Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Yanks]

...

So you really think it's a good idea for us to continue to pump tons and tons of toxins in the air from cars, factories and other sources? And that we shouldn't seek alternative means to power our civilization that would be more environmentally responsible?

Here we go. Because I say the sky isn't falling, somehow that's construed into I want dirty air and water, and I'm sure I hate polar bears and I want to see all little girls get swept away (see Al Gores tripe movie). I've clearly stated that when solar/alge/wind techology becomes affordable it will "win the war". But, as this administrations track record CLEARLY proves, that just doesn't happen because someone wants it to. I myself am researching on how to build a home that is completly off the grid (electricity) and when I can afford it, I will buy a Tesla for my daily commute to work. (I love that company)

You think human civilization will continue to use the internal combustion engine forever, never developing something better?

Because I kind of think having alternative means to power our civilization will be a good thing, and that someday the ICE will be a quaint museum piece.

No I don't, when the technology is there, it will be laid to rest. ... and should be remembered for what it brought to human civilization. There is all kinds of development going on.

You'd think, you know with all the poison-ish CO2, that Algae technology would be at the forefront of the push for cleaner technology. But that would make too much sense.

The only thing I could *maybe" disagree with is the notion of the polar ice-caps restoring to preindustrial levels. That may be possible, sure, but the thing is that we're still in an ice age and at some point it will end causing the natural melting of the polar icecaps. [/quuote]

Funny that fact was convienantly overlooked, eh? All we need to do it change the world now and we are good for another 40,000 years according to NDT.

As to the show: I really liked the look and design of the solar-sail ship. And would've have expected at some point in the "next year" cosmic calendar we would have seen a terraformed Mars.

I thought that was pretty cool, but not very plausable. They just flung that solar-catcher up there and that ship big enough to house a civilixation just started trucking along. Those little particles aren't that strong.

Probably not much sense in doing that. When the sun runs out of hydrogen I'm not sure mars will be enhabital either. Funny how he mentioned Venus and never brought up methane, eh?

 

[Yanks]

It seems Cosmos is reaching it's target audience.

And what's that supposed to mean?

 

[Jedi_Master]

It seems Cosmos is reaching it's target audience.

And what's that supposed to mean?

That perhaps you are one of the people the shows creators are hoping to convince.

 

[Yanks]

It seems Cosmos is reaching it's target audience.

And what's that supposed to mean?

That perhaps you are one of the people the shows creators are hoping to convince.

Facts are all it takes for me, not politics and idealism.

 

[Jedi_Master]

And what's that supposed to mean?

That perhaps you are one of the people the shows creators are hoping to convince.

Facts are all it takes for me, not politics and idealism.

I have seen idealism on Cosmos, but nothing I would call "politics".

If you are sensitive to "political leanings" on documentaries, then you must not watch many documentaries.

 

[Yanks]

That perhaps you are one of the people the shows creators are hoping to convince.

Facts are all it takes for me, not politics and idealism.

I have seen idealism on Cosmos, but nothing I would call "politics".

If you are sensitive to "political leanings" on documentaries, then you must not watch many documentaries.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

Documentaries are fine as are all the science show on Discovery, the Science Channel, etc.

 

[AgentCoop]

And what's that supposed to mean?

That perhaps you are one of the people the shows creators are hoping to convince.

Facts are all it takes for me, not politics and idealism.

And yet you're the one who keeps bringing up politics.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Facts are all it takes for me, not politics and idealism.

I have seen idealism on Cosmos, but nothing I would call "politics".

If you are sensitive to "political leanings" on documentaries, then you must not watch many documentaries.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

Documentaries are fine as are all the science show on Discovery, the Science Channel, etc.

"Quotes that are not properly attributed and do not apply to the subject at hand must be considered as a lazy substitute for original thought" - Henry VIII

 

[Yanks]

I have seen idealism on Cosmos, but nothing I would call "politics".

If you are sensitive to "political leanings" on documentaries, then you must not watch many documentaries.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

Documentaries are fine as are all the science show on Discovery, the Science Channel, etc.

"Quotes that are not properly attributed and do not apply to the subject at hand must be considered as a lazy substitute for original thought" - Henry VIII

Everyone knows who said that.

 

[Yanks]

That perhaps you are one of the people the shows creators are hoping to convince.

Facts are all it takes for me, not politics and idealism.

And yet you're the one who keeps bringing up politics.

Sad it's in this show, I agree.

 

[Amaris]

And what's that supposed to mean?

That perhaps you are one of the people the shows creators are hoping to convince.

Facts are all it takes for me, not politics and idealism.

If all it took were facts, then you wouldn't be in the position you are now.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Facts are all it takes for me, not politics and idealism.

And yet you're the one who keeps bringing up politics.

Sad it's in this show, I agree.

No, it really isn't.

 

[Christopher]

I have seen idealism on Cosmos, but nothing I would call "politics".

If you are sensitive to "political leanings" on documentaries, then you must not watch many documentaries.

As I've said before, the original Cosmos was definitely political, and the new one is too. Politics doesn't automatically mean "lies and distortions to advance an agenda." It means advocating for a point of view, trying to influence people toward a goal. Honesty can certainly be a tool of politics; indeed, politics works best when it's based on honest and informed discussion. Politics is what gets things done in a society, what convinces the people as a whole to pursue a certain goal -- even if it's a goal that's objectively in the people's best interests, rather than simply the best interests of a political party or faction.

People who use "politics" as a dirty word for what their political opponents are doing are themselves taking a political position just by doing so. So we shouldn't treat politics as a dirty word or a dirty game. We should redeem it as what it's ideally meant to be, the way that reasonable people advocate and debate their positions and motivate popular participation in order to pursue solutions for our common problems.

So Cosmos is very much a political statement -- a statement that we should let science and intelligence guide our policies as a society rather than superstition and obfuscation, and that we should act on our awareness of the long-term effects of our existence rather than merely on our desire to preserve the immediate status quo. Advocating science is particularly political in these times when one political faction has embraced hostility toward science as one of its core doctrines. The harder some parties campaign against science, the more important it is for science to make itself heard, to ensure it isn't drowned out and misrepresented.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I have seen idealism on Cosmos, but nothing I would call "politics".

If you are sensitive to "political leanings" on documentaries, then you must not watch many documentaries.

As I've said before, the original Cosmos was definitely political, and the new one is too. Politics doesn't automatically mean "lies and distortions to advance an agenda." It means advocating for a point of view, trying to influence people toward a goal. Honesty can certainly be a tool of politics; indeed, politics works best when it's based on honest and informed discussion. Politics is what gets things done in a society, what convinces the people as a whole to pursue a certain goal -- even if it's a goal that's objectively in the people's best interests, rather than simply the best interests of a political party or faction.

People who use "politics" as a dirty word for what their political opponents are doing are themselves taking a political position just by doing so. So we shouldn't treat politics as a dirty word or a dirty game. We should redeem it as what it's ideally meant to be, the way that reasonable people advocate and debate their positions and motivate popular participation in order to pursue solutions for our common problems.

So Cosmos is very much a political statement -- a statement that we should let science and intelligence guide our policies as a society rather than superstition and obfuscation, and that we should act on our awareness of the long-term effects of our existence rather than merely on our desire to preserve the immediate status quo. Advocating science is particularly political in these times when one political faction has embraced hostility toward science as one of its core doctrines. The harder some parties campaign against science, the more important it is for science to make itself heard, to ensure it isn't drowned out and misrepresented.

Whatever the original meaning and intent of the word "politics" the common use of the word "politics" and "political" has a negative, manipulative, and coercive tone. That is the "politics" that is not present in Cosmos.
Does it have a "viewpoint" which it advocates? Yes. Is it attempting to manipulate or coerce its viewers for some nefarious purpose? No.

 

[Christopher]

But that's just what I'm saying -- using the word that way is hypocritical and dishonest, because it pretends that politics is only something your opponents do, but vilifying those who disagree with you is certainly political in that very sense. If we are to be honest and fair, we must start by admitting that every position is political, and that politics is not automatically bad. Just because some people corrupt a word for their own ends, that doesn't mean we're not allowed to fight that and remind people of the true meaning of the word.

The first step to reforming politics in this country, to getting back to a place where people of different political leanings can cooperate with each other rather than just attacking each other, is to resist the notion that politics is automatically negative and manipulative. That usage is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need politics to get anything done on a large scale, so we need to return to the idea that politics can be a constructive mechanism, a way of doing good. Just because it can be corrupted into something harmful -- which it certainly has been -- doesn't mean that's the only thing it can be.

 

[Awesome Possum]

If we need to steer away from "my way or no way" and towards actually working towards a common goal like we used to. The US once got to the Moon, now we can't get agree on a budget because people would rather behave like spoiled children.

 

[davejames]

Here we go. Because I say the sky isn't falling, somehow that's construed into I want dirty air and water, and I'm sure I hate polar bears and I want to see all little girls get swept away (see Al Gores tripe movie). I've clearly stated that when solar/alge/wind techology becomes affordable it will "win the war". But, as this administrations track record CLEARLY proves, that just doesn't happen because someone wants it to.

Sure maybe the technology for alternative energy isn't quite there yet, but if it wasn't for the government consistently pushing the car companies to reduce emissions and improve their technology, it's likely our cars would be much less clean and efficient than they are now.

As incompetent as our government can often be (and I don't deny it can be very incompetent), one thing it can do well is use it's considerable power and wealth-- which is much greater than any corporation's-- to invest in ideas and push people to innovate much faster than they would otherwise be able to.

So I'm not seeing the harm in our government wanting to invest in clean energy and improve the quality of our air and our children's future. It's bizarre to me that that's somehow considered a "bad" thing now, or a goal worthy of ridicule by many on the right.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

we must start by admitting that every position is political

That's a very broad application of a word whose overwhelmingly most common application has to do with governance, and acquiring the power to govern. Yes, we can apply it to everything. But that dilutes the word to the point where even a scientific conclusion (e.g. reduce the amount fluorocarbons to reduce damage to the ozone layer) becomes "political" - when, in reality, it's the advocates in the halls of power that use those conclusions to advance their own ideological agendas that make it "political."

In other words, given the practical use of the word, calling the statement, "human activity is responsible for climate change, and reducing our levels of greenhouse has emissions is necessary for the future stability of the environment" a political one devalues its scientific nature. Maybe that shouldn't happen. But on a pragmatic level, that is precisely what does happen.

I've clearly stated that when solar/alge/wind techology becomes affordable it will "win the war". But, as this administrations track record CLEARLY proves, that just doesn't happen because someone wants it to

Well, it surely is much less likely to happen if people deny the need for (and oppose the efforts toward) its development.

 

[Christopher]

In other words, given the practical use of the word, calling the statement, "human activity is responsible for climate change, and reducing our levels of greenhouse has emissions is necessary for the future stability of the environment" a political one devalues its scientific nature. Maybe that shouldn't happen. But on a pragmatic level, that is precisely what does happen.

No, the statement itself is not political, but the only way to convince people to act to address climate change is through political activism. Because politics is the art of convincing people to work toward a goal, to contribute their resources and energies toward it under someone's leadership. Those of us who believe that action is necessary can only make a difference by being politically engaged, by participating in the conversation and winning people to our cause. And that's what I mean when I say Cosmos is political. It's not just there to present this information neutrally -- it's there to advocate for a position and a point of view, to promote activism against the forces of anti-intellectualism and deliberate denial of reality that have become so dangerously powerful. The information itself is objective, but the show is using it to make a statement. That's not a bad thing, because it's a statement that needs to be made, if for no other reason than to balance out all the media outlets promoting the opposing point of view.

Politics is a tool, and almost any tool can be used constructively or harmfully. What matters is the intent of the user, and the goal it's directed toward. The problem with the nation today is not that people are using politics, but that they're using it toward the narrow goal of boosting their own party's power and destroying the opposing party rather than toward the goal of serving the good of the nation and the world. The problem is with the ends, not the means.

 

[gturner]

But why do we need activism to con people into acting on climate change, when IPCC lead authors predict that within the lifetime of our newborns, we'll go from an average temperature of 289 degrees Kelvin to a scorching 289.37 degrees Kelvin? Thus we must revamp our entire society, raise energy prices so high that poor people can't afford food, sit back and watch corn riots in Mexico City, and make sure Africans don't have reliable electricity for another hundred years. It is a cause that is both stupid and evil.