17 ms·

Not sure that works. That's like telling a child, "Watch out for that car. Oh! Lookout for that one, too." And the kid thinks, "Well, neither of those hit me

Not sure that works. That's like telling a child, "Watch out for that car. Oh! Lookout for that one, too." And the kid thinks, "Well, neither of those hit me, why should I care?" And the next one flattens him. Just because you can pick two things from the past that didn't turn out as expected doesn't mean the next potential danger isn't valid. Now, maybe we come up with some clever CO2 scrubbing technology and we start engineering the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean the danger doesn't need to be addressed. There was a lot of work that went into finding new ways to get oil and regulation to improve the air. Without acknowledging the problem we could have had those catastrophes.

wolfgke 7y ago
> Not sure that works. That's like telling a child, "Watch out for that car. Oh! Lookout for that one, too." And the kid thinks, "Well, neither of those hit me, why should I care?" And the next one flattens him. Let natural selection do its job.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  We prove our fitness by surviving.
  - antisthenes 7y ago
    Individual survivorship != survival of advanced civilization.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      In this case, it applies to both. A civilization too demonstrates fitness by surviving.
mistermann 7y ago
> Just because you can pick two things from the past that didn't turn out as expected doesn't mean the next potential danger isn't valid. Correct, perhaps those issuing the warnings should accept the unfortunate reality that this is how average people behave and adjust their messaging. Rather than repetitive warning after warning, why not pool resources and focus on building and improving one single large educational resource that tells the whole story (including full disclosure of the uncertain and imperfect aspects, rather than having people learn of those in conspiracy forums, in order to build trust) from a variety of angles so it is approachable by people from all different intelligence and economic levels? More of the same isn't going to work.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Part of the problem is that there isn't a centralized Science Propaganda Council issuing these warnings, which could be told to do better. Scientists publish studies and sometimes strongly worded letters; journalists and authors pick it up and twist into something that (then) sells publications / (now) attracts eyeballs to advertisements; people mishear these reports further, freak out and tell to each other (or, today, post on social media).
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > Part of the problem is that there isn't a centralized Science Propaganda Council issuing these warnings, which could be told to do better. The layman listening to how this is covered could very easily come to the exact opposite conclusion ("97% of scientists....!!"), and much of the armchair experts seem to behave as if there was. But this is my point: why isn't there something akin to a centralized Science Propaganda Council where the very best science on the matter is agreed upon by the experts, and open to criticism by those who disagree? Isn't this how any large project would be organized (well, the "central" part of it if not the openness to criticism)? Does having a bunch of splintered groups arguing inconsistent viewpoints seem like the optimal approach to something that may very well be an existential threat to life as we know it on the planet? > Scientists publish studies and sometimes strongly worded letters; journalists and authors pick it up and twist into something that (then) sells publications / (now) attracts eyeballs to advertisements; people mishear these reports further, freak out and tell to each other (or, today, post on social media). Bingo. And intelligent people sincerely wonder why this isn't having success. The situation is so utterly absurd to me, it boggles my mind that no one else seems to notice any imperfections in our current approach (and this applies to all the issues facing the world, not just this one).

wolfgke 7y ago

> Not sure that works. That's like telling a child, "Watch out for that car. Oh! Lookout for that one, too." And the kid thinks, "Well, neither of those hit me, why should I care?" And the next one flattens him. Let natural selection do its job.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
We prove our fitness by surviving.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  Individual survivorship != survival of advanced civilization.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    In this case, it applies to both. A civilization too demonstrates fitness by surviving.

mistermann 7y ago

> Just because you can pick two things from the past that didn't turn out as expected doesn't mean the next potential danger isn't valid. Correct, perhaps those issuing the warnings should accept the unfortunate reality that this is how average people behave and adjust their messaging. Rather than repetitive warning after warning, why not pool resources and focus on building and improving one single large educational resource that tells the whole story (including full disclosure of the uncertain and imperfect aspects, rather than having people learn of those in conspiracy forums, in order to build trust) from a variety of angles so it is approachable by people from all different intelligence and economic levels? More of the same isn't going to work.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Part of the problem is that there isn't a centralized Science Propaganda Council issuing these warnings, which could be told to do better. Scientists publish studies and sometimes strongly worded letters; journalists and authors pick it up and twist into something that (then) sells publications / (now) attracts eyeballs to advertisements; people mishear these reports further, freak out and tell to each other (or, today, post on social media).
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Part of the problem is that there isn't a centralized Science Propaganda Council issuing these warnings, which could be told to do better. The layman listening to how this is covered could very easily come to the exact opposite conclusion ("97% of scientists....!!"), and much of the armchair experts seem to behave as if there was. But this is my point: why isn't there something akin to a centralized Science Propaganda Council where the very best science on the matter is agreed upon by the experts, and open to criticism by those who disagree? Isn't this how any large project would be organized (well, the "central" part of it if not the openness to criticism)? Does having a bunch of splintered groups arguing inconsistent viewpoints seem like the optimal approach to something that may very well be an existential threat to life as we know it on the planet? > Scientists publish studies and sometimes strongly worded letters; journalists and authors pick it up and twist into something that (then) sells publications / (now) attracts eyeballs to advertisements; people mishear these reports further, freak out and tell to each other (or, today, post on social media). Bingo. And intelligent people sincerely wonder why this isn't having success. The situation is so utterly absurd to me, it boggles my mind that no one else seems to notice any imperfections in our current approach (and this applies to all the issues facing the world, not just this one).