Climate change and evolution denial is going to decrease with time

[pitabread]

and lots of rich scientists

Wow, if you think science is really that lucrative, boy are you in for a shock.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wow, if you think science is really that lucrative, boy are you in for a shock.

I said lots of scientists, not all scientists.

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.

 

[pitabread]

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

All costs are eventually expressed as wages and salaries.

But these are what you'd expect for professional, working class wages. Enough to make a living, but not to necessarily get "rich".

Many highly paid professionals don't realize that they indeed are handsomely paid; well above average. Perhaps this is because they are no better than anyone else in managing it.

Especially when you offset the time and money it costs to enter a scientific field given the education required.

The promise of higher education is higher lifetime earnings; a $Million more than the average HS grad.

The rest of the funding is disbursed among other expenses most notably equipment and premises.

Science labs and equipment are part of the huge money flow into science.

 

[pitabread]

Many highly paid professional don't realize that they indeed are handsomely paid.

"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".

The promise of higher education is higher lifetime earnings; a $Million more than the average HS grad.

Sure, but this isn't exclusive to scientific fields. It applies to a variety of professions.

Science labs and equipment are part of the huge money flow into science.

It ain't cheap.

 

[Drought of the Heart]

God predicted climate change in 2 Peter 3 and while we have not been good stewards of earth , He is in control and the heating is His hand being removed

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"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.

 

[pitabread]

What is meaningful 'relatively' is the cost of living where you make your living.

Right. And in my experience, that usually results in a middle-class lifestyle for those employed as professional scientists.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

A function of extensive propoganda campaigns aimed at the young.from the time they go to school.
So perhaps you are correct based upon the results of the propoganda.
Where it will all lead however is another thing, and I think you might find that the demographic of people who actually care about such things is cbanging more quickly.
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 to be considered are reproducing at levels well below replacement.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Have you seen Idiocracy?

 

[Anguspure]

Have you seen Idiocracy?

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.

 

[pitabread]

No. Just looked it up, could be an interesting yarn.

It's a horrifying prophesy of a terrible future we have yet to behold. But the signs are all there, it is coming.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

You are getting older. Are you going to change?
If you don't, why do you thing others will?

 

[Anguspure]

Although things like flat earth-ism are inexplicably becoming more popular...

In a world where anything is "truth" what else would we expect?
The Godless cut the branch off that they wish to sit on, and even while the deny it the proof is in the pudding (din't you love mixed metaphores?)

 

[USincognito]

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.

"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.

 

[Anguspure]

It's a horrifying prophesy of a terrible future we have yet to behold. But the signs are all there, it is coming.

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.

 

[pitabread]

Although things like flat earth-ism are inexplicably becoming more popular...

I wonder if its more a case of the Internet allowing them to have more visibility.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Just watch the movie.

 

[USincognito]

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.

That's some very bizarre phasing because Neo-Darwinism isn't a philosophy and in turn has no bearing on our moral compass.

 

[Anguspure]

"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.

Fittest means intelligent and fit enough to be self supporting and succesfully reproducing in the given environment.
Very few people I know are capable of either without the continued support of an international commercial/technological system to lean on.
For example most of the young people in my industry (trained as navigators) are completely unable to find thier location using the low technology means that I was trained to use, and I, in turn, am unable to navigate in the very intellectual manner of guys like James Cook and he was unable to comprehend the entirely self sufficient manner of the Polynesian navigators.
There is a progression of declining fitness observed over a few hundred years here driven by a desire for technology that substitutes.