3 ms·

A general anti-science movement really hurts human progress with these 3 particularly bad: 1) anti vaccines 2) anti GMO 3) anti nuclear Great to see Dems star

by option 6y ago

A general anti-science movement really hurts human progress with these 3 particularly bad: 1) anti vaccines 2) anti GMO 3) anti nuclear Great to see Dems starting to endorse nuclear after decades of oppositions (see John Kerry’s boneheaded earlier efforts to kill it)

legulere 6y ago
You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture farming.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants That needs a bit more justification. It certainly hasn't been true for the last 40 odd years and by extension most of the anti-nuclear types probably are also anti-science. Generally they're the sort of people who'll hold global warming up as a real problem and then argue that Fukushima is an unacceptable risk. It is hard to hold both those positions and be heavy on the science. On the scale that global warming is a risk the risk from a nuclear plant can't even be detected. I've lived next to a coal fired power plant; the science is very, very clear I'd have better life outcomes if I'd lived near a nuclear one.
- option 6y ago
  I thought having enough healthy food with as small of environmental impact as possible is good for human progress /s
  - legulere 6y ago
    You mean reducing meat consumption? Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories. It would even have a big positive environmental impact.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Then those people should be anti-pesticide / anti-monoculture not anti-GMO. That's like being anti-steel because weapons are being made out of steel.
a_imho 6y ago
Labeling differing opinions antiscience really hurts discussion and quite ironic.

by option 6y ago

legulere 6y ago

You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture farming.

roenxi 6y ago
> You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants That needs a bit more justification. It certainly hasn't been true for the last 40 odd years and by extension most of the anti-nuclear types probably are also anti-science. Generally they're the sort of people who'll hold global warming up as a real problem and then argue that Fukushima is an unacceptable risk. It is hard to hold both those positions and be heavy on the science. On the scale that global warming is a risk the risk from a nuclear plant can't even be detected. I've lived next to a coal fired power plant; the science is very, very clear I'd have better life outcomes if I'd lived near a nuclear one.
option 6y ago
I thought having enough healthy food with as small of environmental impact as possible is good for human progress /s
- legulere 6y ago
  You mean reducing meat consumption? Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories. It would even have a big positive environmental impact.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Then those people should be anti-pesticide / anti-monoculture not anti-GMO. That's like being anti-steel because weapons are being made out of steel.

a_imho 6y ago

Labeling differing opinions antiscience really hurts discussion and quite ironic.