has absolutely no basis in the real science.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Isn't chinese currency idiocy bipartisan? I mean http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/republicans-rip-treasury-for-weakkneed-report-on-chinese-currency.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/republicans-... certainly suggests that powerful Republican leaders believe it wholeheartedly.

sachinag 16y ago

Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. To paraphrase badly, liberals opposed to both are concerned about Black Swan events. Your assessment of the risk and that of those of us who are a bit more "reactionary" are just different, but it doesn't mean that we willfully misrepresent the science.

LargeWu 16y ago
Chernobyl is ancient history when it comes to nuclear technology. Pretty much all of the problems with catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants have been solved, yet many on the left still oppose it, almost out of tradition, rather than because of any compelling scientific argument.
- locopati 16y ago
  There's also a distrust of the companies that would run such operations, seeing as the Republican party is often anti-regulation/oversight. A bad combination when it comes to nuclear power, imho.
  - LargeWu 16y ago
    There are plenty of power plants presently operating quite safely under the current regulatory scheme. Can you point to any specific concerns you have, or is this just FUD?
yummyfajitas 16y ago
...fail in catastrophic fashion...Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. And the catastrophe was what, exactly? It was so minor that I must have missed it. Incidentally, I don't believe your fear of catastrophic failure is the real motivation. I believe it's a post-hoc rationalization. My reasoning? There has only been one serious nuclear accident ever, and it was caused by deliberate negligence [1]. Various socialist policies, when carried out by people being deliberately negligent or malicious, have failed far more catastrophically than Chernobyl. Yet most liberals don't tend to oppose them. [1] Go read about it. Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems (which would, if left active, have shut the reactor down safely). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
- crpatino 16y ago
  >>> Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems ... If you think about it, that's pretty scary. Even if the science behind this is fully understood and the engineers flawlessly put alarms, locks and backups for every possible failure mode, it only takes one idiot manager to overrule them all and have the safety systems turned off. Makes you wonder about all those other things you are told "cannot possibly go wrong"...
brc 16y ago
Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. One easily prevented, catastrophic failure with relatively minor flow-on effects is not enough to fear nuclear power. Regular power sources drip-feed death and destruction on a regular basis, but because they don't all happen at once, the numbers go unnoticed. Similarly, anti-GM crops is circular logic. All food products we eat are long-since modified from their original native or wild source. The struggle within science to find a place for the bible within the geological record has been going on for at least 2 centuries. As such I don't see the problem being resolved anytime soon. Some of the towering giants of science have bent themselves out of shape trying to retro-fit biblical tales into natural history, and that doesn't invalidate their other contributions. What I'm saying here is that holding an irrational position on evolution doesn't necessarily devalue a scientists value, as long as they aren't primarily studying evolutionary-related fields. If the person who comes up with a cure for cancer doesn't believe in evolution, personally it wouldn't worry me one bit. Of all that, I do think the Republicans have a problem with religious beliefs taking over the party. I don't know of any other major conservative party in the world which puts things like evolution in question the way they do. Although I suspect it's not endemic within the party, the moderates within the party should be doing more to establish a more mainstream view as the primary position.
- gaulinmp 16y ago
  ~Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. Your opening statement is pointlessly inflammatory. He obviously just has a different risk preference than you do. Why be so antagonistic? Personally I'm all for having a Nuclear power plant in my back yard, but I would also respect other's aversion without mockery.
potatolicious 16y ago
We are a long way from Chernobyl, the state of the art in nuclear power generation is not at all the same. Pardon the snarkiness a little bit, but your fear nuclear power because of catastrophes like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island is about as rational as my fear of flying because jetliners in the 50s weren't very safe.

hugh3 16y ago

True, but on the other hand arguing against nuclear power or GMO crops isn't nearly as crazy as arguing against evolution. One is based on a misconstruing of risks (some of which remain a bit fuzzy anyway) while the other is based on being a complete fricking wacko. To put it another way, you can easily have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about whether nuclear power is a good idea; you can't have two honest and sensible scientists arguing about evolution.

orangecat 16y ago
Agreed. Religion is the differentiator, not political ideology. You can also have rational disagreements about whether global warming is a serious threat.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Indeed you can (despite the attempts of some folks who attempt to claim that you can't).

zcid 16y ago

I completely agree with you about nuclear power. I don't understand why people fail to realize the vast improvements in safety made over the last 20 or 30 years. I won't claim they're 100%, but I would live next to a reactor without any fear. The GMO crops issue is a little more complicated though. The human body is extraordinarily complex and small changes in our environment and diet can create totally unexpected and undetectable chain reactions with results appearing decades later. I put enough effort into my health and well-being that I try to avoid anything that could negatively affect my body. GMO crops might be worth the chances in 3rd world countries where starvation is an ever-present reality, but they will not be seen on my plate any time in the near future.