Intellectuals arent always right though

[RestlessSoul]

Is there a problem with oil and weapons? Both are what is demanded by politicians and citizens.

Look at the history of the development of nuclear power. The man that figured out chain reaction has his patent filed in secret because he knew how nuclear power could be misused. Eventually he realized the knowledge of chain reaction would be understood by other physicists and he felt that if anyone would have nuclear weapons it should be the British admiralty, and Britain's allies. It was known that Germany was developing these weapons and scientists were caught in a more dilemma.

After the bombs from Los Alamos were proven to work this same scientist asked Einstein to help draft a letter to Roosevelt to not use the bombs on civilian targets. he wanted the bombs demonstrated to an international audience, including Japanese representatives so they could consider surrendering before more lives were lost. As we know Roosevelt died, and Truman decided to drop the bombs on three cities, but only two were bombed.

Scientists only figure out how nature works, and when it is dangerous it is up to politicians and societies to use these discoveries responsibly and safely. As we know fossil fuel use is causing serious problems to the climate and it may be too late to make adjustments.

Is there a problem with oil and weapons? Well I don’t know about you, but I find an industry dedicated to the development of technologies that can kill ever greater numbers of humans with increasing efficiency, just a tad problematic, yes.

I also find an industry with such an appalling record of environmental damage as the oil industry somewhat problematic also; not to mention the lobbying of politicians and the wars that have been fought, to further the interests of that industry.

One problem I don’t have, not having made “Science” my religion, is the need to defend practitioners of that religion, for their contribution to the damage those two industries have done.

 

[Lars]

Not really. Marxism is just a system that aims to balance the advantaged from the disadvantaged. How any government is formed is open. I think you are just looking at Russia's history as if it is a good example of Marxism. It isn't.


When you say "welfare state" I take it you are ignoring how corporations get loads of benefits and tax breaks, and only focus on those who are disadvantaged in society and can't compete with the middle class.

The reason welfare is necessary in the USA is because basic wages are so low that unskilled workers have few options to make ends meet. Welfare is more how the government subsidizes the low wages by companies. The workers should be getting a wage that is more consistent with the cost of living, but conservatives oppose this as they cut taxes on the obscenely rich. Greed at work.


Trump was very authoritarian, so there's no real cause/effect you're implying. What Socialism aims to do is create a structure that society and business can operate so there's less of the dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, let the chips fall where they will type brutality we see in the USA. The USA its highly competitive and that often offsets the moral responsibility we have as civilized people. Socialism has a built-in moral framework that Capitalism completely lacks.


fascism is bad, period. Marxism is too idealistic and doesn't allow for human failings.

That is why most developed nations have a compromised set of economic and social structures in place to help guide business and morality.

Marxism is literally call for revolution though. Its in the manifesto. But problem with USA is the voting system is based around two party system, rather than parties of a party you agree with. Centralized voting creates bully culture aswell. European voting system is superior in context to that, but American innovation is great in lots of ways of researchers etc

Voting for socialism or communism in USA (its bad enough as it is with two party system that its barely a democracy) But enforcing socialism is just gonna make the country more authoritarian.

 

[Aštra’el]

fascism is bad, period.

I disagree.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I disagree.

What are some examples of good fascism?

 

[Aštra’el]

What are some examples of good fascism?

“Bad” or “good” according to whom?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

“Bad” or “good” according to whom?

You.

 

[Secret Chief]

What are some examples of good fascism?

The uniforms?

 

[Aštra’el]

You.

Those words have no meaning to me in this context. It might be clearer to you if I said: I understand that fascism can be an extremely effective and efficient course for a group to achieve its objectives.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Those words have no meaning to me in this context. It might be clearer to you if I said: I understand that fascism can be an extremely effective and efficient course for a group to achieve its objectives.

Alright. But so far, it hasn't panned out too well.

 

[F1fan]

Is there a problem with oil and weapons? Well I don’t know about you, but I find an industry dedicated to the development of technologies that can kill ever greater numbers of humans with increasing efficiency, just a tad problematic, yes.

This is an issue that's only became apparent about 25 years ago. Before that gasoline and burning coal was how the planet thrived. Today progressives are advocating for green energy while the conservatives are still lingering in their 1950's attitudes.

I also find an industry with such an appalling record of environmental damage as the oil industry somewhat problematic also; not to mention the lobbying of politicians and the wars that have been fought, to further the interests of that industry.

One problem I don’t have, not having made “Science” my religion, is the need to defend practitioners of that religion, for their contribution to the damage those two industries have done.

Nobody has made science their religion, so I guess you're one of us. Note it is scientists today advocating for green energy. It's the religious right side of politics that are not on board with it. That's Christianity at work interfering with progress. That's actual religion, not your misrepresentation.

 

[F1fan]

Marxism is literally call for revolution though. Its in the manifesto. But problem with USA is the voting system is based around two party system, rather than parties of a party you agree with. Centralized voting creates bully culture aswell. European voting system is superior in context to that, but American innovation is great in lots of ways of researchers etc

Notice a lot of big revolutions through history? French. Russia. USA.

the USAs binary party system has problems for sure. It has more now that one party has no interest in cooperation.

Voting for socialism or communism in USA (its bad enough as it is with two party system that its barely a democracy) But enforcing socialism is just gonna make the country more authoritarian.

Well it's a good thing no one is suggesting socialism be voted on, isn't it?

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is an issue that's only became apparent about 25 years ago. Before that gasoline and burning coal was how the planet thrived. Today progressives are advocating for green energy while the conservatives are still lingering in their 1950's attitudes.


Nobody has made science their religion, so I guess you're one of us. Note it is scientists today advocating for green energy. It's the religious right side of politics that are not on board with it. That's Christianity at work interfering with progress. That's actual religion, not your misrepresentation.

Not every issue can be reduced to this dichotomy of religious right vs enlightened, scientific progressives. Outside of the USA, where I presume you live, humans don’t fall so readily into those two camps, usually holding to more complex, overlapping identities.

Perhaps your outlook is a product of your environment - as everyone’s is, to an extent. Maybe make the effort to understand that the USA is not the world. Assigning everyone you communicate with into one of two camps, unrecognisable to most of the world anyway, is a barrier to understanding and a propogator of pointless hostility.

Not all scientists advocate for green energy; some are employed by petrol companies to
produce bogus reports denying climate change.

Many spiritual leaders around the world draw repeated attention to the perilous position in which the world finds itself due to greed, rampant materialism, and social inequality.

There is no religious right in my country, that I am aware of. The British Labour movement has roots in many diverse religious as well as secular communities and traditions. The Archbishop of Canterbury, like his predecessors, has frequently been an outspoken advocate of social justice, fairness and equality, and been told to keep his nose out by successive conservative politicians and institutions as a result.

 

[Kooky]

Those words have no meaning to me in this context. It might be clearer to you if I said: I understand that fascism can be an extremely effective and efficient course for a group to achieve its objectives.

If your goal is ethno-religious violence and genocide against minorities, sure.
In terms of goals more sensible people would support, however, fascist countries had a laughably terrible track record.

 

[F1fan]

Not every issue can be reduced to this dichotomy of religious right vs enlightened, scientific progressives. Outside of the USA, where I presume you live, humans don’t fall so readily into those two camps, usually holding to more complex, overlapping identities.

Republicans and Democrats can agree on some things. But the politics in the USA is heavily partisan, and this has been the plan since the mid 90's with Gingrich who was building on Reagan's anti-government rhetoric. I don't see many conservatives willing to exist in no-man's-land politically, and even moderates have aligned with the bad faith of the GOP and even the social media nonsense that gets spread like a deadly virus, pun intended.

Perhaps your outlook is a product of your environment - as everyone’s is, to an extent. Maybe make the effort to understand that the USA is not the world. Assigning everyone you communicate with into one of two camps, unrecognisable to most of the world anyway, is a barrier to understanding and a propogator of pointless hostility.

I'm under no illusion that the USA is the whole world. And I allow anyone I engage with to state their positions on any given issue. But I won't ignore the patterns I observe.

Not all scientists advocate for green energy; some are employed by petrol companies to
produce bogus reports denying climate change.

Of course. I have an uncle who is a Ph.D. chemist but is a creationist. I find that fascinating. There are even climate scientists who are hired guns for oil and coal. They are paid for their work and have sold out the future, to some degree. But also note that some experts understand that we will continue to use gasoline for many decades to come and they are doing research on more efficient fuel mixes that create less carbon pollution. You do acknowledge we can't outlaw gasoline tomorrow, yes?

Many spiritual leaders around the world draw repeated attention to the perilous position in which the world finds itself due to greed, rampant materialism, and social inequality.

And it's too bad they don't have more influence. The religious right in the USA certainly doesn't care. There is evidence they actually want the world to burn because many think the End Times are coming, and environmental crisis is part of their salvation.

There is no religious right in my country, that I am aware of. The British Labour movement has roots in many diverse religious as well as secular communities and traditions. The Archbishop of Canterbury, like his predecessors, has frequently been an outspoken advocate of social justice, fairness and equality, and been told to keep his nose out by successive conservative politicians and institutions as a result.

Europe as a whole is a lot more hip and progressive than the USA. The Democrats/liberals/progressives want to be open and diverse and globally responsible like Europe but Republicans/conservatives/moderates are wanting the be independent cowboys on the planet. There is a greater rift. The right has abandoned their moderate views, and ethics, almost completely. So elections and the USA system are heading down a path that might collapse in the next decade.

 

[Yazata]

Intellecutals aren't always right

Of course not. I don't think that any human being or anything produced by humans is always, necessarily right. That goes for religious scriptures, university professors, government officials and journalists.

In the last few years we have seen a dramatic increase in arguments from authority. Which can easily turn into authoritarianism.

Because they are supposedly the superior ones, the born leaders, today's neo-aristocrats ("Intellectuals!") and we are the little people, the proles, the followers whose obligation is to believe whatever the better people tell us (on pain of being condemned as "deniers", today's equivalent of "heathen").

So what is the general public to do?

My prescription is to take everything they tell you with an initial attitude of skepticism.

How big that skepticism needs to be might be a function of the perceived credibility of the source.

How biased do they seem to be? Do they seem to have any financial interest or ideological objective in trying to convince you of something? Are they talking about their own field of expertise or about something distant from it in hopes that their prestige in the former will sway you in the latter. (Scientists talking about politics or religion for instance.) What is their past track record? How well does what they say cohere with what you already know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Intellectuals arent always right though
In the past, doctors recommended smoking. So just being authority figures on something doesnt make them right is all.
When Smoking Was Just What the Doctor Ordered | The Saturday Evening Post
...

No, neither are you or I. So I don't trust anything say besides Intellectuals arent always right though. Nobody is that special. expect you, right? We can trust you, right?

 

[Kooky]

Infallibility is not a sensible requirement for trustworthiness.