[Leonardo maia]

We are scientists, but we are the minority. The global population don't have enough information to stop pollute or awareness other person.
Imagine one world inhabited by scientists, would be a dream, everybody knows what to do to preserve oceans, rivers, forests, the nature in general.
We need do something.
This is the reason that I registered, that write for you and that I criated my blog (yesterday), to give culture and information to more people to get.
But I need your help to disclose this blog and to create others.

Link removed by Moderator

Thank you, Leonardo maia.

[CaptainPanic]

A world with only scientists would be a nightmare. We would never agree on anything.

But I agree that good education is very important (if that's what you meant to say).

[dimreepr]

Leonardo maia, on 20 December 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

We are scientists, but we are the minority. The global population don't have enough information to stop pollute or awareness other person.
Imagine one world inhabited by scientists, would be a dream, everybody knows what to do to preserve oceans, rivers, forests, the nature in general.
We need do something.
This is the reason that I registered, that write for you and that I criated my blog (yesterday), to give culture and information to more people to get.
But I need your help to disclose this blog and to create others.

My URL: link removed by Moderator


Thank you, Leonardo maia.

captain panics right but unfortunatly polititions are just as bad at agreeing. I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

This post has been edited by Phi for All: 22 December 2011 - 03:42 AM

[CaptainPanic]

dimreepr, on 21 December 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

[...]unfortunatly polititions are just as bad [as scientists] at agreeing.

It's not the same:

A government formed by scientists would never even arrive at the decision making, because they would get stuck discussing the measurements and conclusions. We would never arrive at any new situation.

At least politicians will force decisions sometimes. Most of the time, it's the wrong decision, or at least it won't improve the situation... but at least ther eis change. And with luck, and by iterations, given enough time, we get to a desirable situation.

dimreepr, on 21 December 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

In a plane full of scientists, they would all be doing calculations, and measurements. And everybody would be attending the last presentation in the back of he plane by the time they hit the mountain.
In a plane full of politicians, there would be 16 pilots, and 48 copilots. Nobody would know how to fly a plane... but at least it would be changing course all the time. With ups and downs, there is at least a small chance it misses the mountain.

(Yes, I exaggerate).

[Phi for All]

Leonardo maia, on 20 December 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

This is the reason that I registered, that write for you and that I criated my blog (yesterday), to give culture and information to more people to get.
But I need your help to disclose this blog and to create others.

Link removed by Moderator

Thank you, Leonardo maia.

!

Moderator Note

Sorry Leonardo maia, if this is the only reason you joined, you'll have to look elsewhere. We're not here to advertise for you.

If you would like to stay and discuss science, you are more than welcome. After 30 posts, you can even create a blog here, which may give you even better exposure. But it's our policy not to let new members link to outside sites. We get too many spammers to allow it.

I hope you stay, and I hope you participate, and I hope you create a blog here.

[Moontanman]

dimreepr, on 21 December 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

captain panics right but unfortunatly polititions are just as bad at agreeing. I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

I have to agree with this model of human behavior, we seem to have an innate desire for someone in charge to make a decision. A leader if you will, up until quite recently, historically that is, humans tended to gather around one strong individual who made all the decisions. This worked out well for simple agrarian societies and loyalty to the local Lord or King, if he made good decisions, insured every one got to eat for the winter among other things. The idea of rule by some sort of consensus is relatively new and has some kinks to work out, the problem is we might ruin things before we work the kinks out of the system.

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 21 December 2011 - 03:32 PM

[Phi for All]

Moontanman, on 21 December 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

I have to agree with this model of human behavior, we seem to have an innate desire for someone in charge to make a decision. A leader if you will, up until quite recently, historically that is, humans tended to gather around one strong individual who made all the decisions. This worked out well for simple agrarian societies and loyalty to the local Lord or King, if he made good decisions, insured every one got to eat for the winter among other things. The idea of rule by some sort of consensus is relatively new and has some kinks to work out, the problem is we might ruin things before we work the kinks out of the system.

What's really stupid is, in the US right now, the two party system we've got is so evenly split that most of what one party does is opposed by the other party, even if it's a good idea. All the good that gets done by one side is unraveled by the other side as soon as they can.

And it doesn't help that the Republicans are trying to woo the average Joe by making science and intellectuals out to be untrustworthy. I can understand the motivation to undermine public education so they can privatize it, but they're actually dumbing down the populace with this campaign against anything that requires study and rigor.

[JustinW]

From a political view it works both ways. The conservative doesn't want industry regulated(jobs lost) based on speculation and an environmentalist wants to regulate on speculation no matter how many it puts out of work.

Or, the environmentalist want the world saved, because no one will have a job if the earth is destroyed, and the conservative just uses that as propaganda to get the struggling worker on their side. You see...both ways.

This is a matter of suggesting climate change is man made, or induced by man made emmisions, which I still don't know if I believe. I guess this would be the place to argue such since we are in earth sciences.


I don't believe I agree with you Moontanman. You can go back through history and find democracy in many different forms. From government to military decisions. I don't think it is as recent as you suggest.

Quote

It's not the same:

A government formed by scientists would never even arrive at the decision making, because they would get stuck discussing the measurements and conclusions. We would never arrive at any new situation.

I believe it would probably be based on the method that is used by scientists now to make decisions. Just take the best model you can come up with at the time and run with it.

P.S. If you had a plane full of scientists, at least they would be able to calculate with what force they will hit the mountain as a last ditch effort at further knowledge. The polititions would float safely to the ground from being so full of hot air.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 21 December 2011 - 06:10 PM

[Moontanman]

JustinW, on 21 December 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

I don't believe I agree with you Moontanman. You can go back through history and find democracy in many different forms. From government to military decisions. I don't think it is as recent as you suggest.

Possibly I mislead you by using "historically recent" Go back far enough and you will see lots of odd forms of governance, but until the last few hundred years almost all of humanity owed allegiance to some sort of king or lord then back to tribal leader to head man of the village, even if this man more or less ruled because everyone thought he was a good leader once he was in that role his word was law, the middle ages is a good example of a leader leading because someone else, usually the church gave him the power to do so. Democracy is quite rare in the past, and quite possibly now as well if you really get down to it....

Phi for All, on 21 December 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

What's really stupid is, in the US right now, the two party system we've got is so evenly split that most of what one party does is opposed by the other party, even if it's a good idea. All the good that gets done by one side is unraveled by the other side as soon as they can.

And it doesn't help that the Republicans are trying to woo the average Joe by making science and intellectuals out to be untrustworthy. I can understand the motivation to undermine public education so they can privatize it, but they're actually dumbing down the populace with this campaign against anything that requires study and rigor.

Politics in the US has degenerated into the equivalent of a school yard bullies running the show because they can and crying like little children when things don't quite go the way they think they should. The older I get the more the government looks like a group of little kids fighting over the ball.... while the school house burns down...

[JustinW]

Yes I get what you're saying. I was thinking about the role of the Roman senate. Although it could be argued that they still had a Cesear to answer to. Military decision was also based upon democracy for a length of time.

Also good political analogy.

[Phi for All]

JustinW, on 21 December 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

From a political view it works both ways. The conservative doesn't want industry regulated(jobs lost) based on speculation and an environmentalist wants to regulate on speculation no matter how many it puts out of work.

I don't think that's a conservative stance, I think it's a corporate one. Regulation eats into profit, but it also usually represents the best balance of efficiency and safety. Corporations want to shave every fraction of a percent they can from operating costs. A true conservative appreciates spending the right amount of resources on doing something safely rather than underestimating and having huge expenses when something goes wrong.

Quote

Or, the environmentalist want the world saved, because no one will have a job if the earth is destroyed, and the conservative just uses that as propaganda to get the struggling worker on their side. You see...both ways.

It should be obvious to everyone by now that non-sustainable policies are, again, the cheap workhorse for corporate short-sightedness. Saving the world is only expensive when it's opposed by those who want their money quickly, at the expense of those who come after.

Quote

This is a matter of suggesting climate change is man made, or induced by man made emmisions, which I still don't know if I believe. I guess this would be the place to argue such since we are in earth sciences.

Everyone I see who is opposed to AGW always suggests that correction will be too expensive, and they always overlook the fact that if everyone were to get behind it, it would be half as expensive as they're leading everyone to think it will be.





@ the OP, I think a world full of any one type of people would be horrible. If everyone was a scientist, the music would probably suck, the fiction would be boring and the architecture would all be right angles.

[JustinW]

Quote

I don't think that's a conservative stance, I think it's a corporate one. Regulation eats into profit, but it also usually represents the best balance of efficiency and safety. Corporations want to shave every fraction of a percent they can from operating costs. A true conservative appreciates spending the right amount of resources on doing something safely rather than underestimating and having huge expenses when something goes wrong.

Again Phi, you show me the error of my ways. I was trying to corrolate environmental regulations to corporate employment, and visa versa. Regulation is not good for buisness. Regulation blocks and sometimes cuts growth of employment. That is the point that I was trying make, that conservatives argue for job growth over environmental regulation when there is no consensus for environmental outcome. But on the other hand some regs are necessary for environmental quality. But to base regulation off of opinions or findings that don't even hold consensus is to stunt job growth.



http://www.msnbc.msn...ws-environment/ case in point. Now don't get me wrong, I know there is a need to cut down on pollution for health reasons. But I can't shake a nagging feeling that if the emmisions from these plants weren't linked to medical problems, the EPA would've found another route, such as man made global warming, etc...

This post has been edited by JustinW: 21 December 2011 - 10:08 PM

[Phi for All]

JustinW, on 21 December 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

Regulation blocks and sometimes cuts growth of employment.

I disagree. If anything, a regulation requiring cost-benefit analyses or safety-testing before a new product is sold to the public actually employs more people, since someone has to do the testing or analysis compliance. Remove the regs and you lose those compliance jobs too.

What you actually have here are corporations who know a product will sell for x under current regulatory cost models. If they can make the regulations go away, claiming it will create more jobs, they can save the regulatory costs and treat it as profit.

These are the same corporations who promised job creation if the Bush tax cuts were extended. You haven't forgotten that little lie, have you? How well did THAT work out for us?

[kitkat]

Moontanman, on 21 December 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

Possibly I mislead you by using "historically recent" Go back far enough and you will see lots of odd forms of governance, but until the last few hundred years almost all of humanity owed allegiance to some sort of king or lord then back to tribal leader to head man of the village, even if this man more or less ruled because everyone thought he was a good leader once he was in that role his word was law, the middle ages is a good example of a leader leading because someone else, usually the church gave him the power to do so. Democracy is quite rare in the past, and quite possibly now as well if you really get down to it....




Politics in the US has degenerated into the equivalent of a school yard bullies running the show because they can and crying like little children when things don't quite go the way they think they should. The older I get the more the government looks like a group of little kids fighting over the ball.... while the school house burns down...

Yes, and those bullies are forming a army against us as we speak. Yahoo news - North Dakota - police are gearing up in military uniform and obtasining the newest and greatest weapons.

[mississippichem]

CaptainPanic, on 21 December 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

A world with only scientists would be a nightmare. We would never agree on anything.

I disagree.
No one else did, so I had to.

This post has been edited by mississippichem: 21 December 2011 - 10:57 PM

[CharonY]

I disagree with you disagreeing.

[Phi for All]

CharonY, on 21 December 2011 - 11:36 PM, said:

I disagree with you disagreeing.

I guess we just need to agree to disagree with you disagreeing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Phi for All, on 22 December 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

I guess we just need to agree to disagree with you disagreeing.

I disagree.

[mississippichem]

If it wasn't paradoxical to disagree with all of you simultaneously I would.

[iNow]

Phi for All, on 21 December 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:

Sorry Leonardo maia, if this is the only reason you joined, you'll have to look elsewhere. We're not here to advertise for you.

Quote within post #3 was missed.