4 ms·

FTA..."In general the geoengineering world is populated by very overconfident, overwhelmingly male figures who don’t make me feel at all reassured that they hav

by jqm 12y ago

FTA..."In general the geoengineering world is populated by very overconfident, overwhelmingly male figures who don’t make me feel at all reassured that they have learned the lessons of large-scale technological failure." As opposed to if they were female? Would the author be more confident then? Funny how the sex stereotypes seem to pass unchallenged when they are against males. The rest of the article isn't much better if it saves anyone 10 minutes.....

ZenoArrow 12y ago
You can reduce it to a simplistic men vs. women argument if you want, but I don't think that's what the author is trying to communicate. The issue being addressed is one of balance... The real question being asked by that statement is whether people from a similar background end up thinking in similar ways. Experience is ultimately tied to the individual, but do you feel more kinship to those from a similar background? Even if you don't, can you see why there are social tendencies in this direction? The author is arguing that the group of people taking leadership on geoengineering decisions may not have the diversity of opinion needed to have a proper debate on how best to proceed. She's making more than just the 'overwhelmingly male' point, the 'very overconfident' point is equally telling. Surely with complex topics you'll have people who have strong doubts about what is being done, the lack of these voices may indicate it's hubris talking rather than a questioning-style reflection. A counter argument is that the confidence exists because it's not a complex topic. Perhaps you can think of others.
- jqm 12y ago
  It was a sexist statement. If the author intended something besides naked sexism, she failed at conveying it. I personally find sexism to be a rather stupid point of view (as well as being offensive). Also, the premise of the article was foolish to begin with. There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality. Also, what people are offered is what they can chose to view. So who is doing this type of writing? What are their motives? Are there solid metrics that this type of writing is becoming more preferred? *See posts above for more repudiations. One last thing... what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality? I found it a very poor article overall and it certainly makes me think less of Wired for publishing it.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    "It was a sexist statement." in your opinion. In my opinion it was not. Effective verbal communication requires more than just a speaker that thoughtfully chooses their words, it also requires listeners that can interpret in a flexible way. One way to do this is to be able to consider different levels of meaning. Take the word 'male' out of the statement we're discussing... now, what point do you think the author is trying to make? "There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality." Have you never heard of 'life imitating art'? VR is probably a good example, there are a number of high profile people in the VR field who cite specific works of cyberpunk fiction as a strong early influence. I can name them if you'd like? It'd also be possible to illuminate the influence that Star Trek has had on our technology. What I find is that most people consume fiction about the future as entertainment, but later when certain aspects of it become possible they're welcomed as 'the future' because that's what we've been led to expect from the future. For example, try to imagine a future where we give up on high tech and figure out another path to take... see that idea in much of our media? No, it's clear we expect much more tech in our future (as long as society doesn't collapse). That singlemindedness came out of somewhere. "what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality?" Science does not exist in a vacuum, it is interwoven into the world in which we live. Putting aside the main corrupting influences placed upon science itself (money and ego), so that we can assume scientific research is a pure field, there are frequently new ethical questions surrounding the direction that scientific research follows. It is important that scientific research is sensitive to the culture in which it inhabits. Having a diversity of opinion guiding science helps strengthen the outcome. If you believe science should not be restrained by societal concerns then I can share some ideas that may give cause to reconsider.
    - jqm 12y ago
      If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other.... I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science. Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels. Which, btw, also require some knowledge and qualification besides being a third rate hack writer who makes sexist statements.... Uninformed opinions are cheap. Knowledge and good thinking skills are rare.

by jqm 12y ago

ZenoArrow 12y ago

You can reduce it to a simplistic men vs. women argument if you want, but I don't think that's what the author is trying to communicate. The issue being addressed is one of balance... The real question being asked by that statement is whether people from a similar background end up thinking in similar ways. Experience is ultimately tied to the individual, but do you feel more kinship to those from a similar background? Even if you don't, can you see why there are social tendencies in this direction? The author is arguing that the group of people taking leadership on geoengineering decisions may not have the diversity of opinion needed to have a proper debate on how best to proceed. She's making more than just the 'overwhelmingly male' point, the 'very overconfident' point is equally telling. Surely with complex topics you'll have people who have strong doubts about what is being done, the lack of these voices may indicate it's hubris talking rather than a questioning-style reflection. A counter argument is that the confidence exists because it's not a complex topic. Perhaps you can think of others.

jqm 12y ago
It was a sexist statement. If the author intended something besides naked sexism, she failed at conveying it. I personally find sexism to be a rather stupid point of view (as well as being offensive). Also, the premise of the article was foolish to begin with. There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality. Also, what people are offered is what they can chose to view. So who is doing this type of writing? What are their motives? Are there solid metrics that this type of writing is becoming more preferred? *See posts above for more repudiations. One last thing... what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality? I found it a very poor article overall and it certainly makes me think less of Wired for publishing it.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  "It was a sexist statement." in your opinion. In my opinion it was not. Effective verbal communication requires more than just a speaker that thoughtfully chooses their words, it also requires listeners that can interpret in a flexible way. One way to do this is to be able to consider different levels of meaning. Take the word 'male' out of the statement we're discussing... now, what point do you think the author is trying to make? "There is no evidence that preferred entertainment becomes reality." Have you never heard of 'life imitating art'? VR is probably a good example, there are a number of high profile people in the VR field who cite specific works of cyberpunk fiction as a strong early influence. I can name them if you'd like? It'd also be possible to illuminate the influence that Star Trek has had on our technology. What I find is that most people consume fiction about the future as entertainment, but later when certain aspects of it become possible they're welcomed as 'the future' because that's what we've been led to expect from the future. For example, try to imagine a future where we give up on high tech and figure out another path to take... see that idea in much of our media? No, it's clear we expect much more tech in our future (as long as society doesn't collapse). That singlemindedness came out of somewhere. "what exactly does diversity have to do with scientific reality?" Science does not exist in a vacuum, it is interwoven into the world in which we live. Putting aside the main corrupting influences placed upon science itself (money and ego), so that we can assume scientific research is a pure field, there are frequently new ethical questions surrounding the direction that scientific research follows. It is important that scientific research is sensitive to the culture in which it inhabits. Having a diversity of opinion guiding science helps strengthen the outcome. If you believe science should not be restrained by societal concerns then I can share some ideas that may give cause to reconsider.
  - jqm 12y ago
    If sexist statements are simply a matter of opinion than there probably really aren't any at all by some measure or the other.... I believe scientists (aka people who have taken the time to study and learn) should do science. Not anyone with a diverse opinion. There is plenty of room for guidance at the funding and application levels. Which, btw, also require some knowledge and qualification besides being a third rate hack writer who makes sexist statements.... Uninformed opinions are cheap. Knowledge and good thinking skills are rare.