For the better part of this century, the federal government has promoted the notion
that only government-funded science is real
science, and the private sector is the icky kind that, let's face it, the kind of people who overwhelmingly prefer to stay in academia dislike. (1)
so-called "March for Science
" will occur April 22nd 2017. I have half a mind to show up either wearing a sing extolling the climate change fighting virtues of nuclear power
OR with a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide AND another petition banning all use of vaccines. I'll bet I'd get at least 1 out of every 10 people at any such march to sign for those bans.
Often the term technology explosion is used to indicate the rapid growth of technology in areas such as information technology or biotechnology. Usually, the assumption is that innovation creates great new approaches and products that will improve our conditions. Often this advance is true and beneficial but do we really want technology advances to explode? The word explode is often associated with reactions that are out of control and usually cause significant damage. We often feel some technology out of our control when we are bombarded with new IT systems that promise efficiencies but often are incompatible with each other and shift the burden of the workflow.
An article in The Federalist:
contains a section based on a 2016 report
In today's hyper-politicized culture, honest disagreement is a challenge. Social media, which has become a sewage pipe of blatant political partisanship and unscientific propaganda, has accelerated this disturbing trend. If two otherwise intelligent people disagree on something, accusations of being a liar, fraud, or paid shill are often quick to follow.
The prospect of a peaceful right wing revolution from the heart is no more but an April fools’ day joke
to those high on hate such as Andrew Anglin. I would not be surprised if, as the hole at the other end of Ezra Levant’s dildo also suspected
, such is supported by (((groups))) interested in focusing the alt-right into an obviously anti-Semitic stance in order to condemn as well as ensure that the associated aggressive negativity traps the enemy in internal conflicts and frustration.
Where by "It" I really mean the Future of mankind. The human race is facing huge new challenges in the XXI century, and we are only starting to get equipped to face them.
The biggest drama of the past century was arguably caused by the two world conflicts and the subsequent transition to nuclear warfare: humanity had to learn to coexist with the impending threat of global annihilation by thermonuclear war. But today, in addition to that dreadful scenario there are now others we have to cope with.
Never compare between only Blacks (B) and others for example, or only Caucasian Whites (CW) and B. One should consider at least three together instead of only two. For example, consider also the North East Asians (NEA). Why? Without considering NEA, B and CW are merely two different regions in whatever parameter space, say crime rates, and all interpretations are still on the table. But relative to B, NEA are almost invariably on the other side of the CW data points, at even higher intelligence, even less crime, even less sexual dimorphism/rape, even higher GDP, graduation rates, and so on.