Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#101

Post by vvanders » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:20 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #94

croon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do?

> When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do? At least when it comes to GMO crops and food, there is a pretty strong anti-science movement in the Democratic Party, too [1]. When more than one third of all currently alive science and medicine Nobel laureates have signed a pro-GMO letter [2], it is pretty strongly anti-science to be anti-GMO. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo.…

The arguments against GMOs are economic not scientific. I'm fine with consuming GMOs but I'm not okay with only a few large corporations controlling the entire market.

I put Monsanto in the same category as Big Oil, they use their massive capital and weight to push smaller players out of the market and generally don't favor the consumer very much.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#102

Post by justin66 » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #74

virmundi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source…

> Why is it scaremongering? This is actually a mildly subtle point, which is why people who don't 'get it' are so immediately dismissive. There's nothing wrong with providing more information to consumers. Hell every product we sell could come with small book's worth of information about its chemical contents, health risks, place of origin, worker conditions which could be considered valuable to the buyer. The questi…

Another "mildly subtle" point: the anti-labeling thing is promulgated by pro-GMO lobbyists and pro-GMO business interests, but those people are engaging in very short-term thinking, as is so often the case in American business. If they were to support GMO labeling the whole thing would blow over as soon as the label became "normalized."

That's just a hypothesis, but based on the way genuinely unhealthy things tend not to have disappeared from the market just because they're on a label, I think it's true.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#103

Post by leesalminen » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

jackmott wrote: post #27

hueving wrote: post #11

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke. This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks…

The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They pick…

You sound like a pretty angry person. We really are all stronger together ;).

Instead of digging your heels in the ground why not stop for a minute and listen to those you disagree with and attempt to find an acceptable middle ground?

The future of this country is not a zero sum game.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#104

Post by mattferderer » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

jackmott wrote: post #27

hueving wrote: post #11

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke. This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks…

The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. I realize that you, like many people, simply do not see it that way, and imagine that there is some kind of equivalence or near equivalence in how corrupt and crazy both parties are, but most of us don't. What we are seeing is horrific, a party that is against reason and goodness and civility at almost every step. They pick…

The Republican party politicians rejected Trump. Voters in the primaries elected him as their candidate. Many Republicans wanted to pick someone else but were worried that it would destroy their party by failing to listen to voters.

You cannot paint all members of either party with a broad brush as you're doing. Believe it or not we are a diverse country & so are our politicians that are forced to join one party or the other. Many flip flop.

It appears that many Republicans are learning to work with Trump instead of fight against him. That (compromise) is a skill that makes a good politician by the way. It's something everyone should start trying to do. Trump is a person who has changed his views & party often. You can persuade Trump.

Extremism helped create Trump & win him the election. That is what this type of thinking is furthering. It is much more dangerous & long term than Trump.

- Obligatory I didn't vote for Trump and am not a member of either party -

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#105

Post by sqeaky » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

jdpedrie wrote: post #88

PhaseLockk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Two seconds of Googling reveals your bullshit. All of these people announced support for same-sex marriage after being elected, or after leaving public service. It seems unlikely that the republican party would run a new candidate that included support of gay marriage as part of their platform. Maybe I'm wrong though.

You do realize a Republican President was just elected who supported gay marriage, right? It wasn't a show stopper for him. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread.

What this one person does, particularly trump, is not indicative of the whole party. Republicans have a long history of being categorically against climate change, against civil rights, pro religion, against the separation of church/state and in general not big on silly little things like evidence or human compassion.

Trump is a special case in so many ways. Few of the republicans in power wanted him and he pretty much stole the the republican candidacy.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#106

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #85

knodi123 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it scaremongering? Because, like it or not, a label that says "note, this product contains acids" would alarm many people who would immediately ask themselves "Wait, why do they need to tell me that? Better just play it safe." > Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer? It's not about hiding information, it's about the regrettable fact that mandatory labelling communicates a lot more…

I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering. What I don't know, because I don't have source data, is what will spliced in gene based foods (that's what I mean by GMO, not the equivocation straw man people throw up in the Mendel sense) do to both the human GI tract and to the environment at a macro level. Until then, I'd…

You last paragraph, but for a few words would be the exact same thing I expect to hear from a climate change "skeptic"

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#107

Post by aaron-lebo » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

nkoren wrote: post #92

hueving wrote: post #11

>For now, 314 Action will only back Democratic candidates. Great. When you're being accused of being partisan, the best way to come back is to form an organization backing potential political candidates of just one party. What a joke. This is a squandered opportunity to try to get scientific minded people into running for the republican seats, which is how you would get real change in the discourse. Anyone who thinks…

Agreed. By most metrics I am very liberal (although am orthogonal to the left/right axis by some metrics), and I would love to see Republican primaries jammed up with intellectually honest science-believing fiscal conservatives. And should any of them make it through the primaries, I would be double plus thrilled to see a contest between two people who weren't batshit insane. We really, really need this. Having one p…

Agreed.

What happens if we get rid of the Republican party? Those same groups will coalesce as factions within the Democratic party and politics will just be more obscured. The single-party South didn't do anyone favors.

I think people are of the mindset that the Democratic party doesn't share a lot of the same issues. The Clinton coalition worked because it was full of conservative Democrats. As an example, how's this for mixing religion and politics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5NsrSPMGnc

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#108

Post by tyleraldrich » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #45

wavefunction wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The liberals It's highly unscientific to make such a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of liberals and leftists who will accept science and data that doesn't match their political agenda, just as there are still some conservatives who will. However the GOP has official policies opposing such nefarious plots as 'critical thinking.'

Sure, it's a generalization. This, within the English language, means anything over 60% of the population in question. I've had multiple conversations with well over 120 self described liberals from multiple parts of the US. Most of their reason for hating guns fall on "they're scary". That's not scientific. The reason I bring this up is the scientists in question are backing the Democrats. This party, to use another…

The gun debate isn't a scientific debate though. We're talking about things like climate change when we talk about how the Republican party is anti-science. I can flipflop your entire paragraph and it's just as meaningless because the whole "2nd Amendment" issue is more of a feelings/Constitution/rights debate. Most gun owners I know don't own guns because statistically guns aren't that bad. It's because they think they are fun, or they want to defend themselves, or because it's their right as an American.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#109

Post by redler » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:30 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #70

croon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for changing parties from within, but with: * Life starts at inception * Man-made climate change * Evolution (taught in school) * Not a single payer healthcare system when comparing to any industrialized country on earth * Anti-consumer ethics in FCC, compared to any other industrialized country on earth * Tax policies clearly aimed at keeping money flowing upwards, only very slightly veiled, yet again compar…

>If "progressive causes" == science backed causes, then go right ahead. No, "progressive causes" will be whatever is in vogue in the party. So anti-GMO with labeling campaigns and leverage the scientists to cast doubt on their safety would be very possible. Perhaps it will be to convince people that science has shown that people with more money are evil and should be jailed based on the UC Berkley study with the BMWs…

Anti-vax lunacy trickles through both parties, and gets little mainstream traction (although that may change with Trump injecting oxygen into the movement). But if you're running as a pro-science Democrat who is not an anti-GMO bandwagoneer, you will generally not find yourself blackballed by the party or opposed on your flank by billionaire string-pullers obsessed with purity tests on this issue. The Democratic party does not have the same ideology enforcement infrastructure that so tightly binds the Republicans; that's a strength if you think monocultures are pathological, but a weakness if you're looking for lockstep execution of some received ideology.

Accordingly, if a Democrat is in power and the findings of a science-based agency contradict some policy desire, they would sigh and fret and perhaps try to initiate other studies to see if there's any other way to align their policy goals with reality. But you would not see scientists and entire agencies of thousands of workers gagged, studies removed, data destroyed, conclusions banned. You would not see them scrambling to align reality with their goals and literally banning facts. It's little exaggeration to say the Trump administration is now engaged in book-burning.

Whatever the flaws of the Democratic party, what's "in vogue" with the party is an epiphenomenon, not the driver. If you want to run as a pro-science non-religious Republican, you are desperately needed for the health of the US political system -- but you will almost certainly be structurally unable to do so.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#110

Post by rconti » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 5:30 PM UTC

cderwin wrote: post #30

croon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do?

Even if you don't expect any scientists to want to be on a Republican ticket, why refuse to support prospective scientists who would do so? There might not be many conservative scientists, but I'm sure they exist. The only answer that seems feasible to me is that they're not really interested in getting scientists elected, instead they're more interested in scientists who are willing to abuse their authority to promo…

Or a third party. Limiting it to Democrats is making it partisan. Simply banning support for Republicans makes it anti-partisan. Seems unnecessary to throw in this hurdle.