Continuing the theme of my last post regarding reason abuse forming law abuse (which led to the American Revolution)…
The conflict conservatives have with science is mostly caused by religion. Some religious conservatives reject evolution, and some oppose stem cell research.
There is no reason to think that precise changes in a plant’s genes are more dangerous than, say, the cross-breeding of corn done by American Indians centuries ago or a new type of tomato arising in someone’s organic garden. Nature makes wilder and more unpredictable changes in plant DNA all the time.
And we’re a seamless part of nature, according to hardcore physics. The discriminatory (including hypocritical) distinction against humanity is sickening. I have no problem with fully leveraging the scientific method to ascertain pros and cons of what I like to call wilderness pressure (or “wildpress” for simpler communication), which is the stress signature that our species applies, so humanity can better understand reality for optimal survival (including optimizing relationships with other species — e.g. cannabis — which too many Democrats and Republicans still want to ban via reason abuse against scientific progress btw). Also on the cannabis front, like dog breeding, humanity is deeply affecting cannabis’ evolution, but too many political leftists apparently hypocritically have no problem with that tampering.
Leftists often claim to be defenders of progress, but they sound more like religious conservatives when they oppose “tampering with nature.”
That’s perfectly tuned in with my use of traditional political leftism disguised as progressivism (scientific constitutionalism is actual progressivism that inclusively matches the honorable intentions of the political left).
But it’s nature that is terrible. We should alter it. “Living with nature” means fighting for food, freezing in the cold, and dying young.
The left also objects to science that contradicts their egalitarian beliefs. A few years ago, I interviewed scientists who had discovered ways in which male and female brains differ from birth. The scientists told me that they wanted to continue such research, but political pressure against it was too intense. Men and women clearly have different aptitudes, but today leftists demand that government punish any company that treats genders differently.
I firmly believe in gender equality by way of equal fundamental rights, and I also progressively treat gender as a complex spectrum of masculine and feminine dominance to form a highly textured gender signature (e.g. women at least by superficial appearance with male genitals but certain feminine amplification elsewhere — including personality traits to a fully detailed degree).
The ‘we must all be the exact same’ mantra of certain political leftists is the cry for fascism. Hitler wanted to make a better world by a similar cry. Uniqueness is not disgusting, but falls clearly within “variety is the spice of life”. Traditional political leftists pretend to be non-violent, but they too often embrace academic thuggery to brutalize society into conformance by strict judicial regulation (i.e. hide the “assault rifles” and such to be revealed only upon opposing their academic disguise).
Finally on this point, I believe feminine characteristics can be equally powerful, so the notion of women needing to be more like men to become powerful is ridiculous.
Few scientists today would even study relative IQs of different ethnic groups. They know they’d be de-funded if they discovered the “wrong” facts.
I have yet to find a prompting article that I fully agree with. What’s the point of studying IQs along ethnic lines? What goals would that accomplish? It doesn’t take a scientist to boldly state that poverty weighs heavily upon intelligence. Education factors obviously count, but so too does the unhealthy mental stress from wrestling with resource challenges. Moreover, there can never be a full test of intelligence, because intelligence is always context sensitive (e.g. brilliantly intelligent rocket scientist without jungle survival skills dying stupidly quickly in a jungle survival situation).
The serious danger is scientific bias. I’m not just talking about bias expressed in scientific results (which actually would be unscientific — i.e. science abuse), but bias in the form of scientific focus.
Science should be leveraged to prioritize application of the scientific method, and scientifically understanding ethnic distinction (for worst through best) is not a priority these days, at least when compared to the scientifically proven disastrous chaos that is reason abuse forming law abuse (the real source of society’s poverty and much more grossly exacerbated by major politics). Law abuse is the basis for racism and ethnic cleansing. Law abuse prevents the scientifically proven benefits of cannabis (and has hindered better scientific understanding of this magnificent plant). Law abuse grossly amplifies the destruction from abusive favoritism. Law abuse is public enemy number one, logically speaking.
Abuse itself is the ultimate enemy, and science use (if you will) is the enemy of that abuse. Stupidity and abuse are at least arguably synonymous, and objectivity is the enemy of stupidity, logically speaking.
My beliefs are unfortunately unique, but they (sometimes brutally) honestly conform to strictest application of the scientific method — the true path of equality and health improvement.