11 ms·
A lot of comments are rightfully pointing out the destructive nature of this move. But looking at it from another angle, is it possible this is a symptom of a d
by globalview 1y ago
A lot of comments are rightfully pointing out the destructive nature of this move. But looking at it from another angle, is it possible this is a symptom of a deeper problem?
What if a significant portion of the electorate no longer believes institutions like the EPA are neutral arbiters of science, but instead see them as political actors pushing an agenda? If that belief is widespread, is an action like this seen not as 'destruction', but as 'dismantling a biased system', even if it seems counterproductive to the rest of us?
- throwawaymaths 1y agocan we imagine no other ways besides the EPA to take care of the environment? if we can't, then it was always a precarious situation.
- ImaCake 1y agoArguably, institutions like the EPA exist to moderate extremes. The EPA simulatenously prevents industry from causing cancer clusters and extinctions while also preventing eco-terrorism. All the science, surveys, and purple prose done by the EPA and consultants is arguably kinda bullshit, but it is very useful bullshit because its a whole lot better than assassinated mining executives and hospitals full of throat cancer victims.
- throwawaymaths 1y agowow. so as our society our only options are "do nothing" or "murder executives". i am sorry for your worldview.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoWhat do you suggest as the alternative? I'm genuinely curious.
- ImaCake 1y ago>our only options are "do nothing" or "murder executives". Well no, we can have some form of mediator institution which arbitrates such debates peacefully. You could also setup a ritualised debate implicitly agreed to by both parties so you could do this without an EPA - this is essentially how humans did things before we invented rationalised nation states. You should avoid silly personal attacks, you might get better responses from people.
- apical_dendrite 1y agoA significant portion of the electorate believes that the government is hiding aliens, or that the political leadership are all secretly lizard people (whether this is meant literally or as a metaphor for Jews or whether they think Jews are secretly lizard people depends on the person). There are vast and necessary government functions that most of the electorate doesn't understand or doesn't value or completely misunderstands. Even on hacker news I frequently see people completely misunderstanding how, for instance, scientific research gets funded in the US. And the readership of this site is far more likely than a random sample of Americans to know about scientific research. Dismantling chunks of the government based on the ignorance of some portion of the electorate is just bad policy.
- ivape 1y agoDo we have real proof that a sizeable portion of Americans believe in the secret lizard people thing? Best I could find: https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/... "Do you believe that shape-shifting reptilian people control our world by taking on human form and gaining political power to manipulate our societies, or not?" 11% said yes or were unsure. That's from 2013, so I can't even begin to imagine what a poll from today would look like.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoCome to Texas. Qualitatively, the answer is a thunderous, enthusiastic "yes".
- freeone3000 1y ago11% said yes or were unsure?! One in fucking ten people, in the most generous interpretation, did not know whether the government were secretly shape-shifting aliens. God, how did we get here.
- dash2 1y agoYeah, but some proportion of those were joking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischievous_responders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischievous_responders
- discordance 1y agoUnfortunately you’re right, this is more about beliefs.
- mcphage 1y ago> What if a significant portion of the electorate no longer believes institutions like the EPA are neutral arbiters of science, but instead see them as political actors pushing an agenda? They do, but it’s not a belief they came upon accidentally. It was pushed over decades using billions of dollars and multiple media conglomerates.
- guelo 1y agoI think the original sin of this political era is the Citizen United ruling that money is free speech and corporations are persons.
- consumer451 1y ago> What if a significant portion of the electorate no longer believes institutions like the EPA are neutral arbiters of science, but instead see them as political actors pushing an agenda? This is clearly the case. The next question is, how did this happen? Did these people come to this conclusion based on their own diligent research, or were they led to this opinion by supremely funded vested interests that influence every branch of our society?
- dash2 1y agoFor sure Fox et al. have been pushing the idea that scientists have biases, but it can also be true that science has become more biased. Update: a little evidence. This doesn't cover change over time, but it strikes me as fairly extreme, unless you are willing to go very far down the "reality has a liberal bias" road: https://github.com/hughjonesd/academic-bias https://github.com/hughjonesd/academic-bias
- throwaway4220 1y agoLiberal in US = center right
- reliabilityguy 1y agoAs opposed to…?
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoScientists can have biases, but science itself is just a methodology for determining truth. The political leanings of the people publishing papers shouldn't matter at all. Anybody can read a study and point out the problems with it. Anything else is just ad hominem.
- thuridas 1y agoRepublicans not always do what the electorate wants. Abortion, gun control and releasing the Epstain list are have popular support but the are against it. Sometimes a small influential group can push for an agenda. That are more organized and have more money
- TrackerFF 1y agoI don't think the majority of electorates know that the EPA exists, let alone know what they do. This is nothing more than Project 2025 at work. It is so fucking sad that people, voting on vibes and single issues, sleepwalk into situations like this.
- e40 1y agoThey believe that because an elite few (Project 2025 authors and others) want all science to be demoted in the eyes of the public. Because that way lies control of the masses. The last thing an authoritarian leader wants is a challenge to his authority, one that scientists will almost certainly provide.