The Holy Wars on Science

The Holy Wars on Science

Ideology and Profits are blinding us from Science
3
views

“The facts... the scientific facts are overwhelming”

Those are the words of Bill Nye, the CEO of the Planetary Society, and former science guy. Bill Nye is, through and through, a man of science. But that’s not everything. He is a man of evidence, adventure, knowledge, progress, education, and above all, discovery. You may know Nye from his work on his infamous show that everyone who’s ever been in middle school has seen. But that was nothing compared to the work Nye is up to these days. Today, as I mentioned before, he is the CEO of the Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to advancing planetary and space science. It’s a private organization, but works in tandem with NASA. He also frequents a podcast called StarTalk that he co-hosts with Neil de Grasse Tyson, where they bring on guests and have entertaining discussions about, you guessed it, science and space. Other than those things Nye is often out talking to audiences, debating creationists, doing interviews, and making Netflix specials.

But recently Nye has taken on a task bigger than ever before...

Saving the world.

Okay, maybe that was a little melodramatic, but in a way, it’s true.

Nye has been crusading, for years, defending global climate change and its effects on our planet (aka Global Warming) and vehemently going after climate change deniers. It is completely undeniable that global warming is indeed happening, and it is damaging our planet. And while a very large majority of scientists have overwhelming proof and evidence of this claim, there are still millions out there who, without proper evidence or backup, claim that our earth is not in danger and everything is A-OK. These people include, Fox News reporters, rich fossil fuel CEO’s, the Republican Party, and the best of all, our President.

All of this, especially that last one, is so incredibly damaging. Denying climate change only benefits one thing, and one thing only, WALLETS. By denying climate change, our government can deregulate companies so they can romp through our planet plucking every last bit of life from it and destroying everything around them. Dumping coal waste into rivers, building pipelines through reserved land, and quite literally making the EPA (whose job is to protect the environment) utterly and completely obsolete. How does this benefit literally anyone else but the companies making money off them? In return we get dirty water, polluted air, and continued years of sporadic weather and increasing temperatures in our atmospheres. Sure, you might not see a great impact now, but your children will, and so will theirs. We need to be taking care our planet, not destroying it.

We can go about this two ways:

1.) We acknowledge the existence of climate change and global warming, continuing with regulations and policies and plans to conserve energy, starting production of more green renewable energy like solar and wind. If global warming turns out to be false, then we lose nothing, instead gaining a healthy planet for years to come and our society, industrialization, and economy will be better because of it.

2.) We continue to ignore global warming, let fossil fuel companies and corporations continue to destroy our environment so said people can get fatter pockets and votes to keep them in their seats. If global warming turns out to be real, then we’ve only made things worse and probably to a point that is irrevocable. If global warming is false, then the environment destruction just ramps up, and NEWS FLASH, those fossil fuels WILL RUN OUT. So not only will our planet be ruined, but we won’t have our fuel. We won’t have anything. But money. Because everyone will still care about money when they can’t grow any food or go outside because it’s all water or the air is too bad to breathe.

So, it seems obvious right? If we go with option 1, either way, we’ll benefit as a planet. Some corporations will have to change some things and maybe even take a hit on the billions upon billions that they’re already making. If it saves the planet, I think it’s worth it.

But this is simply one aspect of a larger issue going on. We live in 2017. We’ve never had smarter populations, better technology, and more advanced methods than we do right now. Yet, we live in an age where science is a fad to the American people. People don’t want to believe the scientists anymore. They’d rather believe their pockets, their politicians, or their gods before believing the millions of incredibly intelligent and critical people that are advancing us forward as a species. You wouldn’t be reading this article without science, you wouldn’t make coffee without science, you wouldn’t drive to work, or wake up when you do, or understand how gravity works without science. Everything you did today, this week, this year, your entire life, is possible because of science. Because of algebra and quantum mechanics and our understanding of our solar system, everything that deals with technology or your food or your medicine is possible. Without science, we’d be living in caves and eating tree bark still.

You just can’t deny thousands of years of evidence and scientific work because a book says otherwise. I’m sorry, but that’s just not how we can think if we want to advance any further in our society. We need real science to be taught in schools, we need our children to learn about evolution and how the world and our universe works. Even if we don’t have all the answers now, they can discover them in the future. The bible cannot stagnate our growth and ruin our future. I’m not saying religion shouldn’t exist or have a place in society, but it doesn’t replace science, it doesn’t replace factual truth.

That was some hard stuff right there. I probably ticked some people off, but someone has to say it. It’s just incredibly strange to find us in a situation where we trust Donald Trump over the intelligent men and women who took mankind into space. It’s really a bad scene, but I think we can overcome it. I know we can overcome it. But it will take more than Bill Nye and all his work, it will take all of us, voting in the right people, leading by example ourselves, and doing our own part. If we all work together we can, dare I say...

CHANGE THE WORLD!

Cover Image Credit: National Geographic

Popular Right Now

I'm A Woman And You Can't Convince Me Breastfeeding In Public Is OK In 2019

Sorry, not sorry.

55906
views

Lately, I have seen so many people going off on social media about how people shouldn't be upset with mothers breastfeeding in public. You know what? I disagree.

There's a huge difference between being modest while breastfeeding and just being straight up careless, trashy and disrespectful to those around you. Why don't you try popping out a boob without a baby attached to it and see how long it takes for you to get arrested for public indecency? Strange how that works, right?

So many people talking about it bring up the point of how we shouldn't "sexualize" breastfeeding and seeing a woman's breasts while doing so. Actually, all of these people are missing the point. It's not sexual, it's just purely immodest and disrespectful.

If you see a girl in a shirt cut too low, you call her a slut. If you see a celebrity post a nude photo, you call them immodest and a terrible role model. What makes you think that pulling out a breast in the middle of public is different, regardless of what you're doing with it?

If I'm eating in a restaurant, I would be disgusted if the person at the table next to me had their bare feet out while they were eating. It's just not appropriate. Neither is pulling out your breast for the entire general public to see.

Nobody asked you to put a blanket over your kid's head to feed them. Nobody asked you to go feed them in a dirty bathroom. But you don't need to basically be topless to feed your kid. Growing up, I watched my mom feed my younger siblings in public. She never shied away from it, but the way she did it was always tasteful and never drew attention. She would cover herself up while doing it. She would make sure that nothing inappropriate could be seen. She was lowkey about it.

Mindblowing, right? Wait, you can actually breastfeed in public and not have to show everyone what you're doing? What a revolutionary idea!

There is nothing wrong with feeding your baby. It's something you need to do, it's a part of life. But there is definitely something wrong with thinking it's fine to expose yourself to the entire world while doing it. Nobody wants to see it. Nobody cares if you're feeding your kid. Nobody cares if you're trying to make some sort of weird "feminist" statement by showing them your boobs.

Cover up. Be modest. Be mindful. Be respectful. Don't want to see my boobs? Good, I don't want to see yours either. Hard to believe, I know.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Trump Hasn't Nicknamed Pelosi or AOC. What's The Deal?

These two women aren't receiving the usual treatment and it begs the question: why?

76
views

Our Commander in Chief has been known to give out derogatory nicknames to those in the capital that he doesn't like very much. EG: "Pocahontas" for Elizabeth Warren, "Crooked" Hillary. I mean, for goodness sake's, there's a Wikipedia article with a comprehensive list of Trump's mean nicknames and who they belong to.

While Wikipedia does include names used on Nancy Pelosi, all of the nicknames still include her own name, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't even make the list. While the internet has adoringly dubbed her AOC, Trump himself hasn't felt the urge to demean her with a nickname.

So, what gives? Why do Pelosi and AOC get spared the derogatory nickname?

(Also, remember that in no way is this normal.)

I may be making a giant assumption, but it seems to be, that Trump's nicknames are meant to demean and belittle the receivers of them. So, by giving both Bernie and Hillary nicknames during the course of the election, he associated them with those traits and demeaned them in the public eye.

Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren't people that Trump can easily belittle. The reasons for why are varied and speculative, but it seems that Trump has found these to be more difficult to harass in front of the public. It could be because of mass public support for them, but Bernie Sanders and Hilary were both moderately popular in the eyes of the media and general citizenship.

In my mind, that narrows it down to two things. Either Trump does not view Pelosi or AOC as threats, or... he is afraid to nickname them.

It seems insane that Trump would not view the two as a threat, given their very public statements regarding his policies. Pelosi and Cortez are threats, but big enough ones that Trump is afraid of their retaliation in the political scheme, and therefore, it's too dangerous to give them nicknames.

But now we can see through him. If he can't demean these two strong women for his own political gain, what can he do?

Related Content

Facebook Comments