Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

haydenplanetarium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#91

Post by shawn-butler »

willholloway wrote: post #71

Our bicameral legislature is dysfunctional in the US. The Senate and it's 60 votes to pass a bill filibuster rule make change too difficult. The Senate does not represent the country well. California has two senators, so does Wyoming. The next two years will be gridlock. It's unlikely Democrats retake the House and get sixty seats in the Senate, so divided government is what we have to look forward to. The Senate is…

Isn't this a good thing since it is actually representative of the divided electorate? Most polling data seems to indicate a genuinely divided nation on key legislative issues.

Filibuster reform is not a constitutional crisis. If Senate Democrats refuse to tackle it when they hold the Upper chamber it's on them. Senator Jeff Merkley's gang of nine [0] seem enthusiastic about getting it done.

My hope is that states will begin to take proactive roles to fill the vacuum and it is one of my greatest aggravations the extent to which the federal judiciary has expanded the power and meaning of the commerce clause to cover basically everything in order to prevent states from taking action.

[0] http://bitly.com/U71kL4

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#92

Post by shawn-butler »

cpeterso wrote: post #6
byoung2 wrote: post #2

* As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.* I think it is easy to do this at the local and state level. These populations are small enough that variations in general political leaning are small (e.g. Californians are a more unified electorate than the US as a wh…

The Long Now Foundation hosted a talk by Benjamin Barber called “If Mayors Ruled the World”. Barber discusses the major influence that mayors and city governments have to make positive change to global problems, sidestepping political gridlock at the national or international level. Notes and audio (and non-free video) are available here: http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/jun/05/if-mayors-ruled-wor...

It's been my experience that activist mayors that do so (flaunt regulations & selectively adhere to the law) really are more interested in seeking higher office. Best mayors are ones that realize their job is to keep the streets safe, the garbage hauled, and the sewer working.

I do agree that county and state legislatures are much more effective places for real change if only our federal judiciary would quit hamstring their efforts.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#93

Post by nsxwolf »

bennyg wrote: post #81
nsxwolf wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been many intellectual tyrants. I disagree that we'll get better leaders simply by educating the people about science.

I still think it's a bit more abstract than that. Would you agree that overall knowledge is good? Or at least holds more objective, intrinsic good than not? I'm positing that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows less. A society that knows more is better able to wield that knowledge to make decisions than a society that doesn't have that knowledge. I fail to see how there is any negative to ed…

I agree that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows less. Knowledge is good in its own right. But knowledge doesn't change human nature. The rising tide of knowledge will lift all moral boats. Smarter good people, smarter bad people.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#94

Post by dredmorbius »

jeffool wrote: post #25
dredmorbius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a question to my mind as to how much of the posturing on evolution, anthropogenic global warming, resource depletion, age of the earth, etc., is based on true belief and how much is tactical stupidity. I could go either way on that. Many people are highly self-delusional.

I would agree, if we were just talking self-identified phone surveys or something. But we're talking about people saying their children shouldn't learn about those things. I can't imagine purposefully making your children grow up thinking something is so wrong, you are an immoral person to consider it, unless they genuinely believed it as well. So to call it tactical stupidity is messed up on a scale I'm not prepared…

Tactical stupidity is knowing the truth but being unable or unwilling to admit it. In an extreme case, you might call wilful ignorance (including depriving yourself of information) to be an extension of this.

Depriving others (particularly your own children) of factual information starts sliding into the "true belief" side, so far as I'm concerned.

It may be messed up, but it's also fundamental human nature. As Heinlein observed: man not a rational animal, he's a rationalizing animal.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#95

Post by bdunbar »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #86
bdunbar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how both the guys you mentioned are remembered for being leaders of men during war.

So was Lincoln, So was Washington, So was Roosevelt. War seem to be the gauge of leaders who get remembered....

I'm not a fan of Lincoln or Roosevelt the Second. Washington was an okay guy in my book.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#96

Post by ImprovedSilence »

bdunbar wrote: post #95
ImprovedSilence wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So was Lincoln, So was Washington, So was Roosevelt. War seem to be the gauge of leaders who get remembered....

I'm not a fan of Lincoln or Roosevelt the Second. Washington was an okay guy in my book.

yeah, but my point wasn't how good or bad any of them were, My point was that wartime leaders seem to get "remembered" or "revered" more so than peacetime leaders. I wasn't trying to judge great/non-great leaders. Besides, the fact that you don't like Lincoln is vastly overshadowed by the fact that he has an enormous frickin marble monument made out to him, that civilizations 2000 years from now will come and stare at in awe. Just like they do today.. it's just not a ruin yet, and his history is still relatively close in time.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#97

Post by pbhjpbhj »

bloaf wrote: post #79
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your logic is flawed in practical terms - does it matter who cleans the toilet? By your argument if any one of a given group is suitable then choosing no-one is most suitable. I think the logic is unsound in either locus.

I see, I wasn't completely clear. I meant that if our system makes it so that everyone is suitable for government, why bother having elections? We could just draw names from a hat. There is no point in voting for a candidate if that candidate would perform exactly as well as every other candidate. Elections in that scenario are literally asking people to make judgements that are impossible to make.

Thanks for clarifying - the alternative is real democratic representation. That is the selected few would be representative in a more statistically significant way. It seems strange to choose a few privileged people as "representatives". I'm getting quite drawn by the idea of a lottery instead of an election; like being called up to jury duty.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#98

Post by bloaf »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #97
bloaf wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, I wasn't completely clear. I meant that if our system makes it so that everyone is suitable for government, why bother having elections? We could just draw names from a hat. There is no point in voting for a candidate if that candidate would perform exactly as well as every other candidate. Elections in that scenario are literally asking people to make judgements that are impossible to make.

Thanks for clarifying - the alternative is real democratic representation. That is the selected few would be representative in a more statistically significant way. It seems strange to choose a few privileged people as "representatives". I'm getting quite drawn by the idea of a lottery instead of an election; like being called up to jury duty.

Indeed, true democratic representation would avoid that problem. I think that it would also make NDT's point even clearer. If the citizens were directly making the country's decisions then we certainly should be making serious efforts to ensure that every citizen is equipped to make the best decisions for the country.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#99

Post by lefthansolo »

nollidge wrote: post #80
lefthansolo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider something to be an obsession when X wants to do Y, then it is obvious that the primary issue is Z but he continues to do Y. X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jo…

Health reform and the economy are not orthogonal. The less you have to worry about the paying for potential catastrophic health care events, the more freedom you have to make other financial and employment decisions. > so let's call it even Uh, let's not. Your single anecdote does not refute the statistical correlation between education and liberalism.

Whether or not on average that is true on average, here you can see results that in 2012 those with only high-school/GED favored Obama in higher numbers than those with a bachelor's degree: http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/10/e...

also, from 2008: http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-zogby-poll-of-512-obama-v...

I understand that "let's call it even" implies average (50/50), but my point was that there are enough uneducated voters from both sides to call it a draw, imo.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#100

Post by lefthansolo »

lmm wrote: post #78
lefthansolo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider something to be an obsession when X wants to do Y, then it is obvious that the primary issue is Z but he continues to do Y. X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jo…

I think you're wrong; it is by no means "obvious that the primary issue is economy". Do you mean that improving the economy would solve healthcare problems? Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment, and no amount of economic growth will provide healthcare for the unemployed without healthcare reform (although conversely, the number of people waiting until they're eligible for medicare to start businesses…

"Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment"

What is the basis of this statement?

Post reply on HN