- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,373
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
and lots of rich scientists
Wow, if you think science is really that lucrative, boy are you in for a shock.
Science is very lucrative, although perhaps not to the scientists themselves. $Billions flow to the science departments of major universities and to private research foundations from business, industry, and government every year.
I've worked for a few different organizations that receive such funding. I can tell you the bulk of the money in my experience goes to salaries.
But these are what you'd expect for professional, working class wages. Enough to make a living, but not to necessarily get "rich".
Especially when you offset the time and money it costs to enter a scientific field given the education required.
The rest of the funding is disbursed among other expenses most notably equipment and premises.
Many highly paid professional don't realize that they indeed are handsomely paid.
The promise of higher education is higher lifetime earnings; a $Million more than the average HS grad.
Science labs and equipment are part of the huge money flow into science.
"Highly paid" is relative here. I'm sure if we compared to wages across the world, people in Western professional positions would be seen as filthy rich.
But relative to Western society, in most cases these types of jobs buys a person a comfortable, middle-class existence. Not what I would define as "rich".
What is meaningful 'relatively' is the cost of living where you make your living.
A function of extensive propoganda campaigns aimed at the young.from the time they go to school.Reading this Pew Research Center survey on views of scientific issues, the age demographics for both climate change denial and evolution denial are quite apparent.
For climate change, 60% of people aged 18-29 say that it's a result of human activity. Only 31% of people aged 65+ say the same thing. Conversely only 20% of people aged 18-29 say there is no solid evidence for climate change, versus 33% of people 65+.
Similarly with evolution, 73% aged 18-29 say that living things have evolved over time. Only 54% aged 65+ say the same thing.
In both cases there is a general trend from more acceptance of both climate change and evolution in younger demographics versus older demographics.
What does this mean? Well, older people tend to die before younger people. This results in a demographic shift over time; we can expect a reduction in both climate change denial and evolution denial. In the latter case Gallup polls on creationism/evolution have already shown a greater acceptance of evolution and decline in creationist beliefs for the last couple decades.
edited to add: Found a Gallup poll suggesting an increase in concern regarding climate change over time: Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in U.S.
This corresponds with the demographics and suggests at least partially a demographics shift.
It can be observed that the populations that care the least are multiplying very quickly, whereas the populatuons of people who consider anthromorphic climate change and evolution as important matters go be considered are reproducing at levels well below replacement.
No. Just looked it up, could be an interesting yarn.Have you seen Idiocracy?
No. Just looked it up, could be an interesting yarn.
Reading this Pew Research Center survey on views of scientific issues, the age demographics for both climate change denial and evolution denial are quite apparent.
For climate change, 60% of people aged 18-29 say that it's a result of human activity. Only 31% of people aged 65+ say the same thing. Conversely only 20% of people aged 18-29 say there is no solid evidence for climate change, versus 33% of people 65+.
Similarly with evolution, 73% aged 18-29 say that living things have evolved over time. Only 54% aged 65+ say the same thing.
In both cases there is a general trend from more acceptance of both climate change and evolution in younger demographics versus older demographics.
What does this mean? Well, older people tend to die before younger people. This results in a demographic shift over time; we can expect a reduction in both climate change denial and evolution denial. In the latter case Gallup polls on creationism/evolution have already shown a greater acceptance of evolution and decline in creationist beliefs for the last couple decades.
edited to add: Found a Gallup poll suggesting an increase in concern regarding climate change over time: Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in U.S.
This corresponds with the demographics and suggests at least partially a demographics shift.
In a world where anything is "truth" what else would we expect?Although things like flat earth-ism are inexplicably becoming more popular...
No. Just looked it up, could be an interesting yarn.
Sort of goes against the whole idea of survival of the fittest though.
It is clear to me, even in my little corner that the fittest are in decline.
If I was a philosophically consitent Neo-Darwinist I would not find it horrifying and terrible at all.It's a horrifying prophesy of a terrible future we have yet to behold. But the signs are all there, it is coming.
Although things like flat earth-ism are inexplicably becoming more popular...
Nobody should find anything that changes horrifying or terrible because there is no other way that things ought to be, apart from the way they are.
If I was a philosophically consitent Neo-Darwinist I would not find it horrifying and terrible at all.
It is what it is.
Nobody should find anything that changes horrifying or terrible because there is no other way that things ought to be, apart from the way they are.
Fittest means intelligent and fit enough to be self supporting and succesfully reproducing in the given environment."Fittest" does not mean Superman or whatever you have in mind. It merely means able to reproduce most successful in that population's environment. In the Idiocracy scenario it meant knuckleheads pumping out kids while responsible, educated people were too busy to have children before it was too late.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?