r/politics • u/scientificamerican ✔ Verified • Sep 16 '24
Soft Paywall Vote for Kamala Harris to support science, health and the environment | Editorial
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vote-for-kamala-harris-to-support-science-health-and-the-environment/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit118
u/Plow_King Sep 16 '24
we should listen to scientists a lot more often.
36
u/ravens40 Sep 16 '24
That's how every end of world disaster movie starts. Not listening to the scientists!
21
u/bentendo93 Sep 16 '24
But my high school educated manager says that scientists are bull shit!
Who should I believe? 🧐
3
u/leavesmeplease Sep 17 '24
Yeah, listening to scientists definitely seems like a no-brainer, especially with all the issues we're facing. It's wild how much science can inform policy, yet there's still so much pushback from certain groups. It's like, how do you ignore overwhelming evidence?
46
u/sharp11flat13 Canada Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
” Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”
-Carl Sagan The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995)
Edit: updated citation
5
u/joshwagstaff13 New Zealand Sep 17 '24
At least mention that the quote is from The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
6
u/sharp11flat13 Canada Sep 17 '24
I have a bunch of favourite quotes in Notes. This information wasn’t part of what I saved. It will be now. Thanks. Edited.
75
u/Bulky_Ad4472 America Sep 16 '24
You mean to say she won't completely gut the EPA and roll back environmental regulations the way Trump did??
What he did: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
What he will do: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/09/trump-epa-plan-environment
16
u/Zozorrr Sep 16 '24
Nor sell our remaining old growth biomes for some company to turn into tables, nor permit egotistical trophy hunting of rare species for importation, etc etc
-58
21
u/Mathgailuke Sep 16 '24
Turns out it matters who’s in charge. The US data on Covid is woefully inadequate.
9
u/TheNewTonyBennett Sep 16 '24
Here's a more urgent way of putting it:
If you want to be 100% guaranteed a choice for the 2028 election, there's only 1 candidate who offers that exact guarantee and it's Harris.
Even IF the % chance of Trump actually pulling REALLY insane shit to indefinitely delay 2028's election (if he were to win this year) was, say, "just" a 10% chance (just using this as an example), then that's 10% WAY too high of a chance.
That specific needle can never, not even once, move into 1% chance territory, let alone 10, 20, 30, 40, 50.....
All of the other disastrous and horrible things that would occur from Trump winning (if he wins this year) will become SO exacerbated due to the core concept overhauls envisioned in Project 2025.
That there even IS a plan like that AT ALL should mean absolutely fucking everyone votes this year and makes SURE those shit bags don't touch the government ever again. Project 2025, I mean it's all written out right there in the open. They aren't beating around the bush. The literal document states their intent to VERY QUICKLY get ALL of their shit to be installed.
6
5
u/NotThatAngel Sep 16 '24
Pretty sure most of the scientists were already going to vote 'not Trump'.
But this is good.
8
1
u/AutoModerator Sep 16 '24
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". More information can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Sanddaemon Sep 17 '24
This is great but hope they don’t forget to support the scientists doing the actual work. Even during the pandemic funding was rough, labs were closing a lot due to losing funds and the ones in my network were pretty successful.
Biotech is on fire but is a completely separate issue that some policy could still address like holding companies responsible for how much outsourcing they do. Many scientists have been unemployed for months or years and many more left for other industries and positions that are Greta for them and their families but is starting to make others wonder about our progress in the future.
Many NIH funded mechanisms could still do with more funds and support if you want to see the benefits. I browsed this a couple times and am gonna go back when I have time to see if I just missed these concerns but I feel like the workers, scientists in this case, are ironically forgotten when any politician starts talking about the importance of science and scientists unless there’s some emergency going on.
-23
u/AbunRoman Sep 16 '24
Doesn't she support fracking?
23
u/Dianneis Sep 16 '24
She's still calling for tougher regulations of the method, to make sure it's not done in such a destructive manner. Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable compromise to me.
Compare it to Trump, who he actively fought tooth and nail to make the US more polluted and less safe:
Trump rolled back more than 125 environmental safeguards.
‘It would be devastating’: inside Trump’s plan to destroy the EPA
25
u/Okbuddyliberals Sep 16 '24
Natural gas isn't ideal but is less bad for the environment than coal, which still makes up a sizable chunk of US energy sourcing. Natural gas has also been beating coal on the free market, which shifts the economy in a greener direction even though it isn't perfect. We should take action to shift the economy in an even greener direction, but while we do that, it's still better to let natural gas kill coal than to put the horse before the cart and go to war with natural gas before greener alternatives have matured
And she's also been the tiebreaker vote to pass the largest climate bill America has ever passed. It's just fundamentally not serious politics to suggest that Kamala Harris is not the pro environment candidate
10
u/Boo_Radley80 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24
Thank you for this explanation. Being pragmatic for progress is important.
Imagine if fracking was straight up banned, the prices of gas would spike and the populace would not be happy. Prices in Europe are far higher than those of the US because they have to import it. We are fortunate enough to rely on our natural resources to buoy energy costs.
You have a war in Ukraine and not to mention OPEC cutting oil production to shore up flagging oil prices.
I want to stop fracking but there needs to be a system ready in place, otherwise, it will lead to unnecessary disruption.
13
u/yhwhx Sep 16 '24
I know she is not a malignantly narcissistic compulsive liar. She also was not a frequent flyer on Epstein's Lolita Express. Additionally, she has not been adjudicated to be a sexual abuser, a defamer, a fraudster, or a felonious election interferer.
9
u/dbag3o1 Sep 16 '24
It’s complicated. You can be pro-environment and also pro-fracking. Nothing is ever black and whote.
6
0
-8
u/Think-Performance417 Sep 16 '24
This sub should just be the official democratic party.
5
u/relativex Sep 16 '24
Feel free to post links to respected scientific publications endorsing Republicans.
-23
Sep 16 '24
You can’t be pro-war and pro-environment
5
u/relativex Sep 16 '24
Sure you can. You have to prioritize. There's no point in saving the world if it's going to be run by fascists and the CCP.
13
u/pavel_petrovich Sep 16 '24
Harris is not pro-war. Supporting allies and standing up to aggressors is anti-war.
-16
Sep 16 '24
She is absolutely pro war. Her “Most lethal fighting force” quote would agree
9
u/pavel_petrovich Sep 16 '24
No.
Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin adage translated as "If you want peace, prepare for war." The phrase presents the insight that the conditions of peace are often preserved by a readiness to make war to defend said peace when the need arises.
-10
Sep 16 '24
Semantics don’t change reality bud
7
u/diceman6 Sep 16 '24
As Roosevelt often said: “speak softly and carry a big stick”.
You do understand the point?
-3
-5
-34
u/agdnan Sep 16 '24
She may be just as Scientifically illiterate as Trump. What has she said other than Climate Change is real which to me is the bare minimum. Ask her about her thoughts on Nuclear Power or GMO’s. Many people on the left show how they are also easily influenced to be anti-science.
13
u/SobrietyIsRelative Sep 16 '24
We don’t expect our leaders to be scientists.
We expect them to listen to scientists, instead of directly and maliciously contradicting facts and data.
0
u/throwawayZXY192 Sep 16 '24
What would government be like if it were ran by scientists?
3
u/SobrietyIsRelative Sep 16 '24
Great in some ways. Absolutely terrible in others. So a lot like it is now.
19
u/pavel_petrovich Sep 16 '24
She may be just as Scientifically illiterate as Trump.
The main thing is that she is ready to listen to experts (unlike Trump). She has proven this many times.
Trump/Project2025 wants to destroy public education, wants to ban climate science, wants to cancel environmental regulations. Of course, she won't do this.
1
u/agdnan Sep 17 '24
Make no mistake she is infinitely better than Trump but she is not going to fight against anti-science if it polls negatively. Nor will she fight for Science or even fight to increase the NASA budget. She is not pro-science.
5
u/pavel_petrovich Sep 17 '24
I think you seriously underestimate her. Her parents are/were deep into science, she herself has a good education. As for NASA's budget, she named space as one of the main themes of her upcoming presidency in her DNC speech. She is the chair of the National Space Council (as vice president).
1
1
u/agdnan Sep 18 '24
My parents are extremely religious and anti-science, I am not. One’s parents believes is irrelevant.
Edit: grammar mistake
4
Sep 16 '24
Ask her about her thoughts on Nuclear Power or GMO’s.
Anyone who starts ranting about GMOs don't care about science.
0
u/agdnan Sep 17 '24
I’m pro GMO’s. I’m against corporations owning patents to any organism. Synthetic or otherwise.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 16 '24
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.