Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[DGuller]

Once upon a time the US were at the forefront of human progress and science...  Now Creationism, Climate Change denial, Voodoo Economics, Religious invocations left right and center - hold sway among large segments of your population...

With nukes on top of it all.




G.

It's not like US didn't have retarded people before the last few decades.

[Grallon]

It's not like US didn't have retarded people before the last few decades.

What has changed then for these idiosyncratic beliefs to gather such support/momentum?  Is the rot settling in?



G.

[The Brain]

The crazy was much, much stronger in the US in all previous eras.

[Viking]

It's not like US didn't have retarded people before the last few decades.

What has changed then for these idiosyncratic beliefs to gather such support/momentum?  Is the rot settling in?



G.

Every three generations or so a religious revival sweeps the USA leading to some sort of conflict. Previously Prohibition, Abolition and The Great Revival have all started with religious fervor leading to a culmination (The Civil War or The Revolutionary War (the great depression pre-empted any violent prohibition conflict)). The violence usually exhausts or discredits the religious fervor. The question is now, what will burn out Dominionist Fervor?

[Neil]

Incidentally, I think the P-L Commonwealth analogy works quite well for the US.

Like the US, it was at its height a rather badass country, with substantial military prowess. Like the US, it had a rather advanced political system compared to its rivals during its golden age. Like the US, it was a relatively good place to live for ordinary people and had more checks and balances on its power than its rivals. Like the US, it was more often a "good guy" (or at least saw itself as such) compared to its rivals, and had a "manifest destiny" type of narrative to its myth.

What ruined it was: (i) fetish-like devotion of its body politic to "ancient privileges", making it eventually ungovernable, (ii) opposition of its body politic to taxation, making it unable to maintain its dominance, (iii) its political system, while being more "free" than that of its key rivals, was also much less efficient and effective, (iv) its antielitism, and (v) numerous wars.

I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections.

Numerous wars?  Really?  The modern US doesn't really get involved in numerous wars, but I'll give you the other four points.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I think the P-L Commonwealth analogy works quite well for the US.

Like the US, it was at its height a rather badass country, with substantial military prowess. Like the US, it had a rather advanced political system compared to its rivals during its golden age. Like the US, it was a relatively good place to live for ordinary people and had more checks and balances on its power than its rivals. Like the US, it was more often a "good guy" (or at least saw itself as such) compared to its rivals, and had a "manifest destiny" type of narrative to its myth.

What ruined it was: (i) fetish-like devotion of its body politic to "ancient privileges", making it eventually ungovernable, (ii) opposition of its body politic to taxation, making it unable to maintain its dominance, (iii) its political system, while being more "free" than that of its key rivals, was also much less efficient and effective, (iv) its antielitism, and (v) numerous wars.

I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections.

Numerous wars?  Really?  The modern US doesn't really get involved in numerous wars, but I'll give you the other four points.

I didn't necessarily say that these five points that killed P-L are all present in the US, just that this is what they should watch out for.

The main difference is that the US has a much better geopolitical position - although in the age of globalization, it's a question how long it can be "unreachable" to, say, China.

[Neil]

Forever.  China can never pose an existential threat to the US the way that the Emperors and the King of Prussia did Poland.

[Martinus]

What about economic or cybernetic threat?

[Neil]

What about economic or cybernetic threat?

There's no such thing as a 'cybernetic threat', but they already are an economic threat, and that's not a big deal.  There are dozens of economic threats to the US, and always have been.  Economic threats aren't all that serious to the US, because their fundamentals are still strong.  What's the worst that could happen?  The bubble that has inflated over the last few decades could burst and living standards could fall to pre-Reagan levels.  That's not really so bad.

[Ideologue]

I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.

There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.

This isn't just innocent skepticism.  They aren't asking questions about Evolution because of unsolved questions concerning it.  They are rejecting it out of hand because it conflicts with their view of religion.  The skepticism about Climate change is not genuine scientific concern, but because their donors stand to lose billions of dollars if regulations are passed as a result of such research.  Would they question Climate change if the consensus said we need to put more greenhouse gases in the air?  The only times when science is being attacked is because someone is feeling threatened by it.  That's not rational, and it's anti-science.

Defending your interests isn't rational? OK.

Not if you don't have a clear conception of what your interests actually are.  No one, or very few, stand to benefit in the long-term from climate change.

[dps]

Every three generations or so a religious revival sweeps the USA leading to some sort of conflict. Previously Prohibition, Abolition and The Great Revival have all started with religious fervor leading to a culmination (The Civil War or The Revolutionary War (the great depression pre-empted any violent prohibition conflict)). The violence usually exhausts or discredits the religious fervor. The question is now, what will burn out Dominionist Fervor?

Yeah, the Civil War sure discredited abolitionism.  Damn good thing, to;  if abolitionism had ever really caught on I wouldn't be able to have slave girls to draw my bath.

[Razgovory]

Not if you don't have a clear conception of what your interests actually are.  No one, or very few, stand to benefit in the long-term from climate change.

More importantly ignoring reality because it's in your self interest is just not rational.  I may wish I can fly, and if being chased by lions to the edge of a cliff it would be in my self interest to be able to fly.  But me jumping off the cliff believing I can fly because I want too is not really rational.

[Barrister]

Not if you don't have a clear conception of what your interests actually are.  No one, or very few, stand to benefit in the long-term from climate change.

[MadImmortalMan]

Only way to separate A from B is to also separate B from A. As long as science has interests in politics, politics will keep fucking with science.

[besuchov]

Every three generations or so a religious revival sweeps the USA leading to some sort of conflict. Previously Prohibition, Abolition and The Great Revival have all started with religious fervor leading to a culmination (The Civil War or The Revolutionary War (the great depression pre-empted any violent prohibition conflict)). The violence usually exhausts or discredits the religious fervor. The question is now, what will burn out Dominionist Fervor?

Yeah, the Civil War sure discredited abolitionism.  Damn good thing, to;  if abolitionism had ever really caught on I wouldn't be able to have slave girls to draw my bath.

He did'nt say it discredited abolitionism, he saids it discredited religious fervor. It's in the text you quoted.