4 ms·
With all due respect, in my mind whether scientific studies "bother someone" or not shouldn't really be a primary concern. What should be primary concern is un
by datashovel 12y ago
With all due respect, in my mind whether scientific studies "bother someone" or not shouldn't really be a primary concern. What should be primary concern is understanding these phenomena and whether or not they truly have a long term impact on humanity's well being.
Lack of water, mass starvation, and other similar problems should be more of a concern than whether a news story "bothers someone".
- happyscrappy 12y agoScience does not care if it offends the left or the right and frankly the center is more reasonable. Starvation comes from bad logistics not some disproven Malthusian claptrap.
- datashovel 12y agoI can't seem to respond to your most recent comment, but one thing I find interesting is I think (at least for my own sake) I've found a fundamental idea that may be what wedges people on these issues, but never seems to get expressed in these comment threads. I get the impression that many people with views which (for the most part) dismiss warnings about environmental issues, etc. have a fundamental belief that the earth will always be habitable by human beings. (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth). Whereas I, along with probably many others who are more sensitive to environmental issues, think this is far from a certainty. EDIT: Didn't know the numbers off the top of my head, but here's what Google had to say: 1) # of years where life has existed on Earth: 3.5 billion 2) # of years humans have been on earth: 200,000 So given these numbers humans have been around for 0.0057143% of the entire history of life on earth. EDIT #2: Given these numbers it seems uncertain we're anything more than an anomaly (ie. intelligent life) in the history of life on earth.