Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Rinaldo]

Based on what I've seen of your posts on these discussions, the way it looks to you "over there" is pretty much exactly the way it looks to most of us "over here" who lean to the left.  Those who lean otherwise will of course disagree with your perspective, and will assume that you too would be more likely to agree with them if you lived here. 

Yeah, I guess so.

Aaaanyway, is Trump running? Perry can't provide all the fun himself.

[Florestan]

Though not Western, and though no one died as a result of radiation exposure, Fukushima is now the incident most likely to be used by anti-nuke folks.  And of course there is Chernobyl.

Yeah, I know, but I want to be pointed out to the Western European or North American equivalent of Chernobyl or Fukushima.

[Ken B]

Based on what I've seen of your posts on these discussions, the way it looks to you "over there" is pretty much exactly the way it looks to most of us "over here" who lean to the left. 

Some might conclude that what it "looks like" is therefore strongly determined by what you select to read.

PS. Was it you who recently expressed reluctance to click on a link to a site you didn't know?  Someone here did. (Dissent cooties.)

[NorthNYMark]

The anti-vaxxers are a diverse lot but they definitely skew left:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/vaccine-deniers-stick-together-and-now-theyre-ruining-things-for-everyone/

There has been some recent inroads of this nonsense on the Libertarian right too.

I'm assuming you have more evidence than the article you cite for this rather confidently stated position, because that article in no way demonstrates the assertion.  What it does claim is that in California (only), the largest concentrations of anti-vaxxers seem to be in areas that voted democrat (despite its first example being from Orange County). However, it says nothing about the actual political views of the anti-vaxxers--we don't know whether they fit the political profile of the larger community.  They might, of course, but they also might not.  It seems to me that areas that vote democratic (which will be more common in CA anyway) will also have the most concentrated and diverse populations, and will certainly include many extreme right-wing religions and other groups.  But even if we were to grant that it skews that way in CA, that leaves a whole lot of the rest of the country to consider.

As I mentioned above, the only really prominent political figures who have embraced the idea (that I am aware of) are Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul.  If it were really a mainly left-wing movement, one would think that democrats would find it to their advantage to embrace it--but as far as I know, none have. Again, just anecdotally, among my social media circle, it is generally perceived as a Fox News driven issue. This may not be entirely accurate, but anti-vax is most certainly not something that has been embraced by the left in any public way in the way it has by the right.

[NorthNYMark]

Some might conclude that what it "looks like" is therefore strongly determined by what you select to read.

I don't disagree.

[Todd]

As I mentioned above, the only really prominent political figures who have embraced the idea (that I am aware of) are Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul.

RFK, Jr?

[mc ukrneal]

Yeah, I know, but I want to be pointed out to the Western European or North American equivalent of Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Three Mile Island was the worst example in the US.

[Gurn Blanston]

Frankly, I don't see much difference between rejecting science in the name of religion and selectively using, or actively misusing, science in the name of ideology.

Religion IS an ideology. So therefore, you are correct.

Car crashes worldwide kill every year much more people than the last major nuclear power plant incident of the Western world did --- BTW, when and where was it, I don't recall? Should we ban using cars then? Of course not, we should build safer cars and enforce stricter safe driving rules --- and that's exactly what we do.

So far terrorists have successfully attacked airports and railway/subway stations. Should we shut them down then? Of course not, we should enforce stricter security rules and checks --- and that's exactly what we do.

Yet when it comes to nuclear power plants, where the incidents are far and few between, the way to go is not to build safer ones and enforce stricter safety rules, but to shut them down altogether. Is this logical / scientific / intellectually honest?

It's a lot easier to ban things than to take the time to perfect them. After all, it requires disciplined thinking to perfect stuff; who wants to go to all that trouble? Just ban them!    Intellectually honest? I think not. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Aaaanyway, is Trump running?

Only if he can get that thing on his head to sit still long enough...

[Gurn Blanston]

RFK, Jr?

Him too. No righty there! 

[mc ukrneal]

I'm assuming you have more evidence than the article you cite for this rather confidently stated position, because that article in no way demonstrates the assertion.  What it does claim is that in California (only), the largest concentrations of anti-vaxxers seem to be in areas that voted democrat (despite its first example being from Orange County). However, it says nothing about the actual political views of the anti-vaxxers--we don't know whether they fit the political profile of the larger community.  They might, of course, but they also might not.  It seems to me that areas that vote democratic (which will be more common in CA anyway) will also have the most concentrated and diverse populations, and will certainly include many extreme right-wing religions and other groups.  But even if we were to grant that it skews that way in CA, that leaves a whole lot of the rest of the country to consider.

As I mentioned above, the only really prominent political figures who have embraced the idea (that I am aware of) are Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul.  If it were really a mainly left-wing movement, one would think that democrats would find it to their advantage to embrace it--but as far as I know, none have. Again, just anecdotally, among my social media circle, it is generally perceived as a Fox News driven issue. This may not be entirely accurate, but anti-vax is most certainly not something that has been embraced by the left in any public way in the way it has by the right.

You are correct. Research/studies/surveys show that there is really not much difference across parties, looking at the country as a whole.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/
http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians

Christie also made some comments similar to Rand, but then back-tracked. In any case, a great majority of national politicians came out in support of vaccination, both Democrats and Republicans.

[Todd]

Him too. No righty there! 

Shh, it's a right-wing, Fox News-driven thing.

The stats from Pew, which serve as the basis for all three links immediately above, indicate that it is younger parents who are more likely to favor vaccine "choice."  In other words, those who have never lived with widespread, preventable communicable diseases are more likely to think prevention unnecessary.  That is unwise.

[NorthNYMark]

Some might conclude that what it "looks like" is therefore strongly determined by what you select to read.

PS. Was it you who recently expressed reluctance to click on a link to a site you didn't know?  Someone here did. (Dissent cooties.)

That was me, but it was absolutely not because I don't want to be exposed to alternative points of view--as you know, I more than welcome people to cut-and-paste the content from such sites.  I worry more about trojans, as well as targeted advertizing, etc.  Those concerns may not be warranted, but I am not knowledgeable enough about internet security to feel secure going on unknown or especially fringe sites (and that would include any political points of view).

[Rinaldo]

Only if he can get that thing on his head to sit still long enough...

Are foxes trainable?

https://www.youtube.com/v/iWuv2txl_5M

[NorthNYMark]

Shh, it's a right-wing, Fox News-driven thing.

The stats from Pew, which serve as the basis for all three links immediately above, indicate that it is younger parents who are more likely to favor vaccine "choice."  In other words, those who have never lived with widespread, preventable communicable diseases are more likely to think prevention unnecessary.  That is unwise.

Is the sarcasm necessary?  I admitted that it was my perception based only on anecdotal experience; I am certainly  open to changing it.  I had no idea about RFK, Jr. I just looked it up.  Why is this not as well known as the Michelle Bachmann incident?  Possibly "liberal media bias"--but I suspect it's more likely due to the fact that he's not currently running for president, as I believe she was at the time she made her comments.  On the other hand, it sounds like he is more deeply committed to the position than she ever seemed to be.

[Todd]

On the other hand, it sounds like he is more deeply committed to the position than she ever seemed to be.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

[NorthNYMark]

You are correct. Research/studies/surveys show that there is really not much difference across parties, looking at the country as a whole.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/
http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians

Christie also made some comments similar to Rand, but then back-tracked. In any case, a great majority of national politicians came out in support of vaccination, both Democrats and Republicans.

Thank you. This is the sort of data I was expecting Ken to provide--national surveys that actual provide specific demographic breakdowns--because he sounded so absolutely certain of his factual claim.  Interestingly, the Pew survey suggests that while there were basically no party differences in 2009, in 2014 it appears that both Republicans and Independents are significantly less likely than Democrats to believe that vaccines should be required.  Some of that could be libertarian antipathy to anything being required by the government, but it certainly suggests that the characterization of the anti-vax movement as definitively skewing left is misleading at best, and flat out wrong at worst.

[NorthNYMark]

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

No, it is supposed to be a bad thing (from my perspective); I was trying to acknowledge that the other side might have a point. (something I wish were more commonly done).

[Gurn Blanston]

Is the sarcasm necessary?  I admitted that it was my perception based only on anecdotal experience; I am certainly  open to changing it.  I had no idea about RFK, Jr. I just looked it up.  Why is this not as well known as the Michelle Bachmann incident?  Possibly "liberal media bias"--but I suspect it's more likely due to the fact that he's not currently running for president, as I believe she was at the time she made her comments.  On the other hand, it sounds like he is more deeply committed to the position than she ever seemed to be.

I don't think he is running for anything at all. Bachmann was a moron, her stand on ths issue was only tangential to the overall Big Michelle Picture. It didn't take any sort of bias at all; at the time that was all taking place, I was still among those who would vote in the Republican primary, but I sure as hell wasn't going to be voting for her!

[NorthNYMark]

Frankly, I don't see much difference between rejecting science in the name of religion and selectively using, or actively misusing, science in the name of ideology.

Car crashes worldwide kill every year much more people than the last major nuclear power plant incident of the Western world did --- BTW, when and where was it, I don't recall? Should we ban using cars then? Of course not, we should build safer cars and enforce stricter safe driving rules --- and that's exactly what we do.

So far terrorists have successfully attacked airports and railway/subway stations. Should we shut them down then? Of course not, we should enforce stricter security rules and checks --- and that's exactly what we do.

Yet when it comes to nuclear power plants, where the incidents are far and few between, the way to go is not to build safer ones and enforce stricter safety rules, but to shut them down altogether. Is this logical / scientific / intellectually honest?

First, I personally am open to the idea of nuclear power, so I'm not arguing my own position here.  But I do not think the anti-nuclear arguments involve a denial of science.  The difference I see between the situations you mention (that is, the vulnerablitlity of an airport to terrorist attack versus that of a nuclear power plant) is that the consequences of an exploded nuclear power plant could last generations or longer (and I believe this is based on science, though I may be misinformed). It isn't simply a matter of who might be killed at the time of the incident, but poisoning the entire area irreversibly.  That doesn't happen with an airport attack (unless it's attacked with nuclear weapons).  So the issue is not about the likelihood of an accident as much as the potential consequences of an accident.  While I'm even less sympathetic to the anti-GMO people, I think they are concerned that unintended consequences could be irreversible as well.  It's not so much a denial of the truth of the science that is currently available, but a sense that it is incomplete. Often, scientists are quite upfront about the limits of their knowledge--for example, we know that certain food additives are safe in the short-term, but we often do not know what the longer term effects might be.  Vaccinations, on the other hand, have been demonstrably saving lives for many generations now.  To me, it is not a good comparison. I won't call it intellectually dishonest, because I believe in your intellectual honesty, even though I disagree with you.  I'd enjoy the same courtesy in return.