No post body was provided.
The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
41–50 of 247 posts
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#42What can I put in my house today that will let my children discover science and physics the way Scientific American let me discover them as a teenager?
Scientific American? Just because this post had issues with one article doesn’t invalidate the entire periodical.
Really? Because the fact that this article was published seems to showcase evidence for a systemic problem. How did this article get approved? I mean, it's linking to a study that makes racial and sexist judgements based off of ... general relativity?
Edit: I've read the full article and it is borderline incoherent. I have no idea what in the world she is talking about or how it even remotely relates to E.O. Wilson, much less why in the world they would post this mere days after his death. The article actually barely mentions Wilson other than slandering him in the sentences it does and provides no references to his work or anything that substantiates, well, anything the author is arguing for or against. Yet, the author takes the time to reference near lunacy.
The article ends with:
> The early work of Venter and Collins was foundational to my dissertation, which examined tumor markers of ovarian cancer. I spent time during my training at the NIH learning from these iconic clinicians and scholars and had occasion to meet and question both of them. As a person who uses science as one of many tools to understand the world, it is important to remain curious in our work. Creative minds should not be resistant to change when rigorous new data are presented. How we engage with old racist ideas is no exception.
What does that have to do with anything this article was supposably about? It makes no sense. Yet, someone (multiple people?) approved this article.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#43I mean apparently Wilson suggested at one point that because eusocial insects exist where some insects serve others, slavery among humans is natural? Which ignores a huge amount of differences. To pick one eusocial insects of the same species are closely related to the ones they serve, and how slavery is not universal. Family and kinship groups are probably a way better metaphor than slavery. Occasionally some insect…
Slavery is a scourge on humanity. But it was a scourge on humanity for 99.999% of our existence.
I’d sure like to think it wasn’t our natural state, but it sure feels like if society broke down, that’s what we’d default to.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#44What can I put in my house today that will let my children discover science and physics the way Scientific American let me discover them as a teenager?
Scientific American? Just because this post had issues with one article doesn’t invalidate the entire periodical.
Sure, although it sounds like there's been a pretty strong trend in this direction at SA for a while. The Scott Aaronson blog that people have linked from other places in this thread (https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6202) says as much. Dr. Aaronson is an extremely even tempered and objective thinker. If he says there's an issue and goes so far as to guest publish a former writer sounding the alarm on SA, I'm inclined to believe there's a fire underneath this smoke.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a piece about how the individual can do their part reducing carbon emissions by not eating so much meat. The interviewee went into the amount of resources that go into supporting a diet with meat vs a less-meaty diet and the point was pretty clear. The interviewer rounded off the piece by asking about racial disparities and how this will disproportionately affect non…
The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the…
Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#46I am not defending SJW in saying this, merely pointing out a clear and obvious fallacy and a shameful one considering those who submit and post here that use it. Employing the pejorative "woke" is an ad hominem fallacy because it doesn't speak to any argument, and it, in fact, says nothing at all. It ignores all argument for the sake of, I presume, insult. It is fundamentally tribalistic. Insulting or denigrating the…
I don't consider "woke" to be pejorative to me it's just synonymous to "hyperprogressive", just more searchable because you'll filter out the physical disease and will only be left with the cultural one in the results
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#47Quoted post unavailable.
hacker news has truly fallen off
*case in point, this post has been flagged
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#48I keep hoping that we reach and pass Peak Woke, but I think we're still not there. Journalism (capital J) has been thoroughly damaged by it, as is evident in so many magazines, newspapers, sites, channels, etc. I'm optimistic that there will be a renaissance of objective Journalism, and eager for it to happen.
We won’t sadly, “post peak woke” will be a current re-writing of history to fit whatever woke ideology is fashionable (MiniTrue style).
If it can't be escaped does that mean it was always here?
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the…
Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s
You're completely right that excess added sugar (including added fructose) is well-known to be unhealthy, and that switching to non-meat foods wouldn't address this issue. But, low-meat diets aren't necessarily higher in added sugar than higher-meat diets. (I did say "healthy" non-meat foods to exclude, for instance, replacing meat with candy.)
I agree that reducing added sugar consumption should be one of the highest priorities for the average individual who is looking to improve their diet. However, this particular question asked about the racial effects of reducing meat consumption, so the benefits of reducing added sugar consumption wouldn't be the most relevant piece of information to answer with.
Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can't fully blame the system or the individual. It's both. Why must everything be a binary war nowadays? in societies with limited 'systems', obesity is a non-issue; so if that's the case then it stands to reason that it's the responsibility of the individual to try to disregard the temptations that the 'system' they're a member of places in front of them, no? This is further reinforced by the fact that heavily-…
In a society which spends around $750 billion annually on formal advertising, and a related amount on "influencing", client journalism, covert PR, and so on, individuals are primarily motivated by sovereign independent choices? Does this really sound even remotely plausible? That's ignoring the very obvious practical issues that make poorer people more prone to obesity - extreme time poverty, exhaustion and stress, l…
Advertising is filled with psychological tricks and should be much more regulated than it currently is. I definitely blame the system for a lot of things but an individual does have some responsibility and agency as to how they live.