NationStates Jolt Archive

Something is up with the USA.

The USA seems to be the only place that creationism is threatening to be taught as part of the science curriculum in schools and universities.

The USA seems to be the only country still debating whether global warming is happening at all, when the rest of the world has accepted the huge amount of data and moved on to ask why it is happening and if we can stop it.


Is the media around the world just more interested in the USA? Is this sort of thing happening elsewhere? Is it that the USA has the correct view, and everyone else is wrong? Is there just a rampant hatred of science in the USA?

I dunno. Apparently cleaner air means increased global warming, so maybe we just don't know which to choose. ;)

Something is up with the USA.

The USA seems to be the only place that creationism is threatening to be taught as part of the science curriculum in schools and universities.

The USA seems to be the only country still debating whether global warming is happening at all, when the rest of the world has accepted the huge amount of data and moved on to ask why it is happening and if we can stop it.


Is the media around the world just more interested in the USA? Is this sort of thing happening elsewhere? Is it that the USA has the correct view, and everyone else is wrong? Is there just a rampant hatred of science in the USA?

All I know is, the word "intellectual" is a compliment in the rest of the world.

That seems to be the problem with the US. Not to say that the US is full of stupid people, just that they have more influence than elsewhere.

Yeah, but you could see the other side and say that the American's are the only ones looking at practical and viable greener energy sources, like nuclear power, which most of Europe won't touch with a barge pole, (although in the UK the scienetifc community is pushing for it).

Also their whole-hearted acceptance of GM crops and foodstuffs that could potentially save the world's poorest regions from future famines but again most of Europe are very suspect about.

It just depends what science you're looking at. We all have our cultural dislikes and prejudices, the American's are no different.

It just depends what science you're looking at. We all have our cultural dislikes and prejudices, the American's are no different.

That's true. There's never been a study suggesting that GM foods cause any kind of harm, and yet much of the world outside the US bans their use. Irrational behavior is everywhere.

americans are far too inward-looking, thats the problem imo

See Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394703170/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance), which won the 1964 Pulitzer Price for non-fiction.

Anti-intellectualism has a long history in the United States. It has been a prominent part of our national character all along. It and American Protestantism are mutually reinforcing.

It is most obvious in fundamentalism -- which is where most of the hostility to evolution is found. Almost every major Christian organization/church in the United States opposes the teaching of creationism. But many American's don't know this or don't agree with their own religious leaders. :rolleyes:

(although in the UK the scienetifc community is pushing for it)

pushing for it? what about sellafield?? they have it.

pushing for it? what about sellafield?? they have it.

That's quite old...I mean building more....

pushing for it? what about sellafield?? they have it.
They're on about building new ones. Sellafields old.

Something is up with the USA.

The USA seems to be the only place that creationism is threatening to be taught as part of the science curriculum in schools and universities.

The USA seems to be the only country still debating whether global warming is happening at all, when the rest of the world has accepted the huge amount of data and moved on to ask why it is happening and if we can stop it.


Is the media around the world just more interested in the USA? Is this sort of thing happening elsewhere? Is it that the USA has the correct view, and everyone else is wrong? Is there just a rampant hatred of science in the USA?


I think it's a schizophrenia cluster.

excuse me but nuclear power isn't a "green" power
remember that it produces tons of radioactive garbage which has to be deposited somewhere after some time
maybe in the Usa this can be done in the deserts where nobody lives in, but in Europe the density of population is much higher

Turns out that 80% of France's electrical production is provided by Nuclear power plants. Barge poles are clearly much shorter in Europe :-/

excuse me but nuclear power isn't a "green" power
remember that it produces tons of radioactive garbage which has to be deposited somewhere after some time
maybe in the Usa this can be done in the deserts where nobody lives in, but in Europe the density of population is much higher

Its greener than the present energy producing sources and is more viable than any green solution presently on offer. Other solutions like Hydrogen and gas combinations or what have you are not viable at the moment as they are still being developed for industrial scale employment. Nuclear knowledge is here, we have the engineers and it’s proven. As I say, practical solutions. I'll bet you'll see America and the UK moving that way, (indeed France has a significant amount of its energy met by nuclear power).

Turns out that 80% of France's electrical production is provided by Nuclear power plants. Barge poles are clearly much shorter in Europe :-/

I don't see the Germans going that way....or other European countries....

Actually Science is greatly accepted in America. Everything really depends on where you live, however, but "Creationism" isn't opposed by the religious sect, as they are indead supporting the idea of "Crreationism." They more argue the theories of evolution, although I have never had a problem learning in those fields... no "restrictions" or overly religious zealots as I hear NSers constantly talking about. >.>

In terms of the media coverage, I would have to say that the amount of coverage on a topic is NOT equal to its accuracy nor significance. Just because you may hear a lot of us on the news, does not mean our views are any more important or valid. But again, it's all on perspective.

Yeah, but you could see the other side and say that the American's are the only ones looking at practical and viable greener energy sources, like nuclear power, which most of Europe won't touch with a barge pole, (although in the UK the scienetifc community is pushing for it).*snip*.

:confused:

I think you have that backward.

Although Dubya just announced funding for researching nuclear power, he said in the same speech we haven't built any new reactors since 1978. Finland and France are actively building new reactors, I believe.

I think a relatively small share of the US's power comes from nuclear power compared to that of many European countries. The US has about 100 active commercial nuclear plants. I believe there are over 400 active commercial nuclear plants worldwide. I believe a fair proportion are in Europe.

Actually,

France 78%
Belgium 60%
Sweden 43%
Spain 36%
Germany 29%
United Kingdom 28%
United States 19%

Whole load of tiny short barge poles...

Actually,

France 78%
Belgium 60%
Sweden 43%
Spain 36%
Germany 29%
United Kingdom 28%
United States 19%

Whole load of tiny short barge poles...

My point being are they going to build more, not the current amount of energy production. It's going to be a political hot potatoe with alot of resistance....

Actually,

France 78%
Belgium 60%
Sweden 43%
Spain 36%
Germany 29%
United Kingdom 28%
United States 19%

Whole load of tiny short barge poles...

But ... but ...

You must be wrong. Nuclear power is neato keen futuristic and we in the US know we have a monopoly on all things neato keen futuristic. ;)

We are the future, dammit! :D

But ... but ...

You must be wrong. Nuclear power is neato keen futuristic and we in the US know we have a monopoly on all things neato keen futuristic. ;)

We are the future, dammit! :D

>.>

o.O

But the environmentalists do NOT want America to make more Nuclear reactors to make cleaner energy than any other method available. Sure, there is a quantity of nuclear waste produced in the process, but we have absolutely secure methods of transporting and securing it in an underground secure structure in Nevada. But Nevada is afraid all the tourists will be scared of them having a bunch of waste under a moutain that's 'close' to Vegas.

Creationism is not taught as a replacement to evolution, but as an alternative theory (which evolution is, as there is no solid proof) to help balance the classroom. Either that or we can just move a head and force everyone to study just one theory (either one) and say the other one is full of poo poo.

My point being are they going to build more, not the current amount of energy production. It's going to be a political hot potatoe with alot of resistance....
The Finns approved building another nuclear power station last year... I'm sure there are other examples.

it's not the friggin' stupidity that gets to me... it's the freaking IGNORANCE AND STUBBORNESS that friggin' freaking gets to me..... friggin'mumblegrumblefreakingmumblegrrrrrrrrr

<snip>

Also their whole-hearted acceptance of GM crops and foodstuffs that could potentially save the world's poorest regions from future famines but again most of Europe are very suspect about.
<snip>

Genetically modified crops are designed to be sterile. So if third world countries were to use them they would have to (further) convert their economies to export oriented products so as to purchase seed (which they would have to do every year). If they just grew food, as opposed to export crops, they would have fewer famines and a better overall quality of life (for the majority, a select few would be worse off).
Secondly, GM foods are genetically identical. If a disease/fungus mutates so as it can infect a GM plant, it will infect ALL of those plants and you will lose a years harvest. (Which happened with one crop in America, but I can't remember which)

But the environmentalists do NOT want America to make more Nuclear reactors to make cleaner energy than any other method available. Sure, there is a quantity of nuclear waste produced in the process, but we have absolutely secure methods of transporting and securing it in an underground secure structure in Nevada. But Nevada is afraid all the tourists will be scared of them having a bunch of waste under a moutain that's 'close' to Vegas.

Creationism is not taught as a replacement to evolution, but as an alternative theory (which evolution is, as there is no solid proof) to help balance the classroom. Either that or we can just move a head and force everyone to study just one theory (either one) and say the other one is full of poo poo.

But isn't there currently a momentum behind movement or unholy alliance within America between those greens who are more sympathetic to pratical solutions and the right-wing establishment who want to make America more self-sufficent in its energy production and not to rely on potentially unstable sources like the Middle East?

My point being are they going to build more, not the current amount of energy production. It's going to be a political hot potatoe with alot of resistance....
Sure, but they are going to have to bild lots of nuclear powerplants to get that 10% and get up to par with the UK. I'm not against nuclear power, but I don't see any point in investing in non renewable power sources (on a large scale) either. More research in renewable sources! :D

But ... but ...

You must be wrong. Nuclear power is neato keen futuristic and we in the US know we have a monopoly on all things neato keen futuristic. ;)

We are the future, dammit! :D

Give it a rest Cat Tribe. You know damn well why nuclear isnt as common in the US. Mostly it is economics. Other sources of energy being so much cheaper in the US(oil, nat gas and especially coal). If nuclear was cheap enough we would use more of it instead.

Being from England I really cant comment in the internal workings of the US, but from what I can gather, as the US contributes to roughly (and please dont quote me) a quarter of the total emissions of greenhouse gases currently produced, (though I know that will change when China and India become more industrialised) they tend to shy away from those facts and deny anything is happening. Mr Bush I understand has said that by cutting emissions as per the Kyoto treaty that will affect the American economy in a negative way, which is why he refuses to sign it. How that works I dont know maybe someone in America can help me out on that fact. But from that, Iam guessing the US is NOT ignorant of these facts, just simply ignoring them for the greater US Economy.

Creationism is not taught as a replacement to evolution, but as an alternative theory (which evolution is, as there is no solid proof) to help balance the classroom. Either that or we can just move a head and force everyone to study just one theory (either one) and say the other one is full of poo poo.
The theory thing is getting real old, real fast. When will you understand creationism isn't a scientific theory, evolution is and in science that's the best you can get.

Genetically modified crops are designed to be sterile. So if third world countries were to use them they would have to (further) convert their economies to export oriented products so as to purchase seed (which they would have to do every year). If they just grew food, as opposed to export crops, they would have fewer famines and a better overall quality of life (for the majority, a select few would be worse off).
Secondly, GM foods are genetically identical. If a disease/fungus mutates so as it can infect a GM plant, it will infect ALL of those plants and you will lose a years harvest. (Which happened with one crop in America, but I can't remember which)

Your first point, maybe...

But I don't understand your second. GM crops are not genetically identical, that’s why they are called genetically modified. You can modify crops to make them more resistant to certain funguses and/or insects using fewer pesticides which the greens always love. Also you can potentially make their yields greater. There is the potentiality that a fungus' can mutate and affect both GM and non-GM but I’m not sure how high the chances are.....

That's true. There's never been a study suggesting that GM foods cause any kind of harm, and yet much of the world outside the US bans their use. Irrational behavior is everywhere.
That's because the studies made in US do not reach the European standard. We are still studying it. Are you saying we should just believe everything that big corporations want to tell us?

Being from England I really cant comment in the internal workings of the US, but from what I can gather, as the US contributes to roughly (and please dont quote me) a quarter of the total emissions of greenhouse gases currently produced, (though I know that will change when China and India become more industrialised) they tend to shy away from those facts and deny anything is happening. Mr Bush I understand has said that by cutting emissions as per the Kyoto treaty that will affect the American economy in a negative way, which is why he refuses to sign it. How that works I dont know maybe someone in America can help me out on that fact. But from that, Iam guessing the US is NOT ignorant of these facts, just simply ignoring them for the greater US Economy.

You're correct in your assumptions, and while I wouldn't call the whole of the U.S. "ignorant" I would call them mislead. We are a capitalism, and as such anything that could hurt us economically is quickly labelled "bad for the gov't." Most American's are sheepish, and don't research further into these issues.

Give it a rest Cat Tribe. You know damn well why nuclear isnt as common in the US. Mostly it is economics. Other sources of energy being so much cheaper in the US(oil, nat gas and especially coal). If nuclear was cheap enough we would use more of it instead.

Actually, the whole discussion is a hijack, but there is another reason why 1978 is when we last completed a nuclear plant -- Three Mile Island.

I fully support nuclear energy. My father happens to be a nuclear physicist. I grew up near the Hanford and INEEL sites, respectively.

But to claim, as was claimed here, that the US is taking the lead on nuclear energy is simply silly.

Anti-intellectualism in the US is a serious, historical, and contemporaneous problem. (And it does play a role in the history of nuclear power in the country.)

They're on about building new ones. Sellafields old.
And it leeks. I can't believe they told about it a month later than when it actually happened. Didn't they notice it earlier or what?

The theory thing is getting real old, real fast. When will you understand creationism isn't a scientific theory, evolution is and in science that's the best you can get.

This is my point. In the USA there is actually a debate about whether it is acceptable! The rest of the world don't even discuss it.

Oh, and as for nuclear power it is greener than low-tech coal/oil/gas stations, but not as clean as high-tech scrubbed fossil fuel stations. It is also incredibly expensive.

We in the UK are moving slowly towards more wind power, what with the atlantic winds providing a nice little constant supply.

Your first point, maybe...

But I don't understand your second. GM crops are not genetically identical, that’s why they are called genetically modified. You can modify crops to make them more resistant to certain funguses and/or insects using fewer pesticides which the greens always love. Also you can potentially make their yields greater. There is the potentiality that a fungus' can mutate and affect both GM and non-GM but I’m not sure how high the chances are.....

I believe the main point is that US companies like Monsanto take out repressive patents and then only sell sterile seeds - those which you must buy new every year, much like pharmaceutical companies shy away from potential cures in favour of long term treatments - there's more money to be made.

That's because the studies made in US do not reach the European standard. We are still studying it. Are you saying we should just believe everything that big corporations want to tell us?

But you could counter that and say the recent food scare in the UK was due to a food stuff that was banned in American since (I believe) 1915, but only since 1995 in the European Union.

But the chance of getting cancer from the dye was so unbelievably small that you would have had to eat tonnes of the stuff. Yet every year a significant amount of people still smoke cigarettes that medical science has proven to be cacogenic and much more so than a particular food dye.

Irrationality, like someone said before, is universal....it’s just not the Americans....

I believe the main point is that US companies like Monsanto take out repressive patents and then only sell sterile seeds - those which you must buy new every year, much like pharmaceutical companies shy away from potential cures in favour of long term treatments - there's more money to be made.
The good thing about a sterile seed is that if it ends up being harmful or poisonous, it isn't going to overrun all the natural plants, or crossbreed with natural plants, or spread uncontrollably.

They made that mistake with GM rapeseed.

The Finns approved building another nuclear power station last year... I'm sure there are other examples.
...damn those politicians...

Actually I have to agree that it's better than buying nuclear energy from Russia but instead of building all new reactors etc we should concentrate on cutting energy consumption.

This is my point. In the USA there is actually a debate about whether it is acceptable! The rest of the world don't even discuss it.

Oh, and as for nuclear power it is greener than low-tech coal/oil/gas stations, but not as clean as high-tech scrubbed fossil fuel stations. It is also incredibly expensive.

We in the UK are moving slowly towards more wind power, what with the atlantic winds providing a nice little constant supply.

Your second point true.

But your third. Have you seen the amount of resistance there is now for wind power in the UK with a recent German study, (they have employed it on a much greater scale), showing it to be uneconomical? Wind power will only be used if its not halted by NIMBY's and the fact its much for expensive than other forms of power.

But the chance of getting cancer from the dye was so unbelievably small that you would have had to eat tonnes of the stuff. Yet every year a significant amount of people still smoke cigarettes that medical science has proven to be cacogenic and much more so than a particular food dye.
The cigarette packs also have big labels with Smoking Kills and other anti smoking slogans. :D

Oh, and as for nuclear power it is greener than low-tech coal/oil/gas stations, but not as clean as high-tech scrubbed fossil fuel stations. It is also incredibly expensive.


It's expensive to build but one of the cheapest to use.

...damn those politicians...

Actually I have to agree that it's better than buying nuclear energy from Russia but instead of building all new reactors etc we should concentrate on cutting energy consumption.

If ITER got off their arses and stopped bickering over where to build the damn fusion reactor we'd have fusion power much sooner, then maybe we could get shot of all these viscious, nasty forms of generating power.

Your second point true.

But your third. Have you seen the amount of resistance there is now for wind power in the UK with a recent German study, (they have employed it on a much greater scale), showing it to be uneconomical? Wind power will only be used if its not halted by NIMBY's and the fact its much for expensive than other forms of power.

it looks really cool though.

Irrationality, like someone said before, is universal....it’s just not the Americans....
Oh yes, I'm more than willing to agree with that. I just hope that some nations could sometimes be wise enough to learn from other's mistakes.

Being from England I really cant comment in the internal workings of the US, but from what I can gather, as the US contributes to roughly (and please dont quote me) a quarter of the total emissions of greenhouse gases currently produced, (though I know that will change when China and India become more industrialised) they tend to shy away from those facts and deny anything is happening. Mr Bush I understand has said that by cutting emissions as per the Kyoto treaty that will affect the American economy in a negative way, which is why he refuses to sign it. How that works I dont know maybe someone in America can help me out on that fact. But from that, Iam guessing the US is NOT ignorant of these facts, just simply ignoring them for the greater US Economy.

The US congress killed the Kyoto treaty, not President Bush. But everybody hates Bush so of course he gets the blame.

The theory thing is getting real old, real fast. When will you understand creationism isn't a scientific theory, evolution is and in science that's the best you can get.
Creationism is as viable a theory as evolition is, as both have similar amount of available evidence. Go find me some solid, factual evidence to support one or the other.

It's expensive to build but one of the cheapest to use.

questionable when you include hiding radioactive waste.

Of course, if you dump it in the sea, that's cheap and it'll never ever come back and bite you...

Something is up with the USA.

The USA seems to be the only place that creationism is threatening to be taught as part of the science curriculum in schools and universities.

The USA seems to be the only country still debating whether global warming is happening at all, when the rest of the world has accepted the huge amount of data and moved on to ask why it is happening and if we can stop it.


Is the media around the world just more interested in the USA? Is this sort of thing happening elsewhere? Is it that the USA has the correct view, and everyone else is wrong? Is there just a rampant hatred of science in the USA?

It's because the government is and always has been idiotic, the media panders to fools, and no onw knows anything.

Actually, the whole discussion is a hijack, but there is another reason why 1978 is when we last completed a nuclear plant -- Three Mile Island.

I fully support nuclear energy. My father happens to be a nuclear physicist. I grew up near the Hanford and INEEL sites, respectively.

I didnt want to mention that because I dont know how much of an impact that would have if the economics were differant.


But to claim, as was claimed here, that the US is taking the lead on nuclear energy is simply silly.

Anti-intellectualism in the US is a serious, historical, and contemporaneous problem. (And it does play a role in the history of nuclear power in the country.)

Well, some people like to believe silly things. I also think that it is silly to worry about anti intellectualism in a country whose corporations pump out the most number of patents. Maybe these companies have locals in their R&D divisions, maybe they hired foreigners. Doesnt matter, because once they come to America, they basically become Americans.

So maybe some fundamentalist people take things too far, they are hardly representative. Plus I think the media likes to have a field day when comes to creationism. Personally, growing up I always knew about creationism, but it never seemed rational so I didnt pay it much heed. I have no problems with teachers telling students that there is another belief with regards to our history. What do you think is going to happen? Do you believe that upon hearing of the theory of creationism, students will spontaneously turn into the Amish?

Creationism is as viable a theory as evolition is, as both have similar amount of available evidence. Go find me some solid, factual evidence to support one or the other.

This is a debate for another thread.

But your wrong. Creationsim makes no predictions that can be tested, as 'goddidit' is the only answer. Evolution successfully predicted the discovery of transient fossils, DNA evolution, micro-evolution and fits well with the age of the earth given by geology and astrophysics.

questionable when you include hiding radioactive waste.

Of course, if you dumb it in the sea, that's cheap and it'll never ever come back and bite you...
Or into some Russian village like Finland used to do. They keep claiming it's so damn safe but then dumb all the waste in another country...(and Russia certainly is the safest place on earth to dumb anything)

it looks really cool though.
Big monstruous windmills look cool? They are expensive, need lots of space, destroy the environment (locally) and not very effective. I could see them as an option in remote areas with no other energy sources near by, like small communities on islands or something. As far as I know Denmark is the only country to have implemented wind power on a large scale (20%).

Creationism is as viable a theory as evolition is, as both have similar amount of available evidence. Go find me some solid, factual evidence to support one or the other.

That dog won't hunt.

But feel free to take it to its own thread.

While you are at it, please explain to most major religions in the US why a theory that -- unlike evolution -- is directly contrary to their beliefs should be taught in public schools. The United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Southern Baptist churches were all plaintiffs in the major case that ended the teaching of creationism in Arkansas.

Your first point, maybe...

But I don't understand your second. GM crops are not genetically identical, that’s why they are called genetically modified. You can modify crops to make them more resistant to certain funguses and/or insects using fewer pesticides which the greens always love. Also you can potentially make their yields greater. There is the potentiality that a fungus' can mutate and affect both GM and non-GM but I’m not sure how high the chances are.....

It's sterile right? So seed can't be produced in the 'normal' fashion (i.e. by the plant) so GM crops are essentially clones.
I suppose they could grow seed in the normal fashion and then modify it en masse, but that would cost too much. So they modify one plant and use that a lot. Hence the whole crop is genetically identical.

You're correct in your assumptions, and while I wouldn't call the whole of the U.S. "ignorant" I would call them mislead. We are a capitalism, and as such anything that could hurt us economically is quickly labelled "bad for the gov't." Most American's are sheepish, and don't research further into these issues.
Most Americans are sleepish because they are kept that way. They are not encouraged to react,... we call them "mature children". Average American is very friendly, with good intentions, but believes anything that comes from media and/or guv. What is the percentage of Americans that believed the lies about "weapons of mass destruction"??

The fact is that if we are going to look at renewable resources we need to look at wjat is going to be most effective. Look at solar power, if you want a good plant you need acres of giant solar panels and you can't build them in the colder regions were we periodically get hail. Wind power if only effective on large plains and again requires tons of wind turbines to effectively produce energy. Hydroelectric is the direwction we are moving in. It is a clean, renewable resource that alresdy supports most of the US for its power needs. I just wish we Americans would wake up and relise that in 20 years we aren't going to have many of the resources we have now. :headbang:

It's sterile right? So seed can't be produced in the 'normal' fashion (i.e. by the plant) so GM crops are essentially clones.
I suppose they could grow seed in the normal fashion and then modify it en masse, but that would cost too much. So they modify one plant and use that a lot. Hence the whole crop is genetically identical.

Ahhhhh....I see what you mean now.....but I still think it holds true that if a fungus is able to affect a non-GM crop if you create a GM crop that is resistant to that fungus it is more likely to survive. The chances of the fungus mutating and affecting both may happen, but the chances are small.

But the Western world has been modifying crops for centuries through cross breeding and getting the strongest plants. If a farmer can do it why can't a scientist? The European's are much more willing to pursue the cloning of human organs (and maybe one day humans) compared to the Americans, but not their plants and foodstuffs (again compared to the Americans).

Thus I still see the Americans as no more irrational than anyone else....

Big monstruous windmills look cool? They are expensive, need lots of space, destroy the environment (locally) and not very effective. I could see them as an option in remote areas with no other energy sources near by, like small communities on islands or something. As far as I know Denmark is the only country to have implemented wind power on a large scale (20%).
IMO windmills could be effective extra source in farms, cottages etc. In larger scale it is too expensive and ineffective (though they become more and more effective all the time). (btw, it's about 12% in Denmark)

IMO windmills could be effective extra source in farms, cottages etc. In larger scale it is too expensive and ineffective (though they become more and more effective all the time). (btw, it's about 12% in Denmark)

large offshore wind farms also provide a reasonable source of power, with a greatly reduced threat to the environment.

As coal, oil and gas get more expensive, we'll see windfarms increase.

Renewable energy is not prohibitively expensive, in the UK you can opt for a provider who only supply renewable energy, at a similar price to other companies.

Dragerna']The fact is that if we are going to look at renewable resources we need to look at wjat is going to be most effective. Look at solar power, if you want a good plant you need acres of giant solar panels and you can't build them in the colder regions were we periodically get hail. Wind power if only effective on large plains and again requires tons of wind turbines to effectively produce energy. Hydroelectric is the direwction we are moving in. It is a clean, renewable resource that alresdy supports most of the US for its power needs. I just wish we Americans would wake up and relise that in 20 years we aren't going to have many of the resources we have now. :headbang:
Hydroelectric? Like in building dams that wreak total havoc on ecosystems? We have quite a lot of it here in Finland and it's not as 'green' as it sounds. Maybe some kind of tide-power though, if you have tides that is.

No. The best new energy source energy efficiency. Create gadgets that run on less energy, turn off the light in the bathroom when you aren't using it, don't get a SUV and those sorts of things. ;)

What is wrong with the US? Nothing you need to worry about. Now go back to whatever hobby you have and stop bothering us.

it looks really cool though.


True, but then you wouldn't want them installed over the road to you would you?

large offshore wind farms also provide a reasonable source of power, with a greatly reduced threat to the environment.

As coal, oil and gas get more expensive, we'll see windfarms increase.

Renewable energy is not prohibitively expensive, in the UK you can opt for a provider who only supply renewable energy, at a similar price to other companies.

Yeah, but you still need to build them, and I still think that unless you litter the whole of the North Sea with thousands of turbines its still going to be more expensive than other forms of power.

Maybe outside the UK, but the oppisition is steadily increasing in the UK so I'm not sure if thats going to happen.

What providers are these, because if what you're saying is true I'll change to a renewable supplier. Do you have a site?

What is wrong with the US? Nothing you need to worry about. Now go back to whatever hobby you have and stop bothering us.
Haven't you noticed? Our hobby is bothering and bashing the US. :D

Ahhhhh....I see what you mean now.....but I still think it holds true that if a fungus is able to affect a non-GM crop if you create a GM crop that is resistant to that fungus it is more likely to survive. The chances of the fungus mutating and affecting both may happen, but the chances are small.

Superbug. It is immune to bleach. Ask scientists 10 years ago what the chances of a bacteria mutating to be unaffected by harsh bleaches was. The only real proof against disease is genetic diversity.

But the Western world has been modifying crops for centuries through cross breeding and getting the strongest plants. If a farmer can do it why can't a scientist? The European's are much more willing to pursue the cloning of human organs (and maybe one day humans) compared to the Americans, but not their plants and foodstuffs (again compared to the Americans).


Actually, I agree that GM foods are a good idea in principle. Unfortunately I think the way it is being done is foolish (as with so many other things).


Thus I still see the Americans as no more irrational than anyone else....
I agree.

Yeah, but you still need to build them, and I still think that unless you litter the whole of the North Sea with thousands of turbines its still going to be more expensive than other forms of power.

Maybe outside the UK, but the oppisition is steadily increasing in the UK so I'm not sure if thats going to happen.

What providers are these, because if what you're saying is true I'll change to a renewable supplier. Do you have a site?

www.good-energy.co.uk

EDIT: there is also Green Energy, but I don't know their website
and Ecotricity

large offshore wind farms also provide a reasonable source of power, with a greatly reduced threat to the environment.

As coal, oil and gas get more expensive, we'll see windfarms increase.

Renewable energy is not prohibitively expensive, in the UK you can opt for a provider who only supply renewable energy, at a similar price to other companies.
The problem is that it's quite hard to find a suitable place for large offshore wind farms. Denmark has much more suitable places than many other countries (and produces much more wind energy than anyone else.) I don't think that same solutions are good for everyone. In Holland they could focus on hydroenergy, in California on solar energy etc.

I do buy "green energy" myself. It's a bit more expensive than "regular energy" but I'm happy to pay a little extra for a good cause.

Hydroelectric? Like in building dams that wreak total havoc on ecosystems? We have quite a lot of it here in Finland and it's not as 'green' as it sounds. Maybe some kind of tide-power though, if you have tides that is.

No. The best new energy source energy efficiency. Create gadgets that run on less energy, turn off the light in the bathroom when you aren't using it, don't get a SUV and those sorts of things. ;)
There are other methods to produce hydroenergy. Dams are bad for enviroment and should not be counted as green energy but think about all the energy tied in tidal currents.

Superbug. It is immune to. Ask scientists 10 years ago what the chances of a bacteria mutating to be unaffected by harsh bleaches was. The only real proof against disease is genetic diversity.

But wouldn't you agree that the creation of the superbug is a result of overpresciption of medical drugs and/or too much bleach? I.e. using too much artifical susbtances (translation in the crop world, too many pesticides)

I know this sounds silly but if you created a "GM hospital ward" that was resistant to the bacteria I think it would take a far longer time for it to mutate and then once we refine the technqiue a slight genetic modification and the ward is bacteria free again.

I see the same (kind of) logic for GM crops. Genetic diversity is great but it takes a while for plants to create natural resistants (thus we use pesticides). Science is merely hastening that process by hundreds of millions of years in a few months in a lab.

True, but then you wouldn't want them installed over the road to you would you?

It depends on the noise level. I think they are really beautiful, but obviously noise is a problem.

The US congress killed the Kyoto treaty, not President Bush. But everybody hates Bush so of course he gets the blame.


I too was thinking about the US killing the treaty not just one man, so I wasnt personally attacking Pres Bush as I don't personally have anything against him, however it was Mr. Bush that has the final say and he had it. THAT was the point I was trying to make even if it may have been badly made.

Haven't you noticed? Our hobby is bothering and bashing the US. :D

ah, well then. . .carry on.

I too was thinking about the US killing the treaty not just one man, so I wasnt personally attacking Pres Bush as I don't personally have anything against him, however it was Mr. Bush that has the final say and he had it. THAT was the point I was trying to make even if it may have been badly made.

But is was not Bush who had the final say. Bush can sign every treaty he wants but if the Senate votes it down it is dead. The Senate has final pwer on all treaties, not the prez.

Another problem: We have enviromentalits who get in the way of their cause.

www.good-energy.co.uk

EDIT: there is also Green Energy, but I don't know their website

I'm at work (ha, hardly working) so I don't have my utility bill to hand but if this is cheaper I'll change today.

And if it is cheaper I'll come on and espouse the virtues (and eat my theoretical hat) of wind farm energy but from everything I've read wind power is currently more expensive than other forms.

We shall see....

I see the same (kind of) logic for GM crops. Genetic diversity is great but it takes a while for plants to create natural resistants (thus we use pesticides). Science is merely hastening that process by hundreds of millions of years in a few months in a lab.
The problem is that the environment hasn't had millions of years to adapt to the new strains/traits. Then again that's also the whole idea. :D

I'm at work (ha, hardly working) so I don't have my utility bill to hand but if this is cheaper I'll change today.

And if it is cheaper I'll come on and espouse the virtues (and eat my theoretical hat) of wind farm energy but from everything I've read wind power is currently more expensive than other forms.

We shall see....

have a look at http://www.uswitch.com

you can get tariffs from many companies that are 100% renewable.

You can get really cheap rates from Scottish Power if you want 100% from hydroelectric plants.

It depends on the noise level. I think they are really beautiful, but obviously noise is a problem.

I like the look of them too I have to say, but from a large distance, and in empty fields, look gorgeous. However in a place thats inhabited I doubt the novelty of having them in town would SOON wear off. Especially in England where there's no real open space to put as many wind turbines as would be effective, without bothering SOMEBODY.

But the environmentalists do NOT want America to make more Nuclear reactors to make cleaner energy than any other method available. Sure, there is a quantity of nuclear waste produced in the process, but we have absolutely secure methods of transporting and securing it in an underground secure structure in Nevada. But Nevada is afraid all the tourists will be scared of them having a bunch of waste under a moutain that's 'close' to Vegas.

Creationism is not taught as a replacement to evolution, but as an alternative theory (which evolution is, as there is no solid proof) to help balance the classroom. Either that or we can just move a head and force everyone to study just one theory (either one) and say the other one is full of poo poo.

Creationism is not a theory. Unless you - unlike every other creationist in the world - can list some of the testable theoretical postulates of creationism?

This is the whole point - evolution is the only current scientific model of the origins of biodiversity. There *is* no controversy - so the rest of the world teaches kids about evolution.

That's what's wrong in the US. Well, one thing.

But is was not Bush who had the final say. Bush can sign every treaty he wants but if the Senate votes it down it is dead. The Senate has final pwer on all treaties, not the prez.


Like I said, I dont know the inner workings of the American political system, I apologise for my ignorance, but I did ask if someone coiuld HELP me out to understand it.

Creationism is not a theory. Unless you - unlike every other creationist in the world - can list some of the testable theoretical postulates of creationism?

This is the whole point - evolution is the only current scientific model of the origins of biodiversity. There *is* no controversy - so the rest of the world teaches kids about evolution.

That's what's wrong in the US. Well, one thing.

All hail the rest of the world. Acknowlege their superiority and model your life after them. Never try to be yourself. Never decide you want to believe what you believe, all hail the rest of the world.

Creationism is as viable a theory as evolition is, as both have similar amount of available evidence. Go find me some solid, factual evidence to support one or the other.

Evolution is the change in allele frequency across time for any given genetic population. We can watch that happen.

Creationism isn't a theory. It isn't even a vaguely formatted hypothesis. Unless, as I said, you - unlike every other creationist on the planet - can provide a scientifically coherent account of creationist theory?

All hail the rest of the world. Acknowlege their superiority and model your life after them. Never try to be yourself. Never decide you want to believe what you believe, all hail the rest of the world.
Now you got it. Good boy. :D

All hail the rest of the world. Acknowlege their superiority and model your life after them. Never try to be yourself. Never decide you want to believe what you believe, all hail the rest of the world.

What I am interested in is what is going on with US society to lead to such freakish things?

But is was not Bush who had the final say. Bush can sign every treaty he wants but if the Senate votes it down it is dead. The Senate has final pwer on all treaties, not the prez.
He hardly made a rousing effort to encourage the Senate to support it though, did he?

I seem to recall him saying that the American economy was far more important than the future of the planet, or words to the effect, in a press conference.

Like I said, I dont know the inner workings of the American political system, I apologise for my ignorance, but I did ask if someone coiuld HELP me out to understand it.

sorry. . .I have drank half a bottle of wine and one can of Chu-hi, tends to make me a bit irrational. Didn't mean to be abrupt.
It has just been a sore point with me that Bush got really raked over the coals for Kyoto when in fact he had almost nothing to do with its not passing.

All hail the rest of the world. Acknowlege their superiority and model your life after them. Never try to be yourself. Never decide you want to believe what you believe, all hail the rest of the world.


You can believe g is not ~9.8 m/s/s all you like, it won't change reality.


You don't *get* a say in what reality is - and the reality is that creationism is *not* a valid scientific model. Yet it gets actual credence in the US. That is just plain nuts.

He hardly made a rousing effort to encourage the Senate to support it though, did he?

I seem to recall him saying that the American economy was far more important than the future of the planet, or words to the effect, in a press conference.


That was what I was thinking of when I made my original point, Thanks Borgoa.

He hardly made a rousing effort to encourage the Senate to support it though, did he?

I seem to recall him saying that the American economy was far more important than the future of the planet, or words to the effect, in a press conference.

When the Senate votes 98 to 0 not to pass there isn't any reason to make a rousing effort. That means that the Dems voted no. I wonder why. . . could it be that they recognized it would murder, I mean destroy the US economy, could it be that since the Kyoto treaty was largely designed and authored by economies in direct competition with the US and economies that were exempted from it (China, for example) that they were very leary of passing it?

When the Senate votes 98 to 0 not to pass there isn't any reason to make a rousing effort. That means that the Dems voted no. I wonder why. . . could it be that they recognized it would murder, I mean destroy the US economy, could it be that since the Kyoto treaty was largely designed and authored by economies in direct competition with the US and economies that were exempted from it (China, for example) that they were very leary of passing it?

But when you passed the CFC ban (or something similar, this is off the top of my head), in the early 90s you allowed a ten year catch up date for those industries that would be affected (i.e. China, India) on a greater scale to implement the policy. Can't you declare that you will sign the Kyoto Treaty in 10/15 years when your industries have adapted, and allow others to do the same?

I really don't understand why countries in Europe or the US would even use GM crops... There's a huge over-production already, why produce even more?

It's just a tool to get third world countries back under some sort of colonial rule. Make them dependant on you and you have them.

Same goes for creationism, stupid people are easier to be controlled, why else did the church burn strong and independant women, so called witches. Simply to stay in power.

But when you passed the CFC ban (or something similar, this is off the top of my head), in the early 90s you allowed a ten year catch up date for those industries that would be affected (i.e. China, India) on a greater scale to implement the policy. Can't you declare that you will sign the Kyoto Treaty in 10/15 years when your industries have adapted, and allow others to do the same?

I see no harm in that but as far as I know that is not what has been written in the Kyoto Treaty. I sure as heck don't want polluted skies and such. I would love to see my country pulled off the oil tit. Go Hydrogen!

one site can provide an extensive argument
ANd I just lost my ~1,000 word argument to refresh :( :headbang:

http://www.legal-forms-kit.com/legal-jokes/dumb-laws.html

What the hell is wrong with you americans :D

Why is Germany a place where most people believe in the crap non-science of homeopathy?

Stop making generalizations.

Why is Germany a place where most people believe in the crap non-science of homeopathy?

Stop making generalizations.

Are they trying to have homeopathy taught in public schools? If they are, then there's a problem.

Superbug. It is immune to. Ask scientists 10 years ago what the chances of a bacteria mutating to be unaffected by harsh bleaches was. The only real proof against disease is genetic diversity.

But wouldn't you agree that the creation of the superbug is a result of overpresciption of medical drugs and/or too much bleach? I.e. using too much artifical susbtances (translation in the crop world, too many pesticides)

I know this sounds silly but if you created a "GM hospital ward" that was resistant to the bacteria I think it would take a far longer time for it to mutate and then once we refine the technqiue a slight genetic modification and the ward is bacteria free again.

I see the same (kind of) logic for GM crops. Genetic diversity is great but it takes a while for plants to create natural resistants (thus we use pesticides). Science is merely hastening that process by hundreds of millions of years in a few months in a lab.

Actually the superbug was created by improper cleaning (they didn't clean thoroughly enough) but I take your point.
My point in mentioning it was that, given the speed of mutation in bateria/viruses/fungi (from "Aaagh! Antibiotics!" to "Hah! Bleach!" in a few years) a genetically resistant plant will only be resistant for an incredibly short period of time. When that time is over, all your genetically identical crops die.

Another question is if they modify a plant to naturally produce pesticides, what will frequent consumption of that plant do to you? They are not answering this question or even supplying us with evidence that they have considered it.

Why is Germany a place where most people believe in the crap non-science of homeopathy?

Stop making generalizations.

did I say that the USA was the only place in the world with problems?

Did I say the USA was the shittest place on Earth?

No.

All I asked in this thread was for people to explain to me what is wrong with the USA that as a society the issues I have mentioned are even considered.

Though maybe your argumentative reactionary response is an illustration of the problem?

did I say that the USA was the only place in the world with problems?

Did I say the USA was the shittest place on Earth?

No.

All I asked in this thread was for people to explain to me what is wrong with the USA that as a society the issues I have mentioned are even considered.

Though maybe your argumentative reactionary response is an illustration of the problem?

Look EH, ya don't like the US, that is clear from many threads and posts you have made. No, you didn't specifically say those things but you inferred them. The title of the thread makes it clear you wished to start another, "The US is stupid!" threads. Don't be a lawyer when somebody reacts to it. :)

Look EH, ya don't like the US, that is clear from many threads and posts you have made. No, you didn't specifically say those things but you inferred them. The title of the thread makes it clear you wished to start another, "The US is stupid!" threads. Don't be a lawyer when somebody reacts to it. :)

I am interested in a cultural debate, to understand how such issues become key legal fights in the US, while being skipped completely in most other developed countries.

If I wanted to declare the US sucked, I would have done. I am not interested in America bashing, I wanted people to actually help me understand the issues.

Most of the US is not debating the teaching of creationism in schools. So I don't see it as an "American" problem. It's a problem for specific school districts and states.

Even if one district or state wants to be idiotic, it hardly means that the whole nation will automatically follow suit.

Most of the US is not debating the teaching of creationism in schools. So I don't see it as an "American" problem. It's a problem for specific school districts and states.

Even if one district or state wants to be idiotic, it hardly means that the whole nation will automatically follow suit.

It is important enough in the US for the science journal Nature to include a multi-page story about it in a recent issue.

So it's not a tiny issue, it's quite big.

EDIT: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050425/full/4341062a.html

38% of teenagers polled believed humans were created by god in their present form within the last 10 000 years.

I am interested in a cultural debate, to understand how such issues become key legal fights in the US, while being skipped completely in most other developed countries.

If I wanted to declare the US sucked, I would have done. I am not interested in America bashing, I wanted people to actually help me understand the issues.

"What is WRONG with the USA?" hmmmmmm, yes sounds like cultural debate and understanding of key legal fights in the US. I guess wrong is a nuetral term? It wasn't, "Hey, help me understand this issue." or "What the deal with. . .?"
The wording shows an intended slight.

It is important enough in the US for the science journal Nature to include a multi-page story about it in a recent issue.

So it's not a tiny issue, it's quite big.

I don't recall seeing a reference to the science journal Nature in our Constitution. Nor in our body of laws and regulations.

And I challenge you to show me that it's a point of debate in a majority of school districts, or even a majority of US states.

I live in Virginia, and here it isn't even discussed as an issue. Hmm. Southern state, home state to Liberty Baptist and Jerry Falwell - and the schools aren't even talking about creationism. At all.

I am interested in a cultural debate, to understand how such issues become key legal fights in the US, while being skipped completely in most other developed countries.

If I wanted to declare the US sucked, I would have done. I am not interested in America bashing, I wanted people to actually help me understand the issues.

If you don't believe in evolution (and for as long as it is theory accepting/teaching it as fact is faith) then the government taking your money to pay to indoctrinate your children in a hostile belief system is unethical.
To be honest, I think that there is debate about the issues affecting peoples lives is a very good thing.
I wish in Europe we were allowed to question the status quo to this extent.

If you don't believe in evolution (and for as long as it is theory accepting/teaching it as fact is faith) then the government taking your money to pay to indoctrinate your children in a hostile belief system is unethical.
To be honest, I think that there is debate about the issues affecting peoples lives is a very good thing.
I wish in Europe we were allowed to question the status quo to this extent.

Educating the flaws in evolution is one thing, but creationism is not a valid alternative scientific theory.

1. Bush.
2. Fanatical Christians.
3. Corporate lobbies.

It is important enough in the US for the science journal Nature to include a multi-page story about it in a recent issue.

So it's not a tiny issue, it's quite big.

EDIT: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050425/full/4341062a.html

38% of teenagers polled believed humans were created by god in their present form within the last 10 000 years.

is there something wrong with people who are yet to complete COLLEGE to have bad history recollection and/or faith?

1. Bush.
2. Fanatical Christians.
3. Corporate lobbies.

For every Bush there is a Ted Kennedy.
For every fanatical Christian there is a fanatical ACLU member.
For every corporate lobbeist there is a Greenpeace/PETA blackmailer.

that old pendulam swings both ways.

If you don't believe in evolution (and for as long as it is theory accepting/teaching it as fact is faith) then the government taking your money to pay to indoctrinate your children in a hostile belief system is unethical.
To be honest, I think that there is debate about the issues affecting peoples lives is a very good thing.
I wish in Europe we were allowed to question the status quo to this extent.

Oh, that's such a load of crap. There's a difference between "theory" and "faith": one has some support, but not determinative support. The other does not.

Think about that in a context other than evolution. Is it UNETHICAL to teach the theory of special relativity to your children if you happen to be a believer in Newtonian physics??!! "They're indoctrinating my children in Einstein! Oh no!"

Is it UNETHICAL to teach mainstream economic theory to your children if you're a Marxist?

sorry. . .I have drank half a bottle of wine and one can of Chu-hi, tends to make me a bit irrational. Didn't mean to be abrupt.
It has just been a sore point with me that Bush got really raked over the coals for Kyoto when in fact he had almost nothing to do with its not passing.

Oh don't worry about it, Iam at work (loosely speaking) so you're lucky to be drinking at this time, wish I was there! I can see you're a Bush supporter so Iam sorry if I gave the impression I was having a personal pop, I wasn't but when your outside looking in, some facts do get a bit blurry. It was the overall US I was making the statement over. :fluffle:

All I asked in this thread was for people to explain to me what is wrong with the USA that as a society the issues I have mentioned are even considered.

Though maybe your argumentative reactionary response is an illustration of the problem?

It just might be. :D

Under the latest US elections I somehow got the picture Americans voted Bush in the office partly to spite the rest of the world. I think America as a nation has the attitude of doing what they like. They hate it when someone, anyone, tries telling them what to do. On the other hand, Americans love telling others what to do.

If we're to have creationism classes in school, then why not classes in astrology, alchemy, ceremonial magic and shamanism?

Is the US the only country with Christians in the news? Really? It never happens in Europe? Never?

"Celebrity Pentecostal preacher Runar Søgaard is under protection by Swedish police after receiving death threats. A high-profile sermon where Sögaard called the prophet Mohammed "a confused pedophile" has triggered fears of religious war. ... "Even if I see Runar while he has major police protection I will shoot him to death," a radical Islamist told Swedish newspaper Expressen. Persons connected to the Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam claim to have received a fatwa, a decree from a Muslim religious leader, to kill Søgaard."

That's from Aftenposten. You seem to have religious extremes of at least two kinds in Sweden.

Still want to say that Christianity is a solely US problem? There must be other people in Sweden who are Pentecostal, otherwise, Runar wouldn't be a celebrity.

Most Americans are sleepish because they are kept that way. They are not encouraged to react,... we call them "mature children". Average American is very friendly, with good intentions, but believes anything that comes from media and/or guv. What is the percentage of Americans that believed the lies about "weapons of mass destruction"??
I don't know, but I know that I'm in the military and KNEW they didn't have Nukes, but am still convinced they had bio-weapons. Since, you know, Iraq already used them before....

If we're to have creationism classes in school, then why not classes in astrology, alchemy, ceremonial magic and shamanism?

That would be sooo neat :D We wouldn't need Harry Potter anymore.

Oh don't worry about it, Iam at work (loosely speaking) so you're lucky to be drinking at this time, wish I was there! I can see you're a Bush supporter so Iam sorry if I gave the impression I was having a personal pop, I wasn't but when your outside looking in, some facts do get a bit blurry. It was the overall US I was making the statement over. :fluffle:

As a Bush supporter I usually hide and avoid people. Thanks for not throwing something at me over the net and saying I am evil. :) Saying that, I do not by any stretch of the imagination agree with all that he has said and done.

Oh, that's such a load of crap. There's a difference between "theory" and "faith": one has some support, but not determinative support. The other does not.

Think about that in a context other than evolution. Is it UNETHICAL to teach the theory of special relativity to your children if you happen to be a believer in Newtonian physics??!! "They're indoctrinating my children in Einstein! Oh no!"

Is it UNETHICAL to teach mainstream economic theory to your children if you're a Marxist?

Which part of my post said I agreed with them? None of it?
Then next time try replying to what I write.

I'll explain again (I'll keep it simple this time though)

They don't agree with evolution.
They object to it being the only thing taught.
They are exercising their right to challenge it.
This is a Good Thing.

If you don't understand what I'm saying now, my apologies, but I can't make it any simpler.

Oh god... These hatred threads are becoming lame. I think blaming the whole country for this bullshit is getting out of hand. The US is a huge country, so it is an easy target. Where are the 'What is wrong with the UK and re-electing Tony Blair?' threads?

I don't, nor do most (if not all) of my colleagues, agree with anything that is happening politically in the US. I am tired of being labeled as a stupid American, when I know it is quite the contrary. Although, the US has it's problems, it still has one of THE best educational systems in the entire world. It doesn't matter if you agree, it is true. Again, the bigger the country (and higher the power), the more it will be under the microscope.

Americans might fall victim to the media, however, so does the rest of the world if they believe all of this crap.

Oh god... These hatred threads are becoming lame. I think blaming the whole country for this bullshit is getting out of hand. The US is a huge country, so it is an easy target. Where are the 'What is wrong with the UK and re-electing Tony Blair?' threads?

I don't, nor do most (if not all) of my colleagues, agree with anything that is happening politically in the US. I am tired of being labeled as a stupid American, when I know it is quite the contrary. Although, the US has it's problems, it still has one of THE best educational systems in the entire world. It doesn't matter if you agree, it is true. Again, the bigger the country (and higher the power), the more it will be under the microscope.

Americans might fall victim to the media, however, so does the rest of the world if they believe all of this crap.

slight clap.

If you don't believe in evolution (and for as long as it is theory accepting/teaching it as fact is faith) then the government taking your money to pay to indoctrinate your children in a hostile belief system is unethical.
To be honest, I think that there is debate about the issues affecting peoples lives is a very good thing.
I wish in Europe we were allowed to question the status quo to this extent.


You don't get an opinion on whether or not you agree with it - science class should teach *science*. Evolution is science. The notion that parents should dictate what their children learn in science class is simply absurd.

I don't particularly like that g isn't exactly 17 m/s/s. Tough cookies on me - it *isn't* 17 m/s/s.

They object to it being the only thing taught.
They are exercising their right to challenge it.
This is a Good Thing.


There's nothing else to teach - there is not other scientific show in town.

That means.....TOUGH.

Complaining about reality is not a good thing.

As a Bush supporter I usually hide and avoid people. Thanks for not throwing something at me over the net and saying I am evil. :) Saying that, I do not by any stretch of the imagination agree with all that he has said and done.

Is that why you're in Japan? :D :D

Ah dont worry, your not evil, I been on enough forums to know the difference between a plonker whose just out for a net-arguement and will pull as many people in as possible, and a person with genuine views that ok may be abrupt sometimes but not malicious, so your fine with me! :cool:

I think I need to clear some things up.

This thread was never meant to be a 'look at stupid americans' thread. I am not bigotted enough to think all Americans are stupid and believe in the crap spouted by extremist groups. Nor do I wish to comment on US politics and the choice of senators etc etc.

However, it is clear that powerful groups in the USA have an anti-science agenda, lead by creationists and those who deny global warming is even happening. What I wanted to know was why these groups are given such relative importance as to be able to challenge the school boards in their local counties to request intelligent design is on the curriculum, or so powerful that Nature ran an article about how to combat the rising problem.

Is it that the media represents the arguments as evenly two sided, when in fact they are not?

Is it that corporations and politicians have fueled and anti-science agenda for their own purposes?

Is it market freedom that has drawn people to attempt to make money out of being 'creation scientists'?

Is it that the education system is not working?

I am truely interested in this, but I am NOT interested in a why everyone hates america/why everyone can fuck off type thread.

Is that why you're in Japan? :D :D

Ah dont worry, your not evil, I been on enough forums to know the difference between a plonker whose just out for a net-arguement and will pull as many people in as possible, and a person with genuine views that ok may be abrupt sometimes but not malicious, so your fine with me! :cool:

Nah, I'm in Japan because of yakkitori, yakinikku, nabe, mochi, okonomiyaki, tebasaki and my wife. . .but not necessarily in that order.

I didnt even bother to read all 9 pages but....

What is wrong with all these USA Threads?

Seriously,theres a whole page of threads everyday about it :confused:

Brix']I didnt even bother to read all 9 pages but....

What is wrong with all these USA Threads?

Seriously,theres a whole page of threads everyday about it :confused:

If you actually bother to read the thread you'll see the aim was NOT to slag of the US but to discuss why there is an anti-science movement seemingly growing in strength in the USA

i Have Requested This Thread Be Closed.

Please Don't Post Any More.

I Will Start A Thread With A More Carefully Thought Out Name For People To Discuss The Roots Of The Anti-science Movement