3 ms·

Science, reason and rationalism are not incompatible with an ego. If you believe in some right and wrong, there should also be an emotion, and eventually an act

by guylhem 15y ago

Science, reason and rationalism are not incompatible with an ego. If you believe in some right and wrong, there should also be an emotion, and eventually an action. I don't think selling ourselves is an overstatement here. And I would also say that we have one of the least scientific generation- not only because enrollment is scientific studies is low, but also because there is now a pride in being ignorant. Also, while trying to protect everyone feelings, all opinions are considered as equally valid - even when some proved wrong. If that is not selling ourselves, how do you call that? I only took organic food as an example of what one must love to be "in", trendy, hipster. A dissending opinion, even based on scientific facts, seems to be frowned upon by hipsters, and by extension the new moral order. In the organic food example, we want to believe in something other than facts. This is not science. Let's follow that example, see http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/26/norman-borlaug-happy-95th-birt http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/26/norman-borlaug-happy-95th-... - with organic food alone, the earth population would have to be around 4 billions. We're 7 billions. Oops. Internal consistence for organic food proponents would require suggesting china-like one child policy or genocides. Here, the "selling generation" is using emotional engagement as a sale tactic, for "feel good" stuff. Personally, I boycott organic food. I usually ask if the food I'm about to order is organic. If it is organic, I ask for something else. If I can not be served food that is not organic, I explain that I boycot organic food, and that I have to place my order somewhere else. Regardless of your analysis of the organic food, you can say that's is very bold, and unfashionable, in today's culture. So I guess I won't be a social media icon. Never mind :-)

TheEzEzz 15y ago
> with organic food alone, the earth population would have to be around 4 billions. We're 7 billions. Oops. And if everyone had a car and lived like Americans then the world would be in a tough spot as well. That doesn't mean I'm going to give up my good life. I eat organic because I don't trust non-organic food, because I don't want to eat animals that lived their lives in feces, themselves consuming ground up animals that were too sick to survive. Is organic scalable? It'd be great if were, and I encourage industry to try, but I'm not in it to save the world, I'm in it for myself.
- guylhem 15y ago
  "I'm not in it to save the world, I'm in it for myself" At least, that's self consistent and honest. Maybe not a good sales strategy though.
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    That strategy would sell to me better, than dishonest "organic saves the world" rhetoric.
quanticle 15y ago
The one big flaw with that interview is that it doesn't compare organic farming with western agriculture in terms of long-term viability. Yes, the carrying capacity of the Earth is only 4 billion with organic farming. But I don't know that mechanized farming can do much better over the long haul. If we look at the third world, organic agricultural techniques actually do much better than mechanized production methods, even when measured in yields alone. The reason for this is that not everyone has forty feet of topsoil, like we do in Kansas. In a lot of places, the soil is marginal, and simply cannot hold up to intensive agriculture for more than couple of years. Mechanized agriculture on land like that is disastrous and leads to crop failure and famine within a decade (for example, Ethiopia). The only way to make these lands agriculturally viable is with organic farming techniques. [1] That said, I do agree with the point you're trying to make, even if I disagree with the specific example. We should support or oppose things not because it is fashionable to support or oppose them, but because of reasons that we've worked out for ourselves. [1] Scott. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Measures to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press. 1999. Print. EDIT: fixed typo
bluedanieru 15y ago
>And I would also say that we have one of the least scientific generation- not only because enrollment is scientific studies is low, but also because there is now a pride in being ignorant. Jersey Shore aside, I have to disagree with this. We have a media culture that celebrates ignorance, but I don't think you can really trust media to represent actual culture anymore. We have an over-achieving culture that misses the point in a lot of ways, and I'm certainly not saying that this generation values scientific endeavor more than e.g. the WWII generation, but it certainly does not value ignorance.

by guylhem 15y ago

TheEzEzz 15y ago

> with organic food alone, the earth population would have to be around 4 billions. We're 7 billions. Oops. And if everyone had a car and lived like Americans then the world would be in a tough spot as well. That doesn't mean I'm going to give up my good life. I eat organic because I don't trust non-organic food, because I don't want to eat animals that lived their lives in feces, themselves consuming ground up animals that were too sick to survive. Is organic scalable? It'd be great if were, and I encourage industry to try, but I'm not in it to save the world, I'm in it for myself.

guylhem 15y ago
"I'm not in it to save the world, I'm in it for myself" At least, that's self consistent and honest. Maybe not a good sales strategy though.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  That strategy would sell to me better, than dishonest "organic saves the world" rhetoric.

quanticle 15y ago

The one big flaw with that interview is that it doesn't compare organic farming with western agriculture in terms of long-term viability. Yes, the carrying capacity of the Earth is only 4 billion with organic farming. But I don't know that mechanized farming can do much better over the long haul. If we look at the third world, organic agricultural techniques actually do much better than mechanized production methods, even when measured in yields alone. The reason for this is that not everyone has forty feet of topsoil, like we do in Kansas. In a lot of places, the soil is marginal, and simply cannot hold up to intensive agriculture for more than couple of years. Mechanized agriculture on land like that is disastrous and leads to crop failure and famine within a decade (for example, Ethiopia). The only way to make these lands agriculturally viable is with organic farming techniques. [1] That said, I do agree with the point you're trying to make, even if I disagree with the specific example. We should support or oppose things not because it is fashionable to support or oppose them, but because of reasons that we've worked out for ourselves. [1] Scott. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Measures to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press. 1999. Print. EDIT: fixed typo

bluedanieru 15y ago

>And I would also say that we have one of the least scientific generation- not only because enrollment is scientific studies is low, but also because there is now a pride in being ignorant. Jersey Shore aside, I have to disagree with this. We have a media culture that celebrates ignorance, but I don't think you can really trust media to represent actual culture anymore. We have an over-achieving culture that misses the point in a lot of ways, and I'm certainly not saying that this generation values scientific endeavor more than e.g. the WWII generation, but it certainly does not value ignorance.