Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[mc ukrneal]

Ok. This is exactly the sort of nonsense I tried to head off Gurn. The Pew poll is about a policy, not about acceptance or rejection of the science. There are many bad reasons to support "choice" in vaccinations, such as being reflexively pro "choice", or lacking experience, or vicarious experience of elders, about diseases.

Support for abortion does not imply rejection of the science about fetal viability does it? Policy disagreement does not mean ignorance.

The question in this case was whether there was a difference across parties. And the data shows that the thinking about vaccines is broadly the same throughout the country regardless of parties.

If you have other data you feel is relevant, please share it with us.

[Florestan]

In my last post, I used the word ascientific, to differentiate it from anti-scientific.  Anti-scientific anti-nuclear activists and others tend to rely on old-fashioned scare tactics (Chernobyl!!!  Birth defects!!! Unsafe drinking water!!!) and similar tactics, whereas what you described in the post I replied to involved using scientific evidence as the basis for opposing the use of nuclear power, but ultimately coming to an anti-nuclear conclusion based at last in significant part on non-scientific ideas or concerns, in this case a perception of risk, which is clearly informed by things other than statistical probability.

Of course, a big non-scientific reason I am pro-nuclear is that I know the practical reality of electricity generation in the US today, and in other countries, and what that means.  Roughly 20% of total electricity in the US is produced by nuclear power plants.  Going non-nuclear would require a huge investment in other sources of electricity generation, and renewable sources cannot make up the current levels produced by nuclear in any short or medium period of time.  A country like France, with over 70% of its electricity coming from nuclear, would have it even worse.  And is it a coincidence that France has one of the lowest per capita carbon emission levels in the developed world?

Nuclear power must be part of the energy mix in the coming decades and centuries.  It should not, cannot become the main source of energy (there literally is not enough uranium to be mined), but if the US as a country, and the world as a whole, wants to move away from excessive reliance on carbon based fuels, other reliable, on-demand forms of electricity generation are needed to augment intermittent forms of electricity (eg, wind, solar).  Nuclear power is actually quite safe, and it can be made safer.  That seems like a laudable goal to me.

A big + 1!

And the problem is bigger still, because usually environmental activism doesn't limit itself to nuclear power plants. Hydro power is not good, either, because dams are hurtful to beavers, trouts and eels; nor is wind power, because turbine fields spoil the landscape; ditto for solar panel fields; carbon-based fuels are already anathema --- what options are we left with, I wonder.

[North Star]

I'm certainly not the least bit anti-nuclear, but I do believe that the future (well within this century) will be solar, with buildings, vehicles, roads, etc coated in material gathering solar energy gaining importance as well as dedicated solar power plants.

[Jo498]

The problem of nuclear waste is not "scientific" in the strict sense. Nobody critical of nuclear power doubts nuclear physics.
Maybe there is a solution (I do not know if everything can just be vitrified, I do not think so). The point is that it is very expensive to do it right because the sites have to be safe or be attended to literally for centuries. Similar things are true about sites of former nuclear plants and especially of blown-up plants like Chernobyl.
Some no-go-areas of nuclear pollution for millenia might not be such a problem in Siberia or the US desert. It certainly would be a fatal problem in densely populated Europe.

And the perfectionist and punctual Germans have already messed up one waste repository so I really do not want to think about future situations in "failing" countries where the stuff will just be dumped into some old mine or so with a decent probability of spoiling the water supply or so in some centuries hence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

I agree that e.g. the current German (rather coal (and the dirty low energy content brown stuff!) than nuclear) policy is schizophrenic because the waste problem is there anyway and we might as well run the plants that are already there as long as they can be run safely.

In the long run the only solution is to use MUCH less energy. Europeans use up about 3 times as much energy and ressources as the world average, Northern Americans five times. Probably the current average will not be sustainable but taking it as a goal, try to get along using only 20-30% of what is used now. I do not see any party seriously working in that direction. Even the Greens seem to believe that we could simply keep our lifestyle and just switch to solar and wind. Which is not possible for a variety of reasons.
One of the best internet sources for these things it the "Do the math" blog by a California physics professor.

[Florestan]

In the long run the only solution is to use MUCH less energy. [...] try to get along using only 20-30% of what is used now.

How can it be achieved?

[Rinaldo]

And the problem is bigger still, because usually environmental activism doesn't limit itself to nuclear power plants. Hydro power is not good, either, because dams are hurtful to beavers, trouts and eels; nor is wind power, because turbine fields spoil the landscape; ditto for solar panel fields; carbon-based fuels are already anathema --- what options are we left with, I wonder.

C'mon, aside from simplifying the problem (dams can be hurtful to the whole region, not just some cuddly animals), you're lumping together extremist views with the majority of clean energy advocates, who support a combination of renewables with long term focus on the development of solar power / batteries.

In the long run the only solution is to use MUCH less energy.

In the long run, Sun. And in the meantime, wasting less energy.

How can it be achieved?

Technology and sensible energy policies (e.g. subsidies for renewables, required energy efficiency of newly built buildings, curbing light pollution in cities).

[Ken B]

The question in this case was whether there was a difference across parties. And the data shows that the thinking about vaccines is broadly the same throughout the country regardless of parties.

If you have other data you feel is relevant, please share it with us.

No, the question was rejection of science. That is not the same thing as a policy decision. Since the Pew poll did not ask if vaccinations cause autism etc it does not address the point under dispute. 

[Ken B]

Technology and sensible energy policies (e.g. subsidies for renewables, required energy efficiency of newly built buildings, curbing light pollution in cities).

Prices.

[Todd]

In the long run the only solution is to use MUCH less energy.

Sensible, long term energy policy ought not to be overly focused on one or two solutions, so whenever I see a proclamation that the "only" solution is this or that, I know it's wrong.

The reality is that solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, carbon-based fuels, additional "alternative" sources (eg, geothermal, wave), combined with efficiency gains is the way forward.

nor is wind power, because turbine fields spoil the landscape; ditto for solar panel fields;

With wind you forgot about birds.  With solar, depending on where the arrays are, you must also consider lizards.

you're lumping together extremist views with the majority of clean energy advocates, who support a combination of renewables with long term focus on the development of solar power / batteries.

No, he was addressing a known problem.  In the US, "extremists" routinely use legal action to block construction of new projects to protect any number of critters that can be harmed by Big Wind and Big Solar.  And no, I'm not making those labels up.  Maybe in Europe, governments and companies bypass such groups with regularity, but in the US it is not so easy, unless a "national security" label is slapped on a project.

[mc ukrneal]

No, the question was rejection of science. That is not the same thing as a policy decision. Since the Pew poll did not ask if vaccinations cause autism etc it does not address the point under dispute. 

Let me refresh your memory - since this thread exploded yesterday. You said the anti-vaxxers skew left and then you linked to an article. Another poster contested that article since it only refers to California and is limited in scope. To answer whether they skew left or not, I posted a few links that show they do not in their broad approach to vaccination. I think this is enough to make general conclusions that the anti-vaxxers are not from one particular party or point of view (although another poster then pointed out that the biggest group against vaccines seemed to be the youngest group). Perhaps you do not agree. I was only concerned with the part of the discussion that addressed who anti-vaxxers are (from left or right, both, other, etc.).

[Ken B]

Let me refresh your memory - since this thread exploded yesterday. You said the anti-vaxxers skew left and then you linked to an article. Another poster contested that article since it only refers to California and is limited in scope. To answer whether they skew left or not, I posted a few links that show they do not in their broad approach to vaccination. I think this is enough to make general conclusions that the anti-vaxxers are not from one particular party or point of view (although another poster then pointed out that the biggest group against vaccines seemed to be the youngest group). Perhaps you do not agree. I was only concerned with the part of the discussion that addressed who anti-vaxxers are (from left or right, both, other, etc.).

Neal
Perhaps this is just a matter of wording. By anti-vaxxer I mean, as does every source I have seen btw, someone who questions the efficacy or safety of vaccines for non-scientific reasons. People who peddle autism stories or the like, or who deny vacccines even work. Your links talk about people who think parents should be able to choose whether their kids get vaccinated. These are different issues. You can oppose mandatory vaccinations for other reasons than rejecting the science.
Rinaldo started this with his "republicans are anti-science". I -- me, I, Ken B -- introduced vaxxers into the discussion with the observation that it depends on the science which side rejects which science. The context is clearly unambiguously about  scince denial in re vaccines NOT about support or opposition to a particular program or law.

UPDATE. Neal. Let's say in the next year researchers agree that the death penalty is a deterrent. And let's say that even after learning that I oppose the death penalty. Does that imply I deny the evidence? No, it does not.

[NorthNYMark]

Let me refresh your memory - since this thread exploded yesterday. You said the anti-vaxxers skew left and then you linked to an article. Another poster contested that article since it only refers to California and is limited in scope. To answer whether they skew left or not, I posted a few links that show they do not in their broad approach to vaccination. I think this is enough to make general conclusions that the anti-vaxxers are not from one particular party or point of view (although another poster then pointed out that the biggest group against vaccines seemed to be the youngest group). Perhaps you do not agree. I was only concerned with the part of the discussion that addressed who anti-vaxxers are (from left or right, both, other, etc.).

[NB--I wrote this before seeing Ken's response above, so apologies for any redundancy].

In Ken's defense, I understand his point here (and mentioned it in my own previous points about this study)--Ken is distinguishing between those who believe that vaccines are dangerous from those who may not believe that, but still do not think they should be mandated by the government.  Because the study only concerns attitudes toward government mandated vaccination, he doesn't think it tells us anything about who he considers to be the "anti-science" anti-vaxxers. Leaving aside questions of whether epidemiologists might also be considered scientists rather than mere policy makers, I think he has a point, though the Pew data certainly does nothing to support his claim, which would depend on a majority of the conservatives opposing mandated vaccinations to be fully supportive of the safety, efficacy, and epidemiological necessity of universal vaccinations, and a majority of progressives opposing mandatory vaccinations being opposed to or skeptical of those same things.

On the other hand, I was the one who questioned the study he posted for similar reasons--first, it was limited to CA, and second, it contained no information whatsoever about the anti-vaxxers themselves (including their ideological affiiations), but merely the voting tendencies of the areas where they were most heavily concentrated.  To draw his conclusion from that study, he would have to assume, first, that the anti-vaxxers largely reflect the voting trends of their larger communities (which would run counter to any notion that anti-vaxxers are outliers in any meaningful way), and second, that the demographics of anti-vax in CA reflect those of the rest of the country.  I don't think either is in any way a safe assumption.  So yes, based on the many assumptions required to interpret the data from both studies in a way that would support Ken's claim that "anti-vax is mainly an issue of the left" (apologies if I misquoted, as it's from memory only), I think it's safe to say that such a claim is insufficiently supported.  I will grant him this, though--it's certainly not "mainly an issue of the right," as I had previously believed.  As you say, it would appear most likely to be relatively evenly distributed, with possible regional differences and/or shifts over time.

[Pat B]

Perhaps this is just a matter of wording. By anti-vaxxer I mean, as does every source I have seen btw, someone who questions the efficacy or safety of vaccines for non-scientific reasons. People who peddle autism stories or the like, or who deny vacccines even work. Your links talk about people who think parents should be able to choose whether their kids get vaccinated.

Check Neal's second link.

ETA: I'm not sure why y'all are so interested in debating which side is more at fault for this fringe issue. As far as I can tell, no senators, at most one presidential candidate (Rand Paul, who later backtracked), and very few U.S. representatives have bought into the supposed autism link or other "dangers" of vaccines.

[Ken B]

[NB--I wrote this before seeing Ken's response above, so apologies for any redundancy].

In Ken's defense, I understand his point here (and mentioned it in my own previous points about this study)--Ken is distinguishing between those who believe that vaccines are dangerous from those who may not believe that, but still do not think they should be mandated by the government.  Because the study only concerns attitudes toward government mandated vaccination, he doesn't think it tells us anything about who he considers to be the "anti-science" anti-vaxxers. Leaving aside questions of whether epidemiologists might also be considered scientists rather than mere policy makers, I think he has a point, though the Pew data certainly does nothing to support his claim, which would depend on a majority of the conservatives opposing mandated vaccinations to be fully supportive of the safety, efficacy, and epidemiological necessity of universal vaccinations, and a majority of progressives opposing mandatory vaccinations being opposed to or skeptical of those same things.

On the other hand, I was the one who questioned the study he posted for similar reasons--first, it was limited to CA, and second, it contained no information whatsoever about the anti-vaxxers themselves (including their ideological affiiations), but merely the voting tendencies of the areas where they were most heavily concentrated.  To draw his conclusion from that study, he would have to assume, first, that the anti-vaxxers largely reflect the voting trends of their larger communities (which would run counter to any notion that anti-vaxxers are outliers in any meaningful way), and second, that the demographics of anti-vax in CA reflect those of the rest of the country.  I don't think either is in any way a safe assumption.  So yes, based on the many assumptions required to interpret the data from both studies in a way that would support Ken's claim that "anti-vax is mainly an issue of the left" (apologies if I misquoted, as it's from memory only), I think it's safe to say that such a claim is insufficiently supported.  I will grant him this, though--it's certainly not "mainly an issue of the right," as I had previously believed.  As you say, it would appear most likely to be relatively evenly distributed, with possible regional differences and/or shifts over time.

Well, this whole thing was a response to Rinaldo's implication that the gop is uniquely anti-science. So if you don't like vaxxers I will go for a different high emotional topic I was hoping to avoid. There is widespread rejection of sociobiology and research on the genetic basis of personality and intelligence. Most of this particular anti-science stuff comes from the Left, just as nearly all of the creationist twaddle comes from the Right. Is the right anti-science? Some of it is, for some science. Is the left anti-science? Some of it is, for some science.

[NorthNYMark]

Well, this whole thing was a response to Rinaldo's implication that the gop is uniquely anti-science. So if you don't like vaxxers I will go for a different high emotional topic I was hoping to avoid. There is widespread rejection of sociobiology and research on the genetic basis of personality and intelligence. Most of this particular anti-science stuff comes from the Left, just as nearly all of the creationist twaddle comes from the Right. Is the right anti-science? Some of it is, for some science. Is the left anti-science? Some of it is, for some science.

I think your overall point about anti-scientific biases not being exclusive to the GOP is a valid one.  Some aspects of the left tend to embrace a "back to the earth" philosophy that occasionally contains more than a hint of skepticism towards certain branches of science (hence the antipathy to GMOs, etc).  I do think there is a distinction between the political parties, though, in that I think the religious right has a stronger foothold within the GOP than the earthy-hippy left does in the Democratic party. Republican elected officials seem more likely to embrace anti-science positions in a very public way than Democratic ones--even on anti-vax, we can associate the position with at least three GOP candidates who have run or are running for the party's Presidential nomination (Bachmann, Paul, and Christie, though the latter backed off), whereas the leftist most associated with it has never run for elected office (and from what I've just been reading about him, he hopefully wouldn't stand a chance in a primary, at least without the benefit of that name).  My point is that I agree that science denial (rather than interpretive debates about the science) is not exclusive to one party, but I would also be wary of a false equivalency.

About sociobiology, I'm probably not informed enough to get into a substantial debate (as I wasn't on anti-vax, though you and Neal were helpful in providing relevant info).  I assume the form of science skepticism you are referring to is anti-essentialism or social constructionism (as in Simone de Beauvoir's famous remark that "one is not born a woman, but rather becomes one").  Now, if taken to an extreme, this position could deny that biology or genetics play any role in any human behavior--and I imagine that some media sources  would pounce on pronouncements that might reflect an extreme version of that position, so I won't go so far as to deny that such extreme versions exist.  Again, though, as an academic somewhat steeped in feminist and queer theory, I've never actually met a real, flesh-and-blood feminist who denied that either biology or genetics play substantial roles in human behavior; rather, they argue (persuasively, I've found) that biology and genetics are not the sole determinants of human behavior and should not be used to justify prejudices or limitations on people's social opportunities.  Another well-known anti-essentialist catch-phrase--"Biology is not destiny"--doesn't deny that biology exists or has an impact, but denies that it should determine people's social roles and horizons. I was about to concede that those who do take an extreme anti-essentialist view are more likely to be on the left than on the right, but then I realized that this is probably not true.  Ask any social conservative about the potential biological bases of homosexuality or transgenderism, and watch how quickly they become more orthodox social constructionists than even the most thoroughly post-structuralist of feminists.

[Pat B]

Well, this whole thing was a response to Rinaldo's implication that the gop is uniquely anti-science. So if you don't like vaxxers I will go for a different high emotional topic I was hoping to avoid. There is widespread rejection of sociobiology and research on the genetic basis of personality and intelligence. Most of this particular anti-science stuff comes from the Left, just as nearly all of the creationist twaddle comes from the Right. Is the right anti-science? Some of it is, for some science. Is the left anti-science? Some of it is, for some science.

This raises a few questions.
1. Is there a scientific consensus on sociobiology, and if so, what is it?
2. Is there a national or regional debate on how to teach sociobiology at any level?
3. Which liberal politicians advocate teaching an overtly anti-scientific alternative to sociobiology in public schools?

[Florestan]

Sensible, long term energy policy ought not to be overly focused on one or two solutions, so whenever I see a proclamation that the "only" solution is this or that, I know it's wrong.

The reality is that solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, carbon-based fuels, additional "alternative" sources (eg, geothermal, wave), combined with efficiency gains is the way forward.

Pounds the table.

[Florestan]

In the long run, Sun.

You seem to be quite familiar with solar power engineering and technology, therefore I have two questions for you:

1. Assuming a solar power plant to be a blackbox with an input of 100 solar energy units, how many useful energy units is the output?

2. Suppose a nuclear power plant generates 1400 MWe. What total area of solar panels would a solar power plant need in order to produce the same amount?

TIA for answering.

[Jo498]

According to sociobio evo/psych proponents virtually ALL of standard social science is "blank slatism" and (in this respect) deeply mistaken. This is probably somewhat exaggerated but it is not completely off the mark either. (google the "manifesto on intelligence" or something like that)
I am not sure how many high school subjects are affected by the "blank slate" model but certainly a lot of college level education, social science etc. is. (There is a blogger "education realist" who is a high school math teacher who has some material.)

Of course, sociobiology in the interwebs is often used as thin veil for attitudes that would be considered racist. Or not even as a veil but as a scientific foundation for attitudes that are openly racist. The problem here is not any findings of e.g. IQ differences. The problem is what should follow for treating people and for public policy.

As for myself, I am pretty sure that the blank slatists are wrong, I am not so sure how much of the "positive" findings (other than the refutation of blank slatism) of sociobiology etc. are to be taken seriously, but in any case I do not think that they can be used as a rationale for racist policies. In any case, the "hard core" of sociobiology contradicts BOTH the "leftist narrative" (it's all bad social circumstances and structural racism etc.) and favored "rightist narratives" (everybody can make it with hard work). In fact, it's not really clear if anything but some kind of stoic fatalism could follow from sociobiologist ideas. But then again, nothing moral or political simply follows from some more or less probable scientific findings. (No ethics/values etc. in, no ethics/values out.)

[mc ukrneal]

You seem to be quite familiar with solar power engineering and technology, therefore I have two questions for you:

1. Assuming a solar power plant to be a blackbox with an input of 100 solar energy units, how many useful energy units is the output?

2. Suppose a nuclear power plant generates 1400 MWe. What total area of solar panels would a solar power plant need in order to produce the same amount?

TIA for answering.

Nice try - your nephew will have to do his own homework!