The Big Idea Collider
I don't like making websites or writing introductions. Well, that's not entirely true: I could write about myself endlessly. My name is Christina Hitchens (no relation). Also, this website is current severely under construction. But let's face it: depression makes it annoying to work on annoying things. So those things will get done as they become less annoying. Please feel free to let me know if there is a particular feature or page you would like added - that would really help motivate me.
This website's content will be primarily user-driven. Let me know what you find interesting, what you'd like to see, and what you'd like to talk about.
Chill out, have a smoke, and let's fire up the Big Idea Collider.
This website's content will be primarily user-driven. Let me know what you find interesting, what you'd like to see, and what you'd like to talk about.
Chill out, have a smoke, and let's fire up the Big Idea Collider.
The Trouble Of Gun Control, And Thoughts On A Gun-Happy Police Force
Gun control is one of those controversial, touchy subjects in today's world, and is one of those almost perfectly symmetrical ideals in that each argument cancels each other out - Liberals say that guns are dangerous and need to be unavailable or heavily restricted for the general public, and Conservatives say that there can be no real personal safety without guns.
I think both parties are right.
I think the Conservative's solution to personal safety, however, is a little heavy handed.
For some background, I am a martial artist. A lot of pro-gun people usually sneer at me at this point - if I have a gun, you'll lose every time! is what I've heard from my more combative opponents in the past.
Since a lot of people also seem unwilling to listen unless I concede this point - a weapon is far more powerful than an empty hand. However, that conceals the truth that a well trained empty hand is still plenty powerful enough to distract, disable, weaken, or otherwise help someone escape from a dangerous situation.
In my martial arts class, in which we were taught Americanized Wing Chun, my Sifu also taught us general escape tactics and often reminded us the importance of what Wing Chun was for: it is not a sport, it is a very effectively-escalating medium-to-short-range self defense martial art. This is the key here: unlike guns, Wing Chun can effectively increase the force one defends oneself with.
It is the phasor of the self defense world.
So, if you're within arm's reach of your attacker, and can't get away, you can either knock him out if he's just some drunk in a bar (you probably won't even have to do that much), or you can jab your fingers into his eye sockets if he's got a knife. Which is not to say that it is a trivial task, but it is certainly much easier to do specifically within the martial arts framework of Wing Chun.
Wing Chun even has excellent mechanics for closing medium distances, and at long distances, you'll need to think creatively to either get closer or get further away.
None of this is not to say that protecting yourself or another with Wing Chun (or similar martial arts, like Jeet Kune Do) is easy - it is, without a doubt, one of the most harrowing and challenging experiences of one's life, and just like defending yourself with a gun, it could cost you your life when doing nothing would have saved it.
Wing Chun in particular has several mechanisms in it that I think make it one of the safest martial arts to learn. It is based on several principles, all based on basic body mechanics, that enable the user to protect themselves while attacking others simultaneously, including blocking and punching simultaneously, and blocking and punching in one punch. It is a martial art that requires time to learn, as it requires careful positioning and training good muscle memory, as it's very much like a gun in that each individual piece must be working perfectly, or else it will fail at the weak point.
So, as this relates to gun control, I think if people want to own guns specifically for the case of self defense, then they should learn a martial art and how to defend themselves with their hands first.
That is obviously extraordinarily impractical, so in a real world scenario, I would hope that the men and women out there who wish to carry a gun with them at all times do so in tandem with learning how to defend yourself with just your fists (and hopefully your mouth too - it can be a self-preservationists best tool), so that you might escalate self-defense scenarios with more granularity.
I think this is 100x more important with the police force, as well. No matter our gun control situation, I am ok with beat cops having guns, but I think hand-to-hand training should be their specialty. We should seriously have shaolin motherfucking warriors rolling around, rather than weak and frightened men defending themselves with the only weapons they have: Their sense of authority and their guns.
I want them to have more than that - I want them to feel safe even when their guns aren't drawn, so that maybe they won't draw them quite as often.
I think both parties are right.
I think the Conservative's solution to personal safety, however, is a little heavy handed.
For some background, I am a martial artist. A lot of pro-gun people usually sneer at me at this point - if I have a gun, you'll lose every time! is what I've heard from my more combative opponents in the past.
Since a lot of people also seem unwilling to listen unless I concede this point - a weapon is far more powerful than an empty hand. However, that conceals the truth that a well trained empty hand is still plenty powerful enough to distract, disable, weaken, or otherwise help someone escape from a dangerous situation.
In my martial arts class, in which we were taught Americanized Wing Chun, my Sifu also taught us general escape tactics and often reminded us the importance of what Wing Chun was for: it is not a sport, it is a very effectively-escalating medium-to-short-range self defense martial art. This is the key here: unlike guns, Wing Chun can effectively increase the force one defends oneself with.
It is the phasor of the self defense world.
So, if you're within arm's reach of your attacker, and can't get away, you can either knock him out if he's just some drunk in a bar (you probably won't even have to do that much), or you can jab your fingers into his eye sockets if he's got a knife. Which is not to say that it is a trivial task, but it is certainly much easier to do specifically within the martial arts framework of Wing Chun.
Wing Chun even has excellent mechanics for closing medium distances, and at long distances, you'll need to think creatively to either get closer or get further away.
None of this is not to say that protecting yourself or another with Wing Chun (or similar martial arts, like Jeet Kune Do) is easy - it is, without a doubt, one of the most harrowing and challenging experiences of one's life, and just like defending yourself with a gun, it could cost you your life when doing nothing would have saved it.
Wing Chun in particular has several mechanisms in it that I think make it one of the safest martial arts to learn. It is based on several principles, all based on basic body mechanics, that enable the user to protect themselves while attacking others simultaneously, including blocking and punching simultaneously, and blocking and punching in one punch. It is a martial art that requires time to learn, as it requires careful positioning and training good muscle memory, as it's very much like a gun in that each individual piece must be working perfectly, or else it will fail at the weak point.
So, as this relates to gun control, I think if people want to own guns specifically for the case of self defense, then they should learn a martial art and how to defend themselves with their hands first.
That is obviously extraordinarily impractical, so in a real world scenario, I would hope that the men and women out there who wish to carry a gun with them at all times do so in tandem with learning how to defend yourself with just your fists (and hopefully your mouth too - it can be a self-preservationists best tool), so that you might escalate self-defense scenarios with more granularity.
I think this is 100x more important with the police force, as well. No matter our gun control situation, I am ok with beat cops having guns, but I think hand-to-hand training should be their specialty. We should seriously have shaolin motherfucking warriors rolling around, rather than weak and frightened men defending themselves with the only weapons they have: Their sense of authority and their guns.
I want them to have more than that - I want them to feel safe even when their guns aren't drawn, so that maybe they won't draw them quite as often.
Welcome Cracked Readers!
So, it turns out I should have written a bunch more in preparation for my article coming out - found here - as it's gone viral!
As you can all see, my blog is still in it's infancy, and needs a lot of work. If you have any requests for content you'd like to see, or would like me to do some writing for you, please feel free to email me at [email protected]. I know it's a personal email, which is kinda weird, but I'm doing what I can with what I've got.
Geez, I'm not sure what else to say, other than thanks so much for reading!
Love,
Christina
As you can all see, my blog is still in it's infancy, and needs a lot of work. If you have any requests for content you'd like to see, or would like me to do some writing for you, please feel free to email me at [email protected]. I know it's a personal email, which is kinda weird, but I'm doing what I can with what I've got.
Geez, I'm not sure what else to say, other than thanks so much for reading!
Love,
Christina
#FacebookPosts
This "scientific racism" that people like to talk about these days is more like "alchemical racism" in that the fundamental assumptions it was built on are terribly, terribly flawed.
Anti-Feminism: That's Not How Any Of This Works
I have to admit, I stopped watching when her definition of "Rape Culture" was revealed to be utterly false and misleading.
The West contains a rape culture in the sense that some cities, especially small ones, based on the common history of blaming women for being too desireable, people who commit rape are rarely punished adequately, if at all.
Sorry Lauren - your point is null before you even have a chance to make it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qv-swaYWL0
The West contains a rape culture in the sense that some cities, especially small ones, based on the common history of blaming women for being too desireable, people who commit rape are rarely punished adequately, if at all.
Sorry Lauren - your point is null before you even have a chance to make it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qv-swaYWL0
This Just In: Breitbart Still A Hotbed Of Ignorance
Bad ideas come in all sorts of shapes and sizes - don't forget that there are real people out there who force themselves to remain as ignorant as possible.
Do your best to immunize yourself against these ideas, and if you're feeling brave, reach out against those ideas wherever they may appear.
Remember, it is not so much about changing the ideas of others - as this author will believe this foolishness until his grave - but about giving a voice to the people who can't speak out for whatever reason.
They need to know that right-thinking people are out there. They need to see your example of taking up the sword even when you are shouting at the most ignorant, stoic wall of all time.
All bad ideas need to be spoken out against - especially this one.
Do your best to immunize yourself against these ideas, and if you're feeling brave, reach out against those ideas wherever they may appear.
Remember, it is not so much about changing the ideas of others - as this author will believe this foolishness until his grave - but about giving a voice to the people who can't speak out for whatever reason.
They need to know that right-thinking people are out there. They need to see your example of taking up the sword even when you are shouting at the most ignorant, stoic wall of all time.
All bad ideas need to be spoken out against - especially this one.
An Analysis of Noam Chomsky Vs. Sam Harris:
Death By 1,000 Papercuts (Work In Progress)
A few days ago, Sam Harris posted an email exchange that occurred between himself and Noam Chomsky, who Sam reached out to in order to discuss apparent misunderstands/misreadings between the two, as well as discuss some issues, and explore some issues. Ultimately, Sam wasn't necessarily expecting to change Noam's mind - although that would be nice (and vice versa) - but get an idea of how and why Noam thinks whatever it is he thinks about whatever it is he thinks such things about.
There's been a lot of declaring winners and losers - I think, as some have pointed out, neither of them won, sorta. I think Noam was an unchecked asshole - that doesn't make him wrong, but it doesn't help him at all, and it makes him look worse when he is wrong, which definitely happened in this exchange.
I'll also deal with whatever claims I think are worthy of attention.
Firstly, I'll deal with Sam's concern with Noam, specifically, his statement about Sam's beliefs and character:
"The fact that you have called me “a religious fanatic” who “worships the religion of the state” makes me think that there are a few misconceptions I could clear up."
I know it's cool to think that Sam Harris is an anti-religious nutjob, but having read his writing, that is simply a misinterpretation brought about by shallow reading and selective quotation of his work.
For the record, Noam Chomsky is heard saying these statements in a youtube video. The context could suggest that Noam is instead talking about Hitchens - but that is an equally inaccurate statement similarly worthy of correction. I wouldn't fault Sam for clarifying Noam's apparent shallow understanding of either his, or his friends', views on religion.
Sam and Hitchens especially think religion is worse for society than it is good. This is not an extremist stance, nor is it one that worships any state. Hitchens especially was a powerful critic of the worship of the state, and was one of the first people who rightly pointed out the difference between Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler was not their atheism (Although Hitler was probably Christian, and at the very least leveraged Christianity for his own gains), but their creation of a state power that was required to be worshipped - trivially against the beliefs of anyone who knows a thing or two about what atheism not just is, definitionally, but what it is as a concept that can be applied to one's life.
So right off the bat, Noam is on rocky ground. But his utter ignorance regarding to true opinions of people I consider to be Pretty Fucking Smart also can't be held against him too strongly.
There's been a lot of declaring winners and losers - I think, as some have pointed out, neither of them won, sorta. I think Noam was an unchecked asshole - that doesn't make him wrong, but it doesn't help him at all, and it makes him look worse when he is wrong, which definitely happened in this exchange.
I'll also deal with whatever claims I think are worthy of attention.
Firstly, I'll deal with Sam's concern with Noam, specifically, his statement about Sam's beliefs and character:
"The fact that you have called me “a religious fanatic” who “worships the religion of the state” makes me think that there are a few misconceptions I could clear up."
I know it's cool to think that Sam Harris is an anti-religious nutjob, but having read his writing, that is simply a misinterpretation brought about by shallow reading and selective quotation of his work.
For the record, Noam Chomsky is heard saying these statements in a youtube video. The context could suggest that Noam is instead talking about Hitchens - but that is an equally inaccurate statement similarly worthy of correction. I wouldn't fault Sam for clarifying Noam's apparent shallow understanding of either his, or his friends', views on religion.
Sam and Hitchens especially think religion is worse for society than it is good. This is not an extremist stance, nor is it one that worships any state. Hitchens especially was a powerful critic of the worship of the state, and was one of the first people who rightly pointed out the difference between Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler was not their atheism (Although Hitler was probably Christian, and at the very least leveraged Christianity for his own gains), but their creation of a state power that was required to be worshipped - trivially against the beliefs of anyone who knows a thing or two about what atheism not just is, definitionally, but what it is as a concept that can be applied to one's life.
So right off the bat, Noam is on rocky ground. But his utter ignorance regarding to true opinions of people I consider to be Pretty Fucking Smart also can't be held against him too strongly.
AMD Finally Admits It's Sinking - Refocuses On Performance
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/05/amd-admits-it-cant-be-the-cheaper-solution-will-refocus-on-performance
""It can't just be that we're the cheaper solution," AMD said yesterday. Thank heavens it's finally realised that."
Hopefully, this change will mean AMD will return to at least some shade of it's former glory.
I'm worried about the High Bandwidth Memory (HMB) thing (shouldn't it be HBM?) - limiting video cards to 4GB of RAM seems to be sub-ideal - although it is true that more than that isn't the most useful thing in the world. It'll take a big game and a lot of pixels to need that much memory, but then again, the VR revolution is coming, and it's going to take a lot of pixel pushing to get things to look right.
Suddenly, the need for things to be perfect, graphically, is becoming the priority. Lag isn't that bad when you're looking in your computer screen, but when YOUR WHOLE WORLD STOPS AROUND YOU, I can imagine that would be very... jarring.
Hopefully AMD sees this need, and makes their move accordingly. In which case, limiting themselves to 4GB of RAM might not be a great idea.
""It can't just be that we're the cheaper solution," AMD said yesterday. Thank heavens it's finally realised that."
Hopefully, this change will mean AMD will return to at least some shade of it's former glory.
I'm worried about the High Bandwidth Memory (HMB) thing (shouldn't it be HBM?) - limiting video cards to 4GB of RAM seems to be sub-ideal - although it is true that more than that isn't the most useful thing in the world. It'll take a big game and a lot of pixels to need that much memory, but then again, the VR revolution is coming, and it's going to take a lot of pixel pushing to get things to look right.
Suddenly, the need for things to be perfect, graphically, is becoming the priority. Lag isn't that bad when you're looking in your computer screen, but when YOUR WHOLE WORLD STOPS AROUND YOU, I can imagine that would be very... jarring.
Hopefully AMD sees this need, and makes their move accordingly. In which case, limiting themselves to 4GB of RAM might not be a great idea.
The War With RBC
Unbelievably surreal experience today at #RBC.
I was informed that because I had the audacity to deposit a check and then withdrawal more than my daily allotment (which I didn't know was so uselessly low) from it, my account was locked out. But whatever, I'll check my account online and see when it's supposed to post, and otherwise check the status of my least favourite bank account.
"We are unable to identify you".
Weird. Maybe it's bugged. Try another browser - same error. Try another - same error. Try my phone - same error. Try my phone on LTE - same error.
So I call RBC. They inform me that because I tried to withdrawal money from my account after depositing the check but not IMMEDIATELY after depositing the check, my account was locked due to suspicious activity. I tell them it wasn't suspicious, it was me trying to get my own money. They tell me it doesn't matter. I tell there can be nothing that matters /other/ than that.
Now that I have them pinned - they agree! But they can't do anything about it, which appears to be RBC's motto and creed.
I'm told I have to go in to the bank to unlock my account. I ask them why - they don't know, but they can't do anything about it. I ask them, what if I was travelling? What if I was stranded somewhere and needed some cash to spend the night somewhere?
They agree, but they can't do anything about it.
So I go to the bank today. I really did not want to go to the bank today. But I'd rather get groceries today and have a reasonably nice dinner, so I force myself to go to the bank.
It starts to rain as I enter the bank.
Fortunately, the line is short. I talk to the most disinterested middle aged asian lady I have ever seen. I explain to her that I am here to find out why I cannot log in to my account. She asks for my ID, and I give it to her, and she does her thing.
She let's me know she has to call them to find out what has happened.
"They sent me here".
The "did they" was her look as she walked to the phone and waited on hold.
When she returned, she let me know that I would not be able to access my account until they had time to process the check.
That process takes one week.
I will not be able to EVEN LOG ON TO MY ACCOUNT until they have finished processing the check.
For some reason, processing checks still takes 7 full days. Some banks offer services where you can cash a cheque by only taking a picture of it.
Fortunately, this is coinciding with an opportunity to switch banks, which I will now be doing /with prejudice/.
I was informed that because I had the audacity to deposit a check and then withdrawal more than my daily allotment (which I didn't know was so uselessly low) from it, my account was locked out. But whatever, I'll check my account online and see when it's supposed to post, and otherwise check the status of my least favourite bank account.
"We are unable to identify you".
Weird. Maybe it's bugged. Try another browser - same error. Try another - same error. Try my phone - same error. Try my phone on LTE - same error.
So I call RBC. They inform me that because I tried to withdrawal money from my account after depositing the check but not IMMEDIATELY after depositing the check, my account was locked due to suspicious activity. I tell them it wasn't suspicious, it was me trying to get my own money. They tell me it doesn't matter. I tell there can be nothing that matters /other/ than that.
Now that I have them pinned - they agree! But they can't do anything about it, which appears to be RBC's motto and creed.
I'm told I have to go in to the bank to unlock my account. I ask them why - they don't know, but they can't do anything about it. I ask them, what if I was travelling? What if I was stranded somewhere and needed some cash to spend the night somewhere?
They agree, but they can't do anything about it.
So I go to the bank today. I really did not want to go to the bank today. But I'd rather get groceries today and have a reasonably nice dinner, so I force myself to go to the bank.
It starts to rain as I enter the bank.
Fortunately, the line is short. I talk to the most disinterested middle aged asian lady I have ever seen. I explain to her that I am here to find out why I cannot log in to my account. She asks for my ID, and I give it to her, and she does her thing.
She let's me know she has to call them to find out what has happened.
"They sent me here".
The "did they" was her look as she walked to the phone and waited on hold.
When she returned, she let me know that I would not be able to access my account until they had time to process the check.
That process takes one week.
I will not be able to EVEN LOG ON TO MY ACCOUNT until they have finished processing the check.
For some reason, processing checks still takes 7 full days. Some banks offer services where you can cash a cheque by only taking a picture of it.
Fortunately, this is coinciding with an opportunity to switch banks, which I will now be doing /with prejudice/.
Response to an article by Marilyn Wedge asserting that ADHD is merely “Childhood”:
http://time.com/3822755/adhd-disease-called-childhood/
This rather disappointing article found it’s way across my desk this morning.
Being a person with ADHD that interferes with one’s life, I find these sorts of articles very frustrating.
ADHD is a real neurological disorder. It is not caused by poor parenting (disproven), eating too much sugar (disproven), vaccines (technically autism, but ADHD and Autism share a spectrum), gluten (come on), or gut bacteria (disproven).
However, this article goes on to make several boldly misleading claims, both surrounding ADHD itself, and in their arguments that back up their claims.
Misconceptions about ADHD are left uncorrected, and ignorance, as is always the case in viral nonsense like this, prevails.
“ Aiden’s preschool teachers had been concerned about his disruptive, impulsive behavior.”
“Now Aiden’s second-grade teacher said he typically fidgeted at his desk and talked with his classmates instead of completing his class work. Often he doodled or daydreamed and missed the teacher’s instructions so the teacher had to explain an assignment two or three times before he figured out what he was supposed to do. The teacher sent notes home almost every day. Worst of all, Ava explained with tears in her eyes, Aiden was beginning to feel bad about himself. He had begun saying things like “I hate myself” and “I’m stupid.””
Now, I am not a doctor, but I am a person with ADHD. I don’t know Aiden, but it does sound to me to be precisely the same way I internalized ADHD when I was younger, all the way up to when I was 24, and finally started properly recognizing it’s influence over me, and treating it with medication.
Impulsiveness, fidgeting, unable to listen, chatting, doodling, daydreaming, low self worth.
That’s a veritable who’s who of ADHD symptoms. If he has these symptoms while he is younger, there is a 75% chance that the symptoms will continue into adulthood, where, if you’re like me, you’ll start to hate yourself because of how difficult it is to do what you are told.
“ More important, they were worried that Adderall might dampen Aiden’s creative spirit.”
This is an extraordinarily common misconception, and is utterly false. A medication that a patient is responding well to will not have that effect - medication is imperfect, and is an unfortunately blunt instrument, but they do work. Very rarely does medication - especially stimulants - make people tired, or “dampen his spirit”. If anything, it’ll help him focus his creative spirit onto things he might actually want to do, instead of whatever his brain is currently locked into thinking about.
“Scott had read that creative people like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein didn’t do well at school when they were children.”
Another common misconception: Einstein did awesome in school. He studied hard, worked hard, practiced hard, and got far thanks to his effort. He was not born a gifted man - he was born a dedicated, curious, hard working man.
“He knew that Paul McCartney of the Beatles daydreamed in class and didn’t get good grades.“
I’m not sure if a rock star is really what you want for your child - fame is a great way to make money, but it is not a good way to build a long, happy life.
“Had these creative geniuses been children in today’s culture, they might well have been diagnosed with ADHD and medicated”
No, probably not. We don’t know for sure - who knows what they were like when they were younger. But your examples are terribly incomplete.
Our story about Aiden started out like this: He fidgets, he talks too much, he doesn’t listen, he’s disruptive, he’s impulsive, notes are sent home often, and Aiden is getting frustrated with himself and his inability to control his behaviour.
He’s not “too busy learning the guitar”. He’s not spending hours and hours and hours on math problems (although that might be an indication of some other neurological issue worth knowing about), or programming, or other things.
He’s doing what I did - desperately trying to calm his mind so that it might focus on what he wants to focus it on. Oh, my mind wants to talk? Ok, if I talk, I feel the gears in my head free up, and I can think again. Impulsiveness is the enemy here - getting hyperfocused isn’t so bad, it’s being unable to stick with one task for any length of time that’s bad.
And video games are different - I’m an avid gamer, and games are wonderful because they are moving at the same speed as my brain, and are adequately rewarding me for my efforts. The real world is often a relatively thankless place, and for someone with ADHD, positive feedback is so important that video games become the chaperone of our minds - healing us when we feel hurt, comforting us when we can’t seem to do anything else.
“He was not entirely anti-medication, but both he and Ava had a healthy skepticism about pharmaceuticals.”
I have not yet heard much “healthy” skepticism - so far, just generic fearmongering.
“Scott and Ava asked if I thought Adderall would help Aiden. In the spirit of providing them with all the options, I told them it probably would. Stimulants like Adderall help most children calm down and become more focused. In most cases, the effects of the medication are visible from the first day a child begins taking it. “
Well, that’s fantastic! Ok great! So take the medication, and let’s see how it works. Does it make him better, or worse, are there problematic side effects, are there are alternative medications that might work if Adderal doesn’t?
“However, if they wanted to go the non-medication route, I told them I was willing to take the journey with them.”
And now we’re talking about something different, unapproved, and which might ultimately negatively impact the future wellbeing of the child. Medication might too - but the chances are much lower. Especially if the medication is a good fit for Aiden - which for many people, it is.
The medication, coupled with a Cognitive Behaviour Therapist (not someone who has made their name writing silly books or articles titled things like “Why there is no ADHD in France” {Spoiler: there is}) is probably the single best thing that can be done for this boy. If he has relatively minor ADHD, then perhaps only Cognitive Behaviour Therapy would be necessary.
Still, steering these well-meaning parents through fear and distrust is and should be cause for shame.
“He was just one of those active kids who need to move around in order to think.”
Maybe he is, but he could also have ADHD.
Also, it’s pretty fucking annoying constantly having to move in order to think. It’s nice to just sit still and have a peaceful moment without my brain exploding out of my head.
“However, I added that there were other, drug-free ways to get the same results. “
The scientific literature does not support this outrageously false claim, except for people with relatively mild ADHD.
“Ava found that eliminating sugar, gluten, and foods with artificial colors from Aiden’s diet had a noticeable effect in calming him down. “
There is zero robust evidence for that claim.
Gluten allergies, as we already know, is a real malady that affects real people, due to the bodies overzealous anti immune response to a protein in Gluten. Obviously this is not responsible for ADHD.
No well performed, controlled, large scale study has show that “Gluten Sensitivity” is a real thing, much less an influence for ADHD. There is no proposed mechanism of action that makes sense.
It is also impossible to ‘eliminate’ sugar - glucose is a pretty important part of the human digestive tract, and is what we burn to move muscles and fret about our child’s mental state. Otherwise, added sugars may not be great for us, but there is, again, absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is an influence for ADHD.
While we’re at it, I’ll go ahead and mention that the adjacent myth, that sugar causes hyperactivity, has also been debunked repeatedly.
Artificial colours (that are used today) are also known to do virtually nothing to the human body, and adequately blinded and controlled studies show no effect.
Often, these changes are reported by the parents, and not by the child, so there is a serious bias that must also be taken into consideration. A study involving parents who thought their children had ADHD reported that their children were much calmer after receiving a placebo than before, despite none of the children being given nothing or told nothing.
“The teacher agreed to make sure Aiden understood the directions for assignments. She would clarify the directions if he didn’t understand them the first time. “
This, and the other points involving the school and teachers, are definitely good tips for anyone who doesn’t have a perfect child. Involving others and getting help can really help the child find his way through this mess.
“Though he didn’t stop daydreaming altogether, with the extra support he became more attentive to his teacher’s directions. By the end of the school term, with the increased help at school and at home, Aiden was doing much better. “
That’s great, and I hate to rain on the parade, but I did that too. And it didn’t work in the long term - when I got into the real world, and had to do things on my own, the pressure would get to be too much and I would eventually break. I needed the confidence and calmness that medication brought with it - suddenly, I really could just sit down and work on things that needed by attention.
Hopefully this works for Aiden - nothing would please me more. But this doesn’t work for everyone, and the author, by cherry-picking her success stories, is confusing the truth behind ADHD and how best to handle it.
Without a doubt, medication alone is not the best - but neither are behavioural changes.
“they have by and large accepted drugs as the preferred treatment of this so-called disorder without considering the side effects. “
Again, ADHD is a real disorder that really does affect kids and adults all over the world.
I agree that medicating kids perhaps shouldn’t be our priority - although taking drugs that help people concentrate can help them concentrate without those drugs in the future, thanks to the neuroplastic nature of the brain. Successful self control is a trainable thing - hence the importance of CBT - and medication makes it much easier to practice enforcing that self control.
There are some kids out there who need the help medication has to offer. There are some kids out there than can treat their ADHD symptoms with behaviour modification and cognitive behaviour therapy alone. Saying that ADHD is a “so-called” disorder is invalidating the serious and real experience of millions of people all over the world who suffer with ADHD and the fallout it can cause in our work life, personal life, and everywhere else.
“There are medical side effects such as insomnia, decreased appetite, and heart problems, but there are also effects on the child’s personality.”
This overly-inflammatory sentence is also problematic. Those side effects are experienced by very few people - <10%. Heart problems are even rarer (<1%) and generally only affect people with already weakened hearts.
Medication also usually has a positive effect on a child’s personality. When you’re not constantly struggling to pay attention and fighting a war against yourself, and learn than you can reliably concentrate on things and get them done, depression and anxiety are lifted and, often, the person’s “real” personality will come out. Again, as the author terminally misses, some kinds do respond negatively, but that is solved by simply stopping the medication.
“When Noah was nineteen, his psychiatrist prescribed the antidepressant Prozac, which did help him become less shy and introverted, but after six months he decided to stop taking it. When I asked him why, he told me he felt Prozac turned him into “a teenage girl.””
Ok, now we’re wandering into Non-ADHD territory. The author is not a psychiatrist, or even a psychologist - she majored in philosophy and social psychology.
So this guy Noah was unhappy enough with his introversion that he went to a doctor. That doctor prescribed him Prozac, which helped Noah become more extroverted, which Noah appreciated.
Noah experienced a side effect of Prozac, emotional sensitivity, which he didn’t like. He then decided to stop taking it.
This is not evidence of “shaping personalities” - it is evidence of a drug working, and the user deciding to cease taking it because they didn’t like it. There can be no better way to help people with their problems. He lost his girlfriend and was looking for some way to be happier and meet new people - a relatively harmless antidepressant is probably an excellent way to try and help this person.
Also keep in mind a tiny minority of people want to hear “Oh, it’ll take many years of carefully altering your behaviour” when they aren’t feeling well. They want a solution, right now. Often, medication with bring people out of their depression long enough for them to get back on their feet, and start getting the other help they need, like CBT.
“Noah preferred being true to himself, even shy and depressed, to being the new personality Prozac had sculpted.”
This is a false dichotomy - there is perhaps some other medication that might work, as I myself needed to trial a couple until I found something that worked for me. But after I found it, that was when I was surprised - woah, this really works was all I could think of after my first few days of seeing the world clearly for what seemed like the first time.
“Reflecting on Noah’s experience, I cannot help but wonder if the ADHD medications we now give to kids, especially boys (10 percent of high school boys in the United States currently take ADHD medication), are having an effect on them similar to the effect Prozac had on Noah. “
If it does (and it doesn’t), then stopping the medication is all that is required.
Besides, the purpose of treating ADHD and other neurological maladies is because of the effect they have on one’s behaviour. Normal people aren’t terrified to get a job for fear of letting down your boss. Normal people aren’t unable to listen unless they are moving. Normal people don’t daydream excessively, can bring themselves to listen to their teachers instructions, and can’t focus on video games for hours and hours and hours.
So yes - medication affects behaviour because behaviour is one of the things that affects our well-being in our day to day life.
“ But in giving children ADHD drugs are we also reshaping their personalities and asking them to give up something basic to their authentic selves? “
No, not at all.
For one thing, if you experience any personality changes you don’t like, stop taking your medication immediately, or as your doctor has instructed.
If you experience personality changes you do like, then that’s great! What a wonderful thing, and isn’t it funny how despite the fact that we feel like we are in control of ourselves and our brains, we are really riding on top of a subconsciousness whose nature we know nothing about? This might be a good time to reflect on the illusion of free will, but that’s for another article.
Finally, there is no such thing as an “authentic self” as it’s being used here - it’s actually the opposite. We are who we are, and we are constantly changing from moment to moment. Humans don’t often do things that they consider to be “inauthentic” - indeed, if an inauthentic thought comes down the pipeline, we are able to recognize it and act on it or not act on it. It is possible for us to consider sub-ideal behaviours and thoughts as authentic - we may value our distractibility, or our ability to work on 10 projects at once, or our ability to focus on a video game for 12 hours in one sitting. But those thoughts aren’t authentic in any meaningful sense of the term.
Ultimately, humans are born with the instruction set to behave within a some range of ways. Most people end up in the middle of this range, but others are outliers. Some outliers might be happy or unhappy with how they feel.
Aiden was unhappy with how he felt. I’m glad they found a solution for him - hopefully he grows out of his ADHD, although that is statistically unlikely (~75% of people with childhood ADHD continue to have it throughout their life). Not everyone can think, act, or will their way out of ADHD or other neurological problems. Some people need help. And painting ADHD as a non-disorder is a great way to make people who feel like they need help avoid getting that help.
It took a lot of guts for me to finally say that my life was a disaster, and that disaster was influenced by my ADHD. I felt relief when I was officially diagnosed - you mean all these years, I haven’t been lazy, angry, depressed, and distractible? You mean it’s not that I’m not trying hard enough?
By telling our children that they need to just “act right” instead of acknowledging that their behaviour may be influenced by something beyond their control, we endanger the wellbeing of our children, and give the middle finger to the existing body of scientific knowledge out there.
I’m trying to wrap this up, as my ADHD is acting up, but I can’t help but mine this article for more bad or malformed ideas:
“Our expectations have changed and parents seek medication for their kids primarily to drive them to raise their grades.”
Just so we’re clear, that’s a problem with parents, not doctors or the pharmaceutical industry.
“She says that her doctors defined her illness as “depression” because she responded to a specific antidepressant drug, Prozac. The drug defined her disease.”
Another extremely disappointing misconception (boy anyone can write a book these days).
It’s true that this is a reflection of our poor understanding of how the brain works and what our medications do, but you’re missing the point: if someone responds positively to medication, then that means that that medication is correcting some error in their mind. To borrow the authors terminology, being un-depressed is much more “authentic” to most people than being depressed is.
Using an individuals response to medication to inform diagnosis is a surprisingly accurate way of determining what may be at issue for someone, and her lack of understanding of that fact does not surprise me - nor should it surprise you.
This rather disappointing article found it’s way across my desk this morning.
Being a person with ADHD that interferes with one’s life, I find these sorts of articles very frustrating.
ADHD is a real neurological disorder. It is not caused by poor parenting (disproven), eating too much sugar (disproven), vaccines (technically autism, but ADHD and Autism share a spectrum), gluten (come on), or gut bacteria (disproven).
However, this article goes on to make several boldly misleading claims, both surrounding ADHD itself, and in their arguments that back up their claims.
Misconceptions about ADHD are left uncorrected, and ignorance, as is always the case in viral nonsense like this, prevails.
“ Aiden’s preschool teachers had been concerned about his disruptive, impulsive behavior.”
“Now Aiden’s second-grade teacher said he typically fidgeted at his desk and talked with his classmates instead of completing his class work. Often he doodled or daydreamed and missed the teacher’s instructions so the teacher had to explain an assignment two or three times before he figured out what he was supposed to do. The teacher sent notes home almost every day. Worst of all, Ava explained with tears in her eyes, Aiden was beginning to feel bad about himself. He had begun saying things like “I hate myself” and “I’m stupid.””
Now, I am not a doctor, but I am a person with ADHD. I don’t know Aiden, but it does sound to me to be precisely the same way I internalized ADHD when I was younger, all the way up to when I was 24, and finally started properly recognizing it’s influence over me, and treating it with medication.
Impulsiveness, fidgeting, unable to listen, chatting, doodling, daydreaming, low self worth.
That’s a veritable who’s who of ADHD symptoms. If he has these symptoms while he is younger, there is a 75% chance that the symptoms will continue into adulthood, where, if you’re like me, you’ll start to hate yourself because of how difficult it is to do what you are told.
“ More important, they were worried that Adderall might dampen Aiden’s creative spirit.”
This is an extraordinarily common misconception, and is utterly false. A medication that a patient is responding well to will not have that effect - medication is imperfect, and is an unfortunately blunt instrument, but they do work. Very rarely does medication - especially stimulants - make people tired, or “dampen his spirit”. If anything, it’ll help him focus his creative spirit onto things he might actually want to do, instead of whatever his brain is currently locked into thinking about.
“Scott had read that creative people like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein didn’t do well at school when they were children.”
Another common misconception: Einstein did awesome in school. He studied hard, worked hard, practiced hard, and got far thanks to his effort. He was not born a gifted man - he was born a dedicated, curious, hard working man.
“He knew that Paul McCartney of the Beatles daydreamed in class and didn’t get good grades.“
I’m not sure if a rock star is really what you want for your child - fame is a great way to make money, but it is not a good way to build a long, happy life.
“Had these creative geniuses been children in today’s culture, they might well have been diagnosed with ADHD and medicated”
No, probably not. We don’t know for sure - who knows what they were like when they were younger. But your examples are terribly incomplete.
Our story about Aiden started out like this: He fidgets, he talks too much, he doesn’t listen, he’s disruptive, he’s impulsive, notes are sent home often, and Aiden is getting frustrated with himself and his inability to control his behaviour.
He’s not “too busy learning the guitar”. He’s not spending hours and hours and hours on math problems (although that might be an indication of some other neurological issue worth knowing about), or programming, or other things.
He’s doing what I did - desperately trying to calm his mind so that it might focus on what he wants to focus it on. Oh, my mind wants to talk? Ok, if I talk, I feel the gears in my head free up, and I can think again. Impulsiveness is the enemy here - getting hyperfocused isn’t so bad, it’s being unable to stick with one task for any length of time that’s bad.
And video games are different - I’m an avid gamer, and games are wonderful because they are moving at the same speed as my brain, and are adequately rewarding me for my efforts. The real world is often a relatively thankless place, and for someone with ADHD, positive feedback is so important that video games become the chaperone of our minds - healing us when we feel hurt, comforting us when we can’t seem to do anything else.
“He was not entirely anti-medication, but both he and Ava had a healthy skepticism about pharmaceuticals.”
I have not yet heard much “healthy” skepticism - so far, just generic fearmongering.
“Scott and Ava asked if I thought Adderall would help Aiden. In the spirit of providing them with all the options, I told them it probably would. Stimulants like Adderall help most children calm down and become more focused. In most cases, the effects of the medication are visible from the first day a child begins taking it. “
Well, that’s fantastic! Ok great! So take the medication, and let’s see how it works. Does it make him better, or worse, are there problematic side effects, are there are alternative medications that might work if Adderal doesn’t?
“However, if they wanted to go the non-medication route, I told them I was willing to take the journey with them.”
And now we’re talking about something different, unapproved, and which might ultimately negatively impact the future wellbeing of the child. Medication might too - but the chances are much lower. Especially if the medication is a good fit for Aiden - which for many people, it is.
The medication, coupled with a Cognitive Behaviour Therapist (not someone who has made their name writing silly books or articles titled things like “Why there is no ADHD in France” {Spoiler: there is}) is probably the single best thing that can be done for this boy. If he has relatively minor ADHD, then perhaps only Cognitive Behaviour Therapy would be necessary.
Still, steering these well-meaning parents through fear and distrust is and should be cause for shame.
“He was just one of those active kids who need to move around in order to think.”
Maybe he is, but he could also have ADHD.
Also, it’s pretty fucking annoying constantly having to move in order to think. It’s nice to just sit still and have a peaceful moment without my brain exploding out of my head.
“However, I added that there were other, drug-free ways to get the same results. “
The scientific literature does not support this outrageously false claim, except for people with relatively mild ADHD.
“Ava found that eliminating sugar, gluten, and foods with artificial colors from Aiden’s diet had a noticeable effect in calming him down. “
There is zero robust evidence for that claim.
Gluten allergies, as we already know, is a real malady that affects real people, due to the bodies overzealous anti immune response to a protein in Gluten. Obviously this is not responsible for ADHD.
No well performed, controlled, large scale study has show that “Gluten Sensitivity” is a real thing, much less an influence for ADHD. There is no proposed mechanism of action that makes sense.
It is also impossible to ‘eliminate’ sugar - glucose is a pretty important part of the human digestive tract, and is what we burn to move muscles and fret about our child’s mental state. Otherwise, added sugars may not be great for us, but there is, again, absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is an influence for ADHD.
While we’re at it, I’ll go ahead and mention that the adjacent myth, that sugar causes hyperactivity, has also been debunked repeatedly.
Artificial colours (that are used today) are also known to do virtually nothing to the human body, and adequately blinded and controlled studies show no effect.
Often, these changes are reported by the parents, and not by the child, so there is a serious bias that must also be taken into consideration. A study involving parents who thought their children had ADHD reported that their children were much calmer after receiving a placebo than before, despite none of the children being given nothing or told nothing.
“The teacher agreed to make sure Aiden understood the directions for assignments. She would clarify the directions if he didn’t understand them the first time. “
This, and the other points involving the school and teachers, are definitely good tips for anyone who doesn’t have a perfect child. Involving others and getting help can really help the child find his way through this mess.
“Though he didn’t stop daydreaming altogether, with the extra support he became more attentive to his teacher’s directions. By the end of the school term, with the increased help at school and at home, Aiden was doing much better. “
That’s great, and I hate to rain on the parade, but I did that too. And it didn’t work in the long term - when I got into the real world, and had to do things on my own, the pressure would get to be too much and I would eventually break. I needed the confidence and calmness that medication brought with it - suddenly, I really could just sit down and work on things that needed by attention.
Hopefully this works for Aiden - nothing would please me more. But this doesn’t work for everyone, and the author, by cherry-picking her success stories, is confusing the truth behind ADHD and how best to handle it.
Without a doubt, medication alone is not the best - but neither are behavioural changes.
“they have by and large accepted drugs as the preferred treatment of this so-called disorder without considering the side effects. “
Again, ADHD is a real disorder that really does affect kids and adults all over the world.
I agree that medicating kids perhaps shouldn’t be our priority - although taking drugs that help people concentrate can help them concentrate without those drugs in the future, thanks to the neuroplastic nature of the brain. Successful self control is a trainable thing - hence the importance of CBT - and medication makes it much easier to practice enforcing that self control.
There are some kids out there who need the help medication has to offer. There are some kids out there than can treat their ADHD symptoms with behaviour modification and cognitive behaviour therapy alone. Saying that ADHD is a “so-called” disorder is invalidating the serious and real experience of millions of people all over the world who suffer with ADHD and the fallout it can cause in our work life, personal life, and everywhere else.
“There are medical side effects such as insomnia, decreased appetite, and heart problems, but there are also effects on the child’s personality.”
This overly-inflammatory sentence is also problematic. Those side effects are experienced by very few people - <10%. Heart problems are even rarer (<1%) and generally only affect people with already weakened hearts.
Medication also usually has a positive effect on a child’s personality. When you’re not constantly struggling to pay attention and fighting a war against yourself, and learn than you can reliably concentrate on things and get them done, depression and anxiety are lifted and, often, the person’s “real” personality will come out. Again, as the author terminally misses, some kinds do respond negatively, but that is solved by simply stopping the medication.
“When Noah was nineteen, his psychiatrist prescribed the antidepressant Prozac, which did help him become less shy and introverted, but after six months he decided to stop taking it. When I asked him why, he told me he felt Prozac turned him into “a teenage girl.””
Ok, now we’re wandering into Non-ADHD territory. The author is not a psychiatrist, or even a psychologist - she majored in philosophy and social psychology.
So this guy Noah was unhappy enough with his introversion that he went to a doctor. That doctor prescribed him Prozac, which helped Noah become more extroverted, which Noah appreciated.
Noah experienced a side effect of Prozac, emotional sensitivity, which he didn’t like. He then decided to stop taking it.
This is not evidence of “shaping personalities” - it is evidence of a drug working, and the user deciding to cease taking it because they didn’t like it. There can be no better way to help people with their problems. He lost his girlfriend and was looking for some way to be happier and meet new people - a relatively harmless antidepressant is probably an excellent way to try and help this person.
Also keep in mind a tiny minority of people want to hear “Oh, it’ll take many years of carefully altering your behaviour” when they aren’t feeling well. They want a solution, right now. Often, medication with bring people out of their depression long enough for them to get back on their feet, and start getting the other help they need, like CBT.
“Noah preferred being true to himself, even shy and depressed, to being the new personality Prozac had sculpted.”
This is a false dichotomy - there is perhaps some other medication that might work, as I myself needed to trial a couple until I found something that worked for me. But after I found it, that was when I was surprised - woah, this really works was all I could think of after my first few days of seeing the world clearly for what seemed like the first time.
“Reflecting on Noah’s experience, I cannot help but wonder if the ADHD medications we now give to kids, especially boys (10 percent of high school boys in the United States currently take ADHD medication), are having an effect on them similar to the effect Prozac had on Noah. “
If it does (and it doesn’t), then stopping the medication is all that is required.
Besides, the purpose of treating ADHD and other neurological maladies is because of the effect they have on one’s behaviour. Normal people aren’t terrified to get a job for fear of letting down your boss. Normal people aren’t unable to listen unless they are moving. Normal people don’t daydream excessively, can bring themselves to listen to their teachers instructions, and can’t focus on video games for hours and hours and hours.
So yes - medication affects behaviour because behaviour is one of the things that affects our well-being in our day to day life.
“ But in giving children ADHD drugs are we also reshaping their personalities and asking them to give up something basic to their authentic selves? “
No, not at all.
For one thing, if you experience any personality changes you don’t like, stop taking your medication immediately, or as your doctor has instructed.
If you experience personality changes you do like, then that’s great! What a wonderful thing, and isn’t it funny how despite the fact that we feel like we are in control of ourselves and our brains, we are really riding on top of a subconsciousness whose nature we know nothing about? This might be a good time to reflect on the illusion of free will, but that’s for another article.
Finally, there is no such thing as an “authentic self” as it’s being used here - it’s actually the opposite. We are who we are, and we are constantly changing from moment to moment. Humans don’t often do things that they consider to be “inauthentic” - indeed, if an inauthentic thought comes down the pipeline, we are able to recognize it and act on it or not act on it. It is possible for us to consider sub-ideal behaviours and thoughts as authentic - we may value our distractibility, or our ability to work on 10 projects at once, or our ability to focus on a video game for 12 hours in one sitting. But those thoughts aren’t authentic in any meaningful sense of the term.
Ultimately, humans are born with the instruction set to behave within a some range of ways. Most people end up in the middle of this range, but others are outliers. Some outliers might be happy or unhappy with how they feel.
Aiden was unhappy with how he felt. I’m glad they found a solution for him - hopefully he grows out of his ADHD, although that is statistically unlikely (~75% of people with childhood ADHD continue to have it throughout their life). Not everyone can think, act, or will their way out of ADHD or other neurological problems. Some people need help. And painting ADHD as a non-disorder is a great way to make people who feel like they need help avoid getting that help.
It took a lot of guts for me to finally say that my life was a disaster, and that disaster was influenced by my ADHD. I felt relief when I was officially diagnosed - you mean all these years, I haven’t been lazy, angry, depressed, and distractible? You mean it’s not that I’m not trying hard enough?
By telling our children that they need to just “act right” instead of acknowledging that their behaviour may be influenced by something beyond their control, we endanger the wellbeing of our children, and give the middle finger to the existing body of scientific knowledge out there.
I’m trying to wrap this up, as my ADHD is acting up, but I can’t help but mine this article for more bad or malformed ideas:
“Our expectations have changed and parents seek medication for their kids primarily to drive them to raise their grades.”
Just so we’re clear, that’s a problem with parents, not doctors or the pharmaceutical industry.
“She says that her doctors defined her illness as “depression” because she responded to a specific antidepressant drug, Prozac. The drug defined her disease.”
Another extremely disappointing misconception (boy anyone can write a book these days).
It’s true that this is a reflection of our poor understanding of how the brain works and what our medications do, but you’re missing the point: if someone responds positively to medication, then that means that that medication is correcting some error in their mind. To borrow the authors terminology, being un-depressed is much more “authentic” to most people than being depressed is.
Using an individuals response to medication to inform diagnosis is a surprisingly accurate way of determining what may be at issue for someone, and her lack of understanding of that fact does not surprise me - nor should it surprise you.
Actual Liquid Water Found On Mars - Technically
Which is my favourite kind of right!
I'm especially pleased, because I sincerely did not think we would find liquid water on Mars. I wonder if there are any aquifers - hopefully there will be some way to detect such a thing with Curiosity, although I imagine should there be any aquifers, they would be extremely deep underground.
It's a bit of a technicality - such is the way of science - but there is liquid water during the night and just after sunrise, when the temperature is around -70 degrees, due to calcium perchlorate in the highly porous surface soil.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/13/nasas-curiosity-rover-finds-water-below-surface-of-mars
I'm especially pleased, because I sincerely did not think we would find liquid water on Mars. I wonder if there are any aquifers - hopefully there will be some way to detect such a thing with Curiosity, although I imagine should there be any aquifers, they would be extremely deep underground.
It's a bit of a technicality - such is the way of science - but there is liquid water during the night and just after sunrise, when the temperature is around -70 degrees, due to calcium perchlorate in the highly porous surface soil.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/13/nasas-curiosity-rover-finds-water-below-surface-of-mars
Should we label our GMO's?
The following is my commentary on a post a friend made about GMO's. First is their post:
"Of course people have a right to hold stupid beliefs. All people have a right to hold whatever belief they want, or none of use do. Everyone has the right to act stupidly, if they don't infringe on others. I think history has informed us that it would be people like you and me that would be rounded up in a society that did not have robust protection of freedom of thought, and action. We are also on dangerous ground when presume to force others to do something, because we know what's best for them.
I am also at a lose to understand how more openness in a process would encourage more people to think something is being hidden from them, a core part of any conspiracy theory. To be honest, I'm sure there are conspiracy theorists who would spin labeling as proof of GMO's harmfulness but, many more would most likely simply abandon the fight against GMO food in general, once they could choose not to by it.
Of course GMO's have something different in them, that's the whole point of modifying the genetic code. Modified code produces different proteins than would normally be present in the organism, thus giving it properties not present before. These are physical differences. The process of genetic engineering being used to produce GMO foods is not "the same thing" as selective breeding and hybridization. Just because one is displacing the other, does not make them the same. If so, why replace the first?
These differences can be, and often are, significantly more profound than changes offered through selective breeding processes. Indeed, this ability to make such profound change is at the very heart of the great promise GMO's offer.
Science always admits the possibility of error. And, as remote as the possibility of harm is, people have the right not to expose themselves to any risk. If we are to infringe on an individual's rights by forcing them to eat GMO's without their knowledge, society needs a compelling reason, like herd immunity, to do so. No such reason exist here.
GMO labeling may bother you as some kind of irksome capitulation to the forces of pseudo science, but it doesn't actually materially infringe on you, or anyone else for that matter.
Your argument doesn't leave room the complexity of the question, particularly the larger ethical questions around consumer rights and free thought. There are rational reasons not to support GMO's. One can reasonable object Round Up ready wheat because it allows for greater use of toxic insecticides. One can make a reasonable argument against allowing the patenting of genetic code. These are not necessarily arguments I would make, but they are not based in pseudo science.
As for GMO labeling not indicating the being unnecessarily because it's not reflective of the foods content, that is clearly not the only valid purpose of labeling. Having food labeled "product of Mexico", etc, has nothing to do with what's in it, yet we accept that consumers have a right to that information. Labeling of products need not only be about what's in it.
I believe falling into "camps" in any dispute is clearly unwise. Just because the pseudo science purveyors of the "Frankinfood" myth want labeling, doesn't mean the idea has no merit. Something your "don't reward stupidity" argument suggests."
"Of course people have a right to hold stupid beliefs. All people have a right to hold whatever belief they want, or none of use do. Everyone has the right to act stupidly, if they don't infringe on others. I think history has informed us that it would be people like you and me that would be rounded up in a society that did not have robust protection of freedom of thought, and action. We are also on dangerous ground when presume to force others to do something, because we know what's best for them.
I am also at a lose to understand how more openness in a process would encourage more people to think something is being hidden from them, a core part of any conspiracy theory. To be honest, I'm sure there are conspiracy theorists who would spin labeling as proof of GMO's harmfulness but, many more would most likely simply abandon the fight against GMO food in general, once they could choose not to by it.
Of course GMO's have something different in them, that's the whole point of modifying the genetic code. Modified code produces different proteins than would normally be present in the organism, thus giving it properties not present before. These are physical differences. The process of genetic engineering being used to produce GMO foods is not "the same thing" as selective breeding and hybridization. Just because one is displacing the other, does not make them the same. If so, why replace the first?
These differences can be, and often are, significantly more profound than changes offered through selective breeding processes. Indeed, this ability to make such profound change is at the very heart of the great promise GMO's offer.
Science always admits the possibility of error. And, as remote as the possibility of harm is, people have the right not to expose themselves to any risk. If we are to infringe on an individual's rights by forcing them to eat GMO's without their knowledge, society needs a compelling reason, like herd immunity, to do so. No such reason exist here.
GMO labeling may bother you as some kind of irksome capitulation to the forces of pseudo science, but it doesn't actually materially infringe on you, or anyone else for that matter.
Your argument doesn't leave room the complexity of the question, particularly the larger ethical questions around consumer rights and free thought. There are rational reasons not to support GMO's. One can reasonable object Round Up ready wheat because it allows for greater use of toxic insecticides. One can make a reasonable argument against allowing the patenting of genetic code. These are not necessarily arguments I would make, but they are not based in pseudo science.
As for GMO labeling not indicating the being unnecessarily because it's not reflective of the foods content, that is clearly not the only valid purpose of labeling. Having food labeled "product of Mexico", etc, has nothing to do with what's in it, yet we accept that consumers have a right to that information. Labeling of products need not only be about what's in it.
I believe falling into "camps" in any dispute is clearly unwise. Just because the pseudo science purveyors of the "Frankinfood" myth want labeling, doesn't mean the idea has no merit. Something your "don't reward stupidity" argument suggests."
And here is my response:
I wouldn't say that people have a right to hold stupid beliefs - stupid beliefs should have some cost associated with them. There should never be a law against saying that Elvis is still alive, however, the idea has such low merit as to be associated with a social cost when considered in public seriously.
The desire to label products that have been genetically modified isn't quite so foolish as that, but it still lacks a solid reason to force someone to do something.
It's not worth the effort, and it's a distraction from bigger problems you mentioned: the need to talk about Monsanto's behaviour, and most importantly for me, the outrageous policy of patenting biological organisms.
Ultimately, I think it's important that we only do things when there is science to back them up - any and all decisions, especially those involving compulsion or force (as would requiring all products to be labelled if they contain GMO's), should be tied to scientific reasoning. That way when people complain about it, we have evidence to back up our decision, and a reasonable way to come to a middle ground if need be.
I'll sum up my more direct responses here:
" To be honest, I'm sure there are conspiracy theorists who would spin labeling as proof of GMO's harmfulness"
That is /precisely/ what is going to happen. Giving in to the demands of conspiracy theorists just moves the goalpost - just like 9/11 bullshit and Obama's birth certificate.
"many more would most likely simply abandon the fight against GMO food in general"
I also don't think that's true, and is ironically assuming that people are more intelligent consumers than they really are. Most people gave no idea what GMO's are or what any of it means, so they will simply avoid anything labelled with it. Since GMO food is cheaper, this is unfair to the less fortunate who may not be able to spend 8 hours on Wikipedia learning how genetic modification works.
"once they could choose not to by it. "
Also, this is already the case - there is no shortage of organic food in markets these days.
"Of course GMO's have something different in them, that's the whole point of modifying the genetic code. "
Well, yeah, but the point is that /all/ food has been heavily modified from it's original form, and always by random selection. This means we have no real control over what the plant does, and negative effects might be amplified with positive ones and all sorts of crazy combinations brought about by natural variation.
Genetic modification, on the other hand, is a very precise method of creating new types of plants and bacteria, and is much safer. The fact that it allows inclusion of a wider range of DNA doesn't really mean a whole lot, given the enhanced precision that comes along with it.
Genetically modified plants are not often significantly different from their parent organisms, and if they aren't, it is readily apparent based on the technique used, and there is very little room for unexpected changes.
"If so, why replace the first?"
Because of the enhanced control and precision offered. Yes, we can introduce wilder combinations and changes, but there isn't a really good reason to fear that just yet.
"And, as remote as the possibility of harm is, people have the right not to expose themselves to any risk."
Ah, there's the logical error at the heart of this.
People /definitely do not/ have a "right" to not expose themselves to "any" risk. That is simply impossible, impractical, and not safe for the public at large - that argument could be easily applied to vaccine denial, as well.
Eating any food at all carries risk. Getting out of bed carries risk - staying in bed carries risk. We need to weigh the risk vs. reward for each scenario we find ourselves in, and when it comes to GMO's, the rewards FAR outweigh the risks, to a degree not often seen. Not even nuclear power has such a good risk to reward ratio.
" If we are to infringe on an individual's rights by forcing them to eat GMO's without their knowledge, society needs a compelling reason, like herd immunity, to do so. No such reason exist here."
I'm afraid this is simply a false premise. No one has any right not to consume GMO's without their consent.
The compelling reason not to label GMO's is because doing so would force companies to label their products. I know it's hard to drum up hard feelings for companies these days, but I still don't think anyone should be forced to do anything without a good reason. And people's ignorance and fear are NOT good reasons - they are the spectre of death for any democracy.
"One can reasonable object Round Up ready wheat because it allows for greater use of toxic insecticides. "
Not really - regardless of the amount sprayed onto plants, barely any makes it into the digestive system for anyone who prepares their food correctly. The dose is what does it, and the doses for glyphosate in produce is well within the limits required to protect people.
That being said, Roundup Readiness was a stupid waste of time for Monsanto, and they really ought to have expected the resistance problems they are not seeing. Same with their Bt crops. It's shortsighted economics fueled by shortsighted science, and that IS scary as fuck, and a problem we would hopefully be dealing with if we weren't being distracted by this labelling nonsense.
"One can make a reasonable argument against allowing the patenting of genetic code. "
Absolutely - and patenting must stop. But that's not a problem with GMO's, it's a problem with patenting genetic code.
The bottom line is, labelling GMO's won't actually solve any of the problems that do exist with GMO's, and if we spend our political capital on that issue, we might not have any left to spend on serious issues like genetic patents and stupid GMO research like Bt production and Glyphosate immunity.
I wouldn't say that people have a right to hold stupid beliefs - stupid beliefs should have some cost associated with them. There should never be a law against saying that Elvis is still alive, however, the idea has such low merit as to be associated with a social cost when considered in public seriously.
The desire to label products that have been genetically modified isn't quite so foolish as that, but it still lacks a solid reason to force someone to do something.
It's not worth the effort, and it's a distraction from bigger problems you mentioned: the need to talk about Monsanto's behaviour, and most importantly for me, the outrageous policy of patenting biological organisms.
Ultimately, I think it's important that we only do things when there is science to back them up - any and all decisions, especially those involving compulsion or force (as would requiring all products to be labelled if they contain GMO's), should be tied to scientific reasoning. That way when people complain about it, we have evidence to back up our decision, and a reasonable way to come to a middle ground if need be.
I'll sum up my more direct responses here:
" To be honest, I'm sure there are conspiracy theorists who would spin labeling as proof of GMO's harmfulness"
That is /precisely/ what is going to happen. Giving in to the demands of conspiracy theorists just moves the goalpost - just like 9/11 bullshit and Obama's birth certificate.
"many more would most likely simply abandon the fight against GMO food in general"
I also don't think that's true, and is ironically assuming that people are more intelligent consumers than they really are. Most people gave no idea what GMO's are or what any of it means, so they will simply avoid anything labelled with it. Since GMO food is cheaper, this is unfair to the less fortunate who may not be able to spend 8 hours on Wikipedia learning how genetic modification works.
"once they could choose not to by it. "
Also, this is already the case - there is no shortage of organic food in markets these days.
"Of course GMO's have something different in them, that's the whole point of modifying the genetic code. "
Well, yeah, but the point is that /all/ food has been heavily modified from it's original form, and always by random selection. This means we have no real control over what the plant does, and negative effects might be amplified with positive ones and all sorts of crazy combinations brought about by natural variation.
Genetic modification, on the other hand, is a very precise method of creating new types of plants and bacteria, and is much safer. The fact that it allows inclusion of a wider range of DNA doesn't really mean a whole lot, given the enhanced precision that comes along with it.
Genetically modified plants are not often significantly different from their parent organisms, and if they aren't, it is readily apparent based on the technique used, and there is very little room for unexpected changes.
"If so, why replace the first?"
Because of the enhanced control and precision offered. Yes, we can introduce wilder combinations and changes, but there isn't a really good reason to fear that just yet.
"And, as remote as the possibility of harm is, people have the right not to expose themselves to any risk."
Ah, there's the logical error at the heart of this.
People /definitely do not/ have a "right" to not expose themselves to "any" risk. That is simply impossible, impractical, and not safe for the public at large - that argument could be easily applied to vaccine denial, as well.
Eating any food at all carries risk. Getting out of bed carries risk - staying in bed carries risk. We need to weigh the risk vs. reward for each scenario we find ourselves in, and when it comes to GMO's, the rewards FAR outweigh the risks, to a degree not often seen. Not even nuclear power has such a good risk to reward ratio.
" If we are to infringe on an individual's rights by forcing them to eat GMO's without their knowledge, society needs a compelling reason, like herd immunity, to do so. No such reason exist here."
I'm afraid this is simply a false premise. No one has any right not to consume GMO's without their consent.
The compelling reason not to label GMO's is because doing so would force companies to label their products. I know it's hard to drum up hard feelings for companies these days, but I still don't think anyone should be forced to do anything without a good reason. And people's ignorance and fear are NOT good reasons - they are the spectre of death for any democracy.
"One can reasonable object Round Up ready wheat because it allows for greater use of toxic insecticides. "
Not really - regardless of the amount sprayed onto plants, barely any makes it into the digestive system for anyone who prepares their food correctly. The dose is what does it, and the doses for glyphosate in produce is well within the limits required to protect people.
That being said, Roundup Readiness was a stupid waste of time for Monsanto, and they really ought to have expected the resistance problems they are not seeing. Same with their Bt crops. It's shortsighted economics fueled by shortsighted science, and that IS scary as fuck, and a problem we would hopefully be dealing with if we weren't being distracted by this labelling nonsense.
"One can make a reasonable argument against allowing the patenting of genetic code. "
Absolutely - and patenting must stop. But that's not a problem with GMO's, it's a problem with patenting genetic code.
The bottom line is, labelling GMO's won't actually solve any of the problems that do exist with GMO's, and if we spend our political capital on that issue, we might not have any left to spend on serious issues like genetic patents and stupid GMO research like Bt production and Glyphosate immunity.
LPT: Don't Judge Yourself Through Others' Expectations
Followup to Frustrated rant about RBC and NSF fees
I kinda needed to see this.
I just got in a rather long and heated argument my with cousin, who I respect, about my claim that my ADHD really does prevent me from confidently holding a 'regular' 9-5-style job for longer than a year or two. I've never worked anywhere longer than two years.
And let me be clear: I think I could find the right combination of medication and steel to make it in that normal world. But I'm going to be 30 in a couple of years. I've spent 10 years doing that already. I've only recently just found myself - and my goodness, there was a lot to find - and I've even been lucky enough to find that really special person that needs you just as much as you need them. So I've kinda got most of what I care about in this world figured out - the question is how to live while I do that.
I messed up like a lot of people have - I spent a lot of money on a private college after begging my too-trusting mother to cosign a loan for me on the hopes it'd land me a sweet gig in the video game industry, but that turned out to be a pipe dream a lot of ways. I went to school to learn, but it was more of a 'finishing school' style thing, so my brother and I were left in the dust by people who had been practicing for years, instead of just playing games and thinking about them like we did.
At that time, I figured I would be able to just, you know, man up, and deal with it, and basically suffer for 5/7ths of my life while I try to just ignore the realities about my mind and personality. Unfortunately, 10 years of doing that has really burned me out on that. And I've worked at a lot of places, even changed countries, genders, and medication - all in the name of just *assuming* that I am capable of living that normal life. Even as a transwoman, hey, I live in a really liberal city, I'd make it.
I was warned by a few quiet voices over time - it gets to you. It chips away at you. And when you work in IT, you have to answer a lot of phones, especially starting out. So every Sir I get, it does a little mark of damage, even though I know full well what I sound like, and it is not very much like a woman. It does help though.
I don't feel like I'm really asking for too much - I do my honest to god best at balancing the needs of the employer, the customer, and myself, but managers don't see it that way. Being 5 minutes late is a slap in the face to them, even if it's because I forgot my parking tag expired and I couldn't find any change, and our parking lot has a no-dispute policy with tickets, and I'm seriously strapped paying for the stupid loan I coaxed my mother in to. That chips away at me too. She was right about that - fuck, it's annoying how often she's right sometimes. But she's not *always* right - then it wouldn't be annoying when I'm surprised when she's right!
Anyways. Unfortunately, I just don't fit in to the mold that's out there. I've been diagnosed with ADHD, too: and you know, I can fake it for a while, but at some point, the anxiety starts, and it'll sabotage me until I get fired. Or my contract expires. And that's the ADHD, is the thing. That's what's wrong with everyone - like my cousin - who also genuinely didn't like work, and then found something he loves and learned to deal with the shit that piles up because I don't fucking know, *because I can't do that*.
I remember having long talks with my mother and other people about what motivates me. With people who mean the best, and genuinely care about me, but just totally don't understand. And I've really been quite the good actress my whole life, so I can't blame them. I know what they expected, and I made sure that they got what they expected, because I knew that deep down, my default is the polar opposite of what they expected. It started early, and it's all been a big lie ever since - the whole male persona, the old me, really is dead. People like to say that being trans isn't losing a son, it's gaining a daughter - well, in my case, the part of me that is considered a "son" is gone. And with it, this idea that I really ought to force myself suffer through 5/7th's of my life, despite missing this variable of intrinsic reward for 'hard work' - because I just feel terrified all the time. I just don't want to fuck up, lose my job, and then have to find a new one, which is the scariest thing of all.
I was thinking about it, and ADHD is what keeps me from releasing the stress that accumulates while working. Being trans is hard, but I love who I am and fuck anyone who disagrees, so I've really got that under control - it's like unusually hard rocks being fed into a rock crusher. Over time, they dull the edges, round off the parts of me that I think matter the most in life, and the downtime to get me back up is not acceptable in the current working world.
The question really, is why should I worry about how other people define my life? If going on disability and with the intent to free up my mind to working on many personal projects at once with manageable deadlines with the intent of monetizing a few talents into a few different part-time works, ultimately hoping to find a new skill that I can get paid well for but fits with my requirements and beliefs for how my life ought to be, then so-goddamn-be it!
Well, I could write a million more words about this, but I'll take it elsewhere. Thanks for reading, if you made it.
I just got in a rather long and heated argument my with cousin, who I respect, about my claim that my ADHD really does prevent me from confidently holding a 'regular' 9-5-style job for longer than a year or two. I've never worked anywhere longer than two years.
And let me be clear: I think I could find the right combination of medication and steel to make it in that normal world. But I'm going to be 30 in a couple of years. I've spent 10 years doing that already. I've only recently just found myself - and my goodness, there was a lot to find - and I've even been lucky enough to find that really special person that needs you just as much as you need them. So I've kinda got most of what I care about in this world figured out - the question is how to live while I do that.
I messed up like a lot of people have - I spent a lot of money on a private college after begging my too-trusting mother to cosign a loan for me on the hopes it'd land me a sweet gig in the video game industry, but that turned out to be a pipe dream a lot of ways. I went to school to learn, but it was more of a 'finishing school' style thing, so my brother and I were left in the dust by people who had been practicing for years, instead of just playing games and thinking about them like we did.
At that time, I figured I would be able to just, you know, man up, and deal with it, and basically suffer for 5/7ths of my life while I try to just ignore the realities about my mind and personality. Unfortunately, 10 years of doing that has really burned me out on that. And I've worked at a lot of places, even changed countries, genders, and medication - all in the name of just *assuming* that I am capable of living that normal life. Even as a transwoman, hey, I live in a really liberal city, I'd make it.
I was warned by a few quiet voices over time - it gets to you. It chips away at you. And when you work in IT, you have to answer a lot of phones, especially starting out. So every Sir I get, it does a little mark of damage, even though I know full well what I sound like, and it is not very much like a woman. It does help though.
I don't feel like I'm really asking for too much - I do my honest to god best at balancing the needs of the employer, the customer, and myself, but managers don't see it that way. Being 5 minutes late is a slap in the face to them, even if it's because I forgot my parking tag expired and I couldn't find any change, and our parking lot has a no-dispute policy with tickets, and I'm seriously strapped paying for the stupid loan I coaxed my mother in to. That chips away at me too. She was right about that - fuck, it's annoying how often she's right sometimes. But she's not *always* right - then it wouldn't be annoying when I'm surprised when she's right!
Anyways. Unfortunately, I just don't fit in to the mold that's out there. I've been diagnosed with ADHD, too: and you know, I can fake it for a while, but at some point, the anxiety starts, and it'll sabotage me until I get fired. Or my contract expires. And that's the ADHD, is the thing. That's what's wrong with everyone - like my cousin - who also genuinely didn't like work, and then found something he loves and learned to deal with the shit that piles up because I don't fucking know, *because I can't do that*.
I remember having long talks with my mother and other people about what motivates me. With people who mean the best, and genuinely care about me, but just totally don't understand. And I've really been quite the good actress my whole life, so I can't blame them. I know what they expected, and I made sure that they got what they expected, because I knew that deep down, my default is the polar opposite of what they expected. It started early, and it's all been a big lie ever since - the whole male persona, the old me, really is dead. People like to say that being trans isn't losing a son, it's gaining a daughter - well, in my case, the part of me that is considered a "son" is gone. And with it, this idea that I really ought to force myself suffer through 5/7th's of my life, despite missing this variable of intrinsic reward for 'hard work' - because I just feel terrified all the time. I just don't want to fuck up, lose my job, and then have to find a new one, which is the scariest thing of all.
I was thinking about it, and ADHD is what keeps me from releasing the stress that accumulates while working. Being trans is hard, but I love who I am and fuck anyone who disagrees, so I've really got that under control - it's like unusually hard rocks being fed into a rock crusher. Over time, they dull the edges, round off the parts of me that I think matter the most in life, and the downtime to get me back up is not acceptable in the current working world.
The question really, is why should I worry about how other people define my life? If going on disability and with the intent to free up my mind to working on many personal projects at once with manageable deadlines with the intent of monetizing a few talents into a few different part-time works, ultimately hoping to find a new skill that I can get paid well for but fits with my requirements and beliefs for how my life ought to be, then so-goddamn-be it!
Well, I could write a million more words about this, but I'll take it elsewhere. Thanks for reading, if you made it.
Frustrated rant about VFS, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), NSF fees
More bullshit from the Canadian Banking system: 5 dollars short for my monthly monetary rape session, RBC charged it's usual insanely outrageous 45$ fee for overdrafting. As tempted as I am to pay for the privilege to not be fined for not having enough money, I will instead simply accept the fact that the Canadian banking system is here to punish the poor, and reward the wealthy. Just like every banking system though, really. Which makes sense: ultimately, the wealthy are the ones who need the most help in this world. They struggle with where to hide all of their money.
This is unfair, outrageous, and stupid. NSF fees in the US are 5-10$. NSF fees DON'T EXIST in the EU.
I got hooked for $35,000 to follow my dream, which had also been poisoned by people who want to line their own pockets, instead of teaching people. I paid $35,000 to be lied to during the opening interviews about placement rates and expected pay, to be lied to during school about the nature of the industry and the reality of our future prospects, to sign a contract promising #VFS didn't need to teach me anything, and to be forced to pay 300$ a month for a 'special' loan only given to VFS students while unemployed, poor, and just trying to find a way to enjoy life. And I thought going to school for what I was passionate about was a good way to do that. It seemed like a good idea. People told me it was a good idea. VFS told me it was a good idea. My mother believed me because she is a kind and wonderful person, and I got her tied into this bullshit too, so desperate was I to find anything that I could wake up in the morning excited to do.
And they were wrong. And they don't have to suffer the consequences - but I do.
I don't ask for a lot, you know. I don't want a ferrari, or a mansion, or a 2,000$ computer. I want to wake up in the morning happy that I have done so. I want to stay home with the girl I love on days she needs me, I want to see the places we want to see together, without fear of being pulled asunder by some bad advice I got years ago that still costs me 300$ a month. Without being forced to pay absurd and outrageous NSF fees because a program can't be bothered to check if the number they are subtracting leaves me with nothing, unless I agree to pay them a certain amount of money per month, because it /should/ cost me money to make sure no one subtracts a big number from a smaller one.
The situation is outrageous. I have had enough. Again. For the 10th or 20th time.
But I can't do anything. I can't just go make more money - not only do I have my own problems, but even if I didn't, this is a go-nowhere, broken economy where wages have been flat for 40 years. I already called RBC, and they already agreed to let me pay 300$ a month instead of 400$, but they did me no favours as they'll be making much more interest from me.
We are all being taken advantage of by people more powerful than us. Most people have the tools to dodge, avoid, or even partake in that exploitation - but the poor have no choice but to take it on the nose, every. Single. Time.
This isn't how I was supposed to be spending my 20's. I just wanted to follow my dream.
This is unfair, outrageous, and stupid. NSF fees in the US are 5-10$. NSF fees DON'T EXIST in the EU.
I got hooked for $35,000 to follow my dream, which had also been poisoned by people who want to line their own pockets, instead of teaching people. I paid $35,000 to be lied to during the opening interviews about placement rates and expected pay, to be lied to during school about the nature of the industry and the reality of our future prospects, to sign a contract promising #VFS didn't need to teach me anything, and to be forced to pay 300$ a month for a 'special' loan only given to VFS students while unemployed, poor, and just trying to find a way to enjoy life. And I thought going to school for what I was passionate about was a good way to do that. It seemed like a good idea. People told me it was a good idea. VFS told me it was a good idea. My mother believed me because she is a kind and wonderful person, and I got her tied into this bullshit too, so desperate was I to find anything that I could wake up in the morning excited to do.
And they were wrong. And they don't have to suffer the consequences - but I do.
I don't ask for a lot, you know. I don't want a ferrari, or a mansion, or a 2,000$ computer. I want to wake up in the morning happy that I have done so. I want to stay home with the girl I love on days she needs me, I want to see the places we want to see together, without fear of being pulled asunder by some bad advice I got years ago that still costs me 300$ a month. Without being forced to pay absurd and outrageous NSF fees because a program can't be bothered to check if the number they are subtracting leaves me with nothing, unless I agree to pay them a certain amount of money per month, because it /should/ cost me money to make sure no one subtracts a big number from a smaller one.
The situation is outrageous. I have had enough. Again. For the 10th or 20th time.
But I can't do anything. I can't just go make more money - not only do I have my own problems, but even if I didn't, this is a go-nowhere, broken economy where wages have been flat for 40 years. I already called RBC, and they already agreed to let me pay 300$ a month instead of 400$, but they did me no favours as they'll be making much more interest from me.
We are all being taken advantage of by people more powerful than us. Most people have the tools to dodge, avoid, or even partake in that exploitation - but the poor have no choice but to take it on the nose, every. Single. Time.
This isn't how I was supposed to be spending my 20's. I just wanted to follow my dream.
Response to Article: "Watch a GMO Advocate Claim a Weed Killer Is Safe to Drink but Then Refuse to Drink It"
http://time.com/3761053/monsanto-weed-killer-drink-patrick-moore/
I have never read a more inaccurate article in the world.
I'm speechless, really. So much ignorance, especially on the part of the press. A wholly inaccurate title, a fundamental misunderstanding of toxicity (which is ultimately at the heart of GMO-related fears), and false conclusions drawn from bad evidence. What an utter disaster.
Glyphosate is safe for human consumption at the trace levels that remain after it makes it to your house and you wash it in the sink. Drinking a glass of it significantly increases the dose, therefore significantly increasing the risk, and therefore asking someone to drink it to prove that it is safe for consumption is the dumbest, most embarrassing thing I've ever seen on television.
And I've watched Fox News.
So, while Monsanto is a shitty, untrustworthy company, they have absolutely nothing to do with Golden Rice, which is a genetically modified version of rice that has Vitamin A added to it. It is a scientifically researched and produced product that is intended to be sold at the same price and with no copyrights to poor areas of the world in the hopes of stemming the tide of child blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiencies because of a dependence on plain rice, which has no Vitamin A.
Also, Monsanto is not putting Glyphosate into plants - it is adding an enzyme to the plant that can safely process Glyphosate which other plants do not have. This is not a great idea because it just doesn't work very well, so I'm super disappointed with the time that they have squandered on this nonsense, plus their other copyright bullshit.
So: Golden Rice good, GMO good, Monsanto bad, French interview is stupid.
Finally, I would like to add that Patrick Moore, keeping in character, had absolutely no clue what he was talking about, and handled the situation painfully poorly. He either doesn't understand the inner workings very well himself - and as a corporate shill (or perhaps more generously, as an advocate), that is what I would expect - his position on Climate Change certainly doesn't encourage my sense of his scientific character.
I have never read a more inaccurate article in the world.
I'm speechless, really. So much ignorance, especially on the part of the press. A wholly inaccurate title, a fundamental misunderstanding of toxicity (which is ultimately at the heart of GMO-related fears), and false conclusions drawn from bad evidence. What an utter disaster.
Glyphosate is safe for human consumption at the trace levels that remain after it makes it to your house and you wash it in the sink. Drinking a glass of it significantly increases the dose, therefore significantly increasing the risk, and therefore asking someone to drink it to prove that it is safe for consumption is the dumbest, most embarrassing thing I've ever seen on television.
And I've watched Fox News.
So, while Monsanto is a shitty, untrustworthy company, they have absolutely nothing to do with Golden Rice, which is a genetically modified version of rice that has Vitamin A added to it. It is a scientifically researched and produced product that is intended to be sold at the same price and with no copyrights to poor areas of the world in the hopes of stemming the tide of child blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiencies because of a dependence on plain rice, which has no Vitamin A.
Also, Monsanto is not putting Glyphosate into plants - it is adding an enzyme to the plant that can safely process Glyphosate which other plants do not have. This is not a great idea because it just doesn't work very well, so I'm super disappointed with the time that they have squandered on this nonsense, plus their other copyright bullshit.
So: Golden Rice good, GMO good, Monsanto bad, French interview is stupid.
Finally, I would like to add that Patrick Moore, keeping in character, had absolutely no clue what he was talking about, and handled the situation painfully poorly. He either doesn't understand the inner workings very well himself - and as a corporate shill (or perhaps more generously, as an advocate), that is what I would expect - his position on Climate Change certainly doesn't encourage my sense of his scientific character.
Response to Article: "Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic" By the disgraced Patrick Moore on Heartland.org
My father sent me this article today, and I wrote up a nice rebuttal to it for his and my sake. It is posted below for your reading pleasure:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
"Ah, another person claiming to be neutral but somehow finding a way to disagree with the overwhelming evidence in support of climate change. Has he managed to undo years of understanding of basic physics? Has he disproven our models of the greenhouse effect as it applies to the other solar bodies in the solar system? Does he have a model of weather for the world that supports previous meteorological discoveries and weather patterns but disagrees with the outcome of existing models?
Let's find out together.
First, I'll point out that we are not working from a reliable website - heartland is a known and notorious Conservative screed website. But ideas are ideas, and I am confident this is an idea that can be flouted with it's own evidence. It is merely a bonus that it is hosted on a website with a poor reputation for representing reality fairly or accurately.
Second, I'll point out that you've sent this guy's stuff to me before, and the evidence indicates he is a corporate shill:
"Moore's views and change of stance (see above) have evoked controversy in environmentalist arenas. He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement" and "being a mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter".[23][49] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[23] Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[40] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."
The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations. According to Monbiot, Moore's company is not a monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations, not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot has said that sections of the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure,[28][50] adding that hiring Moore is now what companies do if their brand is turning toxic.[28]"
That also doesn't invalidate this views, but it does put his views under further scrutiny. If we're going on the trustworthiness of groups or individuals to determine our beliefs, this would appear to be a poor person to believe, based on his trustworthiness, which seems lacking. So yes, he does seem to be a denier. And at this point, denying Climate Change is like denying the Holocaust. The evidence is so overwhelming, so clear, so complete, that claims to the contrary are just a waste of time and energy.
But, I have time and energy to waste. So here we go!
Ok, let's get started:
"I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled."
So far, we're off to a bad start. He is totally wrong about each part of that statement: there is scientific proof and evidence of the hypothesis that humans are responsible for influencing climate change proportional to our greenhouse gas emissions, and there is scientific reason and evidence to believe that it will be catastrophic for at least some people in the near future.
Really, I should end my consideration here: he clearly hasn't even bothered to look at any of the data. Ignorance of the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist: it just means you are willfully ignorant. But that is no surprise, as willful ignorance is the bread and butter of modern Conservatism.
As I've explained many times before, it is mathematically and physically impossible for humans to not be affecting the earth's climate negatively. We generate a considerable amount of CO2 - more CO2 than has been generated throughout most of the Earth's history. The only other times we have seen this much CO2 in the atmosphere was shortly before reassuringly named historical events called "The Great Dying", the "Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, and a few others that coincided with mass deaths of animal populations and rapid death of most marine life.
So we know for a fact, that CO2 has a causal effect on the earth's atmosphere. We also know that based on what we know about Venus: Venus receives 80% less light energy than the Earth does because of its heavy cloud cover, yet it is several times hotter than the Earth. This is due in part to the almost pure CO2 atmosphere on the planet, which readily traps nearly all energy that makes it through the cloud cover. So even though it is reflecting 80% of the light back into space via its clouds (which is one of the reasons we know so much about the planet's atmosphere), the greenhouse effect is so powerful that Venus is the hottest body in the solar system - even hotter than Mercury.
I mean, didn't you study thermodynamics? The thermodynamics of an entity being heated up by an external entity, where the amount of retained energy is variable, if the entity where to slowly accumulate more heat, that entity will heat up. Super straightforward stuff here. We know that CO2 increases the amount of heat stored by a planet's atmosphere. The amount of energy put out by the sun is largely constant, and it's output does not match atmospheric temperature as well as natural variations plus CO2 does.
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-co2s-increasing-greenhouse-effect-02541.html
Hopefully I have thoroughly demonstrated how very wrong and misleading the very first sentence made was. I will now quickly point out where the author went wrong throughout the rest of the article.
"My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model"
Well, computer models are pretty good at determining most things. You don't seem to mind computer models when they are putting satellites in orbit, landing SUV's on Mars, and modelling the hundreds and thousands of other things that can be modelled. It's true that model's aren't perfect, but they do strive to be. Especially since every model is asked to replicate the weather of period of time when we know what the weather was like, to see how well the models track what actually happened. And there's a whole bunch of competing models, too. So this complaint is also false, misleading, and disingenuous.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/1/
"The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures."
That's not quite accurate: the argument is that increased CO2 will change the earth's climate in difficult to predict ways, some of them extreme. At the very least, a great deal of land is going to disappear, and that seems pretty destructive to me. Entire nations are disappearing, and even some US states are dealing with the changing climate. Not to mention increased inclement weather, which we are already seeing. Or is it normal to get snow in Spring? And severe hurricanes? And severe tornadoes? And thunderstorms? And record droughts?
All of those things are more reliably explained by climate change driven by CO2 than by any other cause.
"In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years,"
I don't see how that changes anything - the Earth was warming itself after it came out of it's own period of cooling, yes. And it would have continued to do it's own thing if we did not begin adding fuel to the fire. It's like putting a heat blanket over an overheating engine - we're trapping more heat in the system, giving it more energy to do more things. And we're doing so while being unaware of any runaway effects - like the melting of oceanic methane clathrates, which might have been responsible for one of the thermal events of the past.
"The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous."
If you have no idea what you are talking about and remain willfully ignorant of the science and evidence that exists, I can see how someone might think that.
So far, he hasn't said a single thing to make me agree with him though. His words are swallowed by the ocean of scientific thought and research that he stands against.
"Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. "
This is also utterly false, and again represents and almost ghastly misunderstanding of what is being discussed. For one thing, it simply is possible for humans to live as we do now, but carbon neutrally. It's expensive, sure, but not much more expensive than the billions of dollars of tax breaks and subsidies given to oil companies, the billions of dollars given the US farmers, and the billions and billions of lobbying dollars spent to fight something that is factually accurate and inevitable. I just wish it wasn't a global problem, so that the willful ignorance of the other side didn't affect the lives of billions of people on the planet.
And, if the US made a serious commitment to changing their carbon footprint, the rest of the world will follow. Even China is investing in renewables more than coal and oil power plants out of their own selfish self interest.
"By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. "
Not at all like the conflict of interest shown by the author of this article.
What a joke. He should be ashamed - but his peers have already told him that many times, including his old friends at Greenpeace. Who are also a bunch of idiots, but at least those idiots aren't willfully ignorant of a rather obvious scientific principle which might cost the humans on this Earth dearly.
God isn't going to be there to save us, you know. He will sit idly by and watch us all die just like he has for all of history.
"We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. "
Sure we do. I already explained that thought - it's up there ^.
Have you noticed how this guy likes to make a statement and then not back it up?
"The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled."
I would support that. Climate change is worthy of our concern - even if we aren't causing the changes in CO2 in the atmosphere, those are changes which we should be actively concerned about, given their impact on the climate and especially CO2's role in the Greenhouse Effect.
"Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy."
That is a borderline insane, and outrageous statement which I would hope would prove the foolishness of this man.
"So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, "
No, actually, we are told that CO2 is a key greenhouse gas, and it's release into the atmosphere increases the amount of heat captured by the Earth.
You can rephrase things as falsely as you want - you know, that's a logical fallacy just as bad as any ad hominem attack.
" when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die."
Let me fix that sentence for him:
"... when in fact it is a colourless, odourless, tasteless greenhouse gas and is important for plants as part of their respiration process. Below 150 PPM, all plants would die, and above 500 PPM, most marine life on earth will die, and above 700 PPM most land life will die."
That's better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
The problem with this dude's argument is that in the past, there have been many sudden global warming events brought on by increases in CO2. Obviously those weren't influenced by humans, but that extra CO2 came from somewhere, and ultimately, the somewhere isn't what matters - increased CO2 in the past increased temperatures on the planet and killed large amounts of wildlife. The two worst warming events, The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, and the Great Dying, both coincided with increases in CO2 level lower than what we are currently introducing.
So, we're currently introducing CO2 to atmosphere at almost twice the rate of the two biggest catastrophes in the history of the planet.
So when this guy says that there's no reason to believe this could be catastrophic, he just looks like an ignorant jackass.
"Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants)..."
This is just a stupid point.
I really don't even know where to start.
The level of misunderstand and misrepresentation is hard to fully grasp. This man should get his own show on Fox News.
If what he says is true - and it's a grave misrepresentation of the truth - then plants would eventually die down to the point where things stabilized. Also, there are a few processes that release CO2 back into the atmosphere - like plants dying, ocean CO2 release (remember the earth is trying to maintain an equilibrium), animals dying, volcanoes, meteors, global cooling.
Global cooling especially, as CO2 levels drop, the earth will cool, leading towards an Ice Age, which will stir everything up and bring up plenty of carbon from the crushed rocks of the surface of the earth.
"The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields."
That is true, but at the cost of every other part of the process: plants defend themselves poorly in CO2 rich environments, they also become more sensitive to drought, and consume 2-4 times as much water and nutrients. The reason greenhouses can do it is because they are in a carefully controlled environment. Doing it for everyone in the world is a pretty bad idea, especially in places where there is already barely enough water and nutrients for plants to use to grow.
So again, the argument made here is misleading, disingenuous, and wrong. It's also very privileged to wealthy countries - poor countries are fucked, which the Right seems reluctant to admit.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
"We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years"
Again, that is totally false, we have an abundance of such evidence, as I've already discussed. We've also proven that CO2 was responsible for significant climate change in the past, and that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2, that an increase in CO2 is more likely to be bad than it is to be good (and as someone once said, what if we make the world a better, cleaner place for nothing? Would that really be that bad?), and that the longer we wait to control our CO2, the more expensive it will be to control and reverse it in the future.
Really, I'm just advocating for spending some money now to save us a lot of money later.
"There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted"
This is also false and misleading: models have shown that the lack of significant warming is due to a natural oscillation in La Nina. Warming should return in a few years, with a vengeance. And we're already seeing the destabilising effects caused by excessive CO2.
"Which should we emphasize to our children?"
You are an awful, bad person, and you should feel bad for your ignorance, wrong, backwards ideas. It is far more likely that climate change is a greater danger to your kids than a lack of CO2. I seriously cannot even believe this is a serious point in a serious article. How ignorant can you get? Are there classes on Fox in the morning?
"I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide"
Well, no one is suggesting we get rid of all CO2. More hyperbole and misrepresentation to cover up the extreme scientific and logical bankruptcy of your position. I mean, these arguments don't even make any sense. These are not scientific arguments disproving the merits of the science of CO2. These are weak words strung together by someone of weak intellect and morals trying to make the weak believe their arguments. These ideas only stay in vogue through use of what he said at the beginning of the article:
"First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. "
Sounds like the article that I just read far more than it sounds like what the scientists are saying. But if you're getting your news from Fox and other known Conservative websites, that is the result I would expect - you never hear the real science, just the bullshit word salad that gets passed along as being intelligent, logical, or scientifically sound as approved by Rupert Murdoch. Misquotes and out of context quotes, misrepresentations, and just plain falsehoods too.
It is always so funny to me that you think there is a global conspiracy bent on confusing you about the truth in the world. That is happening - and you have been captured by it. Both the author of this article, whom I classicly mean by "you", but also you, my father, who's mind I care about. It is a concern that you would be taken in by transparently foolish, misleading, and disingenuous writing. You would have much more luck changing my mind if every article didn't use the same tired arguments which have been destroyed by scientific evidence, reason, rational thought, and other principles like Occam's Razor.
Thanks for the article though! It's good practice.
Love,
Christina
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
"Ah, another person claiming to be neutral but somehow finding a way to disagree with the overwhelming evidence in support of climate change. Has he managed to undo years of understanding of basic physics? Has he disproven our models of the greenhouse effect as it applies to the other solar bodies in the solar system? Does he have a model of weather for the world that supports previous meteorological discoveries and weather patterns but disagrees with the outcome of existing models?
Let's find out together.
First, I'll point out that we are not working from a reliable website - heartland is a known and notorious Conservative screed website. But ideas are ideas, and I am confident this is an idea that can be flouted with it's own evidence. It is merely a bonus that it is hosted on a website with a poor reputation for representing reality fairly or accurately.
Second, I'll point out that you've sent this guy's stuff to me before, and the evidence indicates he is a corporate shill:
"Moore's views and change of stance (see above) have evoked controversy in environmentalist arenas. He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement" and "being a mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter".[23][49] His critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[23] Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[40] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."
The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations. According to Monbiot, Moore's company is not a monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations, not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot has said that sections of the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure,[28][50] adding that hiring Moore is now what companies do if their brand is turning toxic.[28]"
That also doesn't invalidate this views, but it does put his views under further scrutiny. If we're going on the trustworthiness of groups or individuals to determine our beliefs, this would appear to be a poor person to believe, based on his trustworthiness, which seems lacking. So yes, he does seem to be a denier. And at this point, denying Climate Change is like denying the Holocaust. The evidence is so overwhelming, so clear, so complete, that claims to the contrary are just a waste of time and energy.
But, I have time and energy to waste. So here we go!
Ok, let's get started:
"I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled."
So far, we're off to a bad start. He is totally wrong about each part of that statement: there is scientific proof and evidence of the hypothesis that humans are responsible for influencing climate change proportional to our greenhouse gas emissions, and there is scientific reason and evidence to believe that it will be catastrophic for at least some people in the near future.
Really, I should end my consideration here: he clearly hasn't even bothered to look at any of the data. Ignorance of the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist: it just means you are willfully ignorant. But that is no surprise, as willful ignorance is the bread and butter of modern Conservatism.
As I've explained many times before, it is mathematically and physically impossible for humans to not be affecting the earth's climate negatively. We generate a considerable amount of CO2 - more CO2 than has been generated throughout most of the Earth's history. The only other times we have seen this much CO2 in the atmosphere was shortly before reassuringly named historical events called "The Great Dying", the "Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, and a few others that coincided with mass deaths of animal populations and rapid death of most marine life.
So we know for a fact, that CO2 has a causal effect on the earth's atmosphere. We also know that based on what we know about Venus: Venus receives 80% less light energy than the Earth does because of its heavy cloud cover, yet it is several times hotter than the Earth. This is due in part to the almost pure CO2 atmosphere on the planet, which readily traps nearly all energy that makes it through the cloud cover. So even though it is reflecting 80% of the light back into space via its clouds (which is one of the reasons we know so much about the planet's atmosphere), the greenhouse effect is so powerful that Venus is the hottest body in the solar system - even hotter than Mercury.
I mean, didn't you study thermodynamics? The thermodynamics of an entity being heated up by an external entity, where the amount of retained energy is variable, if the entity where to slowly accumulate more heat, that entity will heat up. Super straightforward stuff here. We know that CO2 increases the amount of heat stored by a planet's atmosphere. The amount of energy put out by the sun is largely constant, and it's output does not match atmospheric temperature as well as natural variations plus CO2 does.
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-co2s-increasing-greenhouse-effect-02541.html
Hopefully I have thoroughly demonstrated how very wrong and misleading the very first sentence made was. I will now quickly point out where the author went wrong throughout the rest of the article.
"My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model"
Well, computer models are pretty good at determining most things. You don't seem to mind computer models when they are putting satellites in orbit, landing SUV's on Mars, and modelling the hundreds and thousands of other things that can be modelled. It's true that model's aren't perfect, but they do strive to be. Especially since every model is asked to replicate the weather of period of time when we know what the weather was like, to see how well the models track what actually happened. And there's a whole bunch of competing models, too. So this complaint is also false, misleading, and disingenuous.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/1/
"The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures."
That's not quite accurate: the argument is that increased CO2 will change the earth's climate in difficult to predict ways, some of them extreme. At the very least, a great deal of land is going to disappear, and that seems pretty destructive to me. Entire nations are disappearing, and even some US states are dealing with the changing climate. Not to mention increased inclement weather, which we are already seeing. Or is it normal to get snow in Spring? And severe hurricanes? And severe tornadoes? And thunderstorms? And record droughts?
All of those things are more reliably explained by climate change driven by CO2 than by any other cause.
"In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years,"
I don't see how that changes anything - the Earth was warming itself after it came out of it's own period of cooling, yes. And it would have continued to do it's own thing if we did not begin adding fuel to the fire. It's like putting a heat blanket over an overheating engine - we're trapping more heat in the system, giving it more energy to do more things. And we're doing so while being unaware of any runaway effects - like the melting of oceanic methane clathrates, which might have been responsible for one of the thermal events of the past.
"The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous."
If you have no idea what you are talking about and remain willfully ignorant of the science and evidence that exists, I can see how someone might think that.
So far, he hasn't said a single thing to make me agree with him though. His words are swallowed by the ocean of scientific thought and research that he stands against.
"Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. "
This is also utterly false, and again represents and almost ghastly misunderstanding of what is being discussed. For one thing, it simply is possible for humans to live as we do now, but carbon neutrally. It's expensive, sure, but not much more expensive than the billions of dollars of tax breaks and subsidies given to oil companies, the billions of dollars given the US farmers, and the billions and billions of lobbying dollars spent to fight something that is factually accurate and inevitable. I just wish it wasn't a global problem, so that the willful ignorance of the other side didn't affect the lives of billions of people on the planet.
And, if the US made a serious commitment to changing their carbon footprint, the rest of the world will follow. Even China is investing in renewables more than coal and oil power plants out of their own selfish self interest.
"By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. "
Not at all like the conflict of interest shown by the author of this article.
What a joke. He should be ashamed - but his peers have already told him that many times, including his old friends at Greenpeace. Who are also a bunch of idiots, but at least those idiots aren't willfully ignorant of a rather obvious scientific principle which might cost the humans on this Earth dearly.
God isn't going to be there to save us, you know. He will sit idly by and watch us all die just like he has for all of history.
"We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. "
Sure we do. I already explained that thought - it's up there ^.
Have you noticed how this guy likes to make a statement and then not back it up?
"The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled."
I would support that. Climate change is worthy of our concern - even if we aren't causing the changes in CO2 in the atmosphere, those are changes which we should be actively concerned about, given their impact on the climate and especially CO2's role in the Greenhouse Effect.
"Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy."
That is a borderline insane, and outrageous statement which I would hope would prove the foolishness of this man.
"So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, "
No, actually, we are told that CO2 is a key greenhouse gas, and it's release into the atmosphere increases the amount of heat captured by the Earth.
You can rephrase things as falsely as you want - you know, that's a logical fallacy just as bad as any ad hominem attack.
" when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die."
Let me fix that sentence for him:
"... when in fact it is a colourless, odourless, tasteless greenhouse gas and is important for plants as part of their respiration process. Below 150 PPM, all plants would die, and above 500 PPM, most marine life on earth will die, and above 700 PPM most land life will die."
That's better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
The problem with this dude's argument is that in the past, there have been many sudden global warming events brought on by increases in CO2. Obviously those weren't influenced by humans, but that extra CO2 came from somewhere, and ultimately, the somewhere isn't what matters - increased CO2 in the past increased temperatures on the planet and killed large amounts of wildlife. The two worst warming events, The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, and the Great Dying, both coincided with increases in CO2 level lower than what we are currently introducing.
So, we're currently introducing CO2 to atmosphere at almost twice the rate of the two biggest catastrophes in the history of the planet.
So when this guy says that there's no reason to believe this could be catastrophic, he just looks like an ignorant jackass.
"Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants)..."
This is just a stupid point.
I really don't even know where to start.
The level of misunderstand and misrepresentation is hard to fully grasp. This man should get his own show on Fox News.
If what he says is true - and it's a grave misrepresentation of the truth - then plants would eventually die down to the point where things stabilized. Also, there are a few processes that release CO2 back into the atmosphere - like plants dying, ocean CO2 release (remember the earth is trying to maintain an equilibrium), animals dying, volcanoes, meteors, global cooling.
Global cooling especially, as CO2 levels drop, the earth will cool, leading towards an Ice Age, which will stir everything up and bring up plenty of carbon from the crushed rocks of the surface of the earth.
"The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields."
That is true, but at the cost of every other part of the process: plants defend themselves poorly in CO2 rich environments, they also become more sensitive to drought, and consume 2-4 times as much water and nutrients. The reason greenhouses can do it is because they are in a carefully controlled environment. Doing it for everyone in the world is a pretty bad idea, especially in places where there is already barely enough water and nutrients for plants to use to grow.
So again, the argument made here is misleading, disingenuous, and wrong. It's also very privileged to wealthy countries - poor countries are fucked, which the Right seems reluctant to admit.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
"We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years"
Again, that is totally false, we have an abundance of such evidence, as I've already discussed. We've also proven that CO2 was responsible for significant climate change in the past, and that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2, that an increase in CO2 is more likely to be bad than it is to be good (and as someone once said, what if we make the world a better, cleaner place for nothing? Would that really be that bad?), and that the longer we wait to control our CO2, the more expensive it will be to control and reverse it in the future.
Really, I'm just advocating for spending some money now to save us a lot of money later.
"There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted"
This is also false and misleading: models have shown that the lack of significant warming is due to a natural oscillation in La Nina. Warming should return in a few years, with a vengeance. And we're already seeing the destabilising effects caused by excessive CO2.
"Which should we emphasize to our children?"
You are an awful, bad person, and you should feel bad for your ignorance, wrong, backwards ideas. It is far more likely that climate change is a greater danger to your kids than a lack of CO2. I seriously cannot even believe this is a serious point in a serious article. How ignorant can you get? Are there classes on Fox in the morning?
"I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide"
Well, no one is suggesting we get rid of all CO2. More hyperbole and misrepresentation to cover up the extreme scientific and logical bankruptcy of your position. I mean, these arguments don't even make any sense. These are not scientific arguments disproving the merits of the science of CO2. These are weak words strung together by someone of weak intellect and morals trying to make the weak believe their arguments. These ideas only stay in vogue through use of what he said at the beginning of the article:
"First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. "
Sounds like the article that I just read far more than it sounds like what the scientists are saying. But if you're getting your news from Fox and other known Conservative websites, that is the result I would expect - you never hear the real science, just the bullshit word salad that gets passed along as being intelligent, logical, or scientifically sound as approved by Rupert Murdoch. Misquotes and out of context quotes, misrepresentations, and just plain falsehoods too.
It is always so funny to me that you think there is a global conspiracy bent on confusing you about the truth in the world. That is happening - and you have been captured by it. Both the author of this article, whom I classicly mean by "you", but also you, my father, who's mind I care about. It is a concern that you would be taken in by transparently foolish, misleading, and disingenuous writing. You would have much more luck changing my mind if every article didn't use the same tired arguments which have been destroyed by scientific evidence, reason, rational thought, and other principles like Occam's Razor.
Thanks for the article though! It's good practice.
Love,
Christina
Polygon: Sales Numbers of New Female Thor Comics kicking ass
Polygon's article on the sales numbers of the new Female Thor got me thinking:
Perhaps the reason we hear so much about chauvinism, and the internet (especially when combined with certain hotbeds of ignorance, like faith and it's pseudoscientific relatives) has such a poor reputation for maintaining un-gender-biased conversations, has a great deal more to do with selection bias and the vocal minority effect than it is a real representation of what the population at large thinks.