Carl Sagan's Warning 25 years ago

submitted by Brewdabier from youtube.com

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

Probably not a coincidence that Margaret Thatcher was probably the most scientifically literate leader ever in the anglosphere but also the most hated.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Science also gave us eugenics, which was later proven to be unscientific. Thatcher's administration is as difficult to understand fully as is Reagan's administration, but one sin stands out in both cases: they - whittingly or unwhittingly - set the gears in motion to glean the middle and lower classes of their potential and the fruits of their labour, whilst the 1% took the increasing share of the profits, hoarding that money overseas.

[–]Vrepit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

eugenics, which was later proven to be unscientific.

What is "Selective Breeding"? Why is it extensively used in animal husbandry and in agriculture?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-019-0109-y

“Race” is far more than ancestral/inherited DNA and is far more than geographically patterned morphological variation like skin color. But because the analogy between races and dog breeds incorrectly privileges biology over the social and historical factors that have led to the development of racial constructs, ...genetic data fails to substantiate the racial categorizations used in the U.S. today and their equivalence to dog breeds.

[–]Vrepit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You poor dear. Did you actually read the article? It essentially said that humans are more complex than dogs, therefore breeds/race/ethnicity is a social construct. They leaned heavily on nurture as opposed to nature to further obfuscate their forgone conclusion. Their politically motivated cobbled together conclusion did not proffer any detailed studies of selectively breeding homosapiens and they made it clear that it was a desperate attempt to discredit some scary racist boogeyman hiding in the closet.

What is Genetic Engineering of Humans and why would these 'authors' claim that it would not work?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You've obviously not understood the essay. Again:

the analogy between races and dog breeds incorrectly privileges biology over the social and historical factors that have led to the development of racial constructs, ...genetic data fails to substantiate the racial categorizations used in the U.S. today and their equivalence to dog breeds.

[–]Vrepit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, little padwan. Race and ethnicity is a scientific/biological construct, anything else is an imaginative abstraction. There are proven genetic "clusters" with common traits, including physical and psychological similarities/propensities. This concludes that either through intentional reproductive strategy (eugenics) or genetic engineering, that this will enhance and bring these common traits to dominant expression. Why are you anti-science?

For example my little simpleton friend: If a group of people with a genetic proclivity for being a.) tall b.) musically gifted c.) tendency for obsessive compulsive disorder are intentionally preferred and then promoted via reproduction through 3-ish + generations, then their offspring will exhibit a greater than 50+ % tendency toward dominant expression of these 3 traits. You know this. Don't be so fking stupid and don't play me or anyone else for being as stupid as you're feigning to be.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OK - silly billy - I think we're done

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I think you'll find the cost of tradesmen went up massively during the Thatcher administration. There were actually more opportunities for the working classes who wanted to take them. They were then of course undercut when the boarders were opened and those jobs went back to being seen as lesser.

The upper middle class were obviously not so happy about having to pay the help more.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

One data point won't work. Income inequality increased dramatically after 1979 in the UK (and US), due to "conservative" policy, known since then as the "radical right" policy. It's well known.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/01/is_inequality_iniquitous.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/e1jrvw/oc_salaries_vs_house_prices_in_uk/

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/

https://www.ft.com/content/d52743ca-c669-4c71-941f-8281230a21b5

https://www.health.org.uk/chart/chart-income-inequality-and-government-share-of-health-expenditure-in-the-uk

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

None of those links show any big change during Thatcher's time in power.

What a waste of time.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They do. For example, at the first link, top graph, contrast bar graphs for 1979 and 1990, regarding the top 10% (light blue lines) and bottom 10% (brown lines). (You should know how to do this, given your profession.)

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

A smart guy no doubt, but I've never been able to get through one of his books because the gut feeling that it was written by a total prick was so strong.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Tone policing hurts discourse.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lol, how was that "tone policing?" I was just making an observation.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for your note. I think arguments on Saidit about 'tone politicing', or 'bad faith' or whatever are really dumb. We have a right to our opinions on a "free speech" website. So, say anything you wish, IMO, as this contributes to the discussions.

I like the way Sagan popularized science for millions (billions?) of people. I've not seen anything that indicates he's a prick, and I had thought I was very familiar with his activities over the past few decades. He has critics in the science community who think he's dumbed-down the subject too much. His warnings are important, however.

Just curious: what did you discover that shows he was a prick?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't really know much about the guy. I just tried reading Contact a few times and the "tone" of it, if you will, turned me off. Just made me think I wouldn't get along with the author. For all I know, he was a wonderful person.

[–]Brewdabier[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

100 % right, he knew what was going to happen.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

yep

[–]package 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Huh weird I've definitely seen videos of Sagan looking this old but never in a context where I recognized him Sagan and not just some random talking head.