@jogeryjogo This is such a silly, glib thing to say, and flies in the face of any statistical rigor. It's just a copout. Republicans and Democrats are both widely varied and complex, and you just can't sum up ideologies of 320 million people in a single sentence like that. Try harder, jogeryjogo.
I think he may have different views now (this was 3 yrs ago) - considering the prominence of Tea-Party ppl and the current crop of politicians running for Prez.
@jogeryjogo That is not true. Neither is "more" American. They are both American. In fact when you get off the abortion, evolution talking points, most Americans agree on politics. We all want a more efficient government, better public education, better welfare programs that are there to help get one on their feet, but not to be a permanent way of life, and affordable health care. The big money people are keeping us all apart by focusing us on what we won't agree on. Let's get passed it.
Obama shuts down NASA and Newt makes a campaign promise of colonizing the moon. I've never seen a more apparent example of what Dr. Tyson is talking about.
@GridJumping At the risk of starting an argument or going off track, Obama did not shut down NASA. He ended the program that involved sending people to space for no particular reason, using technology that had not been improved since the 1970s, and returning with no new or useful information. NASA is still running strong and is focusing its time on more efficient means of space travel rather than needlessly sending men to space to float around for a month.
I'm not buying this at all >_> He has two points, one being Rep. put more money into science. Take away funding for NASA and then how much funding are you left with? (obvious bias being an astrophysicist O.o). I really don't even agree with the premise, I would say funding for education is more important. His other ex. is horrible >_> a judge doing what he is required to do is not "pro science". Rep. and only Rep. are the only ones bringing up this issue and it's supported by all Rep candidates
@Douglas1102 errr, you did notice NASA was the one that got the least extra money? Also, he did ask, what would you say is pro-science, education in science, or investment in science, which at this time are completely different. I can't go sitting on a hill waiting for apples with elementary knowledge of physics and complex maths and change the world.
His example was more the point that he was not afraid, simply because he anticipated their decision due to certain motivations.
Im gonna have to disagree here. You cant keep funding science while crashing the economy, his points here as just not good. I could use the same logic to justify dictatorial communism.
Oh look, the amount of science being done under Lenin and Stalin is way higher then what the Tzar ever did, that must mean dictatorial communism is a good thing.
Bravo, I thought this guy was smart, obviously I was wrong.
@gulbirk the economic benefits that innovation generates are often realised over long periods of time. Economic ups and downs are short term events. To cut science funding simply for short term fiscal expediency has long term detrimental economic effects. While I can see where your trying to go with your analogy, it is erroneous.
@uknowispeaksense Its not. Focusing on science is not what CREATES a stabil economy. NASA for example, has not contributed allot to creating a stabil or functioning economy. Science should be the result of a functioning society, but if you set up one that doesnt work (like republicans do) then it doesnt matter if you fund science.
Besides, I could again use USSR as an example, but no one would accept that, so why should people accept this?
@gulbirk noone can accuse any side of the US government of focusing on science to create a stable economy. science spending is dwarfed by military spending and spending in other areas anyway. I was reading an interesting paper last year that mentioned for every dollar spent in ag science in the US, $22 comes back in tax. Interesting
@uknowispeaksense And how is that? Just because an article says something that doesnt make it true. Sorry, but the argument that republicans run the country in a better way then democrats because they spend more (only in certain periods btw) on science, simply doesnt work.
@gulbirk Don't get me wrong, I think most republicans are batshit crazy and couldn't organise a root in a brothel with a fistful of cash. I'm trying to find the paper I was reading. I know for fact it was published in a peer reviewed economics journal so I am extremely confident that it was accurate. I don't read biased papers.
@uknowispeaksense I understand. I also understand that science is of course neccesary. I am not proposing to stop funding science. My point was that even though you fund science, that wouldnt matter much if other things like schools, hospitals, working condititions, welfare, general wealth, etc failed.
@gulbirk true, and I understand your point. The funding of science though is a fraction of those other things..at least in my country anyway. Anyhow, nice exchanging ideas with you. Cheers :0)
Neither party is truly pro-science. Pro-science means pro-sckepticism. Skepticism questions all forms of authority. Governments would never truly support science as a mindset because it empowers people and that indicates a lack of need for government.
@ElBarto1193 If people are well educated and informed in sciences or mathematics, I see no reason why they would think there is no need for a government... the two areas have little to do with one another. And to say empowerment ruins government, what about the civil rights movements of African Americans and women? They aren't uniquely controlled by the government law anymore, yet I doubt they feel that they should be without it.
@WingedDrant Enlightened and intelligent people realize that the borders encounter today are man-made. Why are specific races denoted in laws? A scientific person knows that the law was necessary until most people got over their preconceptions. t works to single out certain groups when they don't need it because most people have moved forward. Scientific enlightenment posits one single government, government of the self by the individual.
@ElBarto1193 That sounds like spirituality, not science, and though I'd love it if that could be true and people could run everything without a controlling party, it just makes no sense considering the diversity of humans; a system of law is in place as a makeshift mediator of conflicting ideals, while commerce and trade are also governed for equality and to prevent bias and monopolization. We could live without it, and it would be interesting, but we couldn't develop as we do now.
@WingedDrant You can meld spirituality and because it is not opposed to progress like institutionalized religions are. That's try, but that's why the libertarian principle of self control; willful self governance is essential to the peaceful interaction of diverse cultures, hell diverse individuals. We would all have to agree to publicly fund science despite having different interpretations, we must be accepting of others while being comfortable with the niche of our own interpretation.
@ElBarto1193 What happens when people start to develop viruses and diseases, for understanding or otherwise? There are many people who believe in eugenics, and because I don't personally agree with the termination of bloodlines - or potentially people directly - as I think most people don't, I would like there to be a broader and more direct action than what would come of individualization to people who could now perform experiments at their will. Some things do need order.
@WingedDrant I'm saying the bad (eugenics) would have to respect the validity of the counterpoints, therefore not seek to force it upon those opposed butt rather convince the opposition to join. Also eugenic programs, such as those carried out by Monsanto, are mainly conducted out of greed. You may ask to what degree can ambition no longer be defined as good ambition, but rather greed.
@ElBarto1193 I posit that given that we are a social species, desire is a want or a need, but the compulsion towards a goal is not so sociopathic that we are unwilling to make compromises in the context of the desires of others. Greed is a corruption of this; wanting more than you have a right to take. What I mean is that one is willing to frack everyone else's right to equal opportunities by taking, without consideration of the far reaching consequences outside one's own personal bubble.
@ElBarto1193 I'd like to see everyone considering everyone else, but forcing these views on them already involves an overarching control decided ultimately by a few individuals probably chosen by the public, since there are too many people in the world to have such a large scale conversation with all of them. If we were to become truly independent, we can't be picky, and would have to except everyone's right to do what they want. I think what we have now is because that won't work.
@WingedDrant All true, which is why we can't hope to change the mindset of anyone with other than the new generations while they're in their youth. I don't believe we've ever made an ernest attempt at such a movement though.
@ElBarto1193 Also true - I guess we can just watch what happens and where we're heading as a community. It's a nice idea whether it will happen or not.
>science started to suffer. With so much easy money, few wanted to study the hard sciences. And the social sciences suffered in another way: The ties with the government became too tight, and created a culture where controversial issues, and tough discussions were avoided. Too critical, and you could risk getting no more money.
He is right on the money, science needs to separate, yet include religion because-Goodness over Damnation or the Male GOD believes in the true essence of creation.
There is just too much generalizing. There are republicans who aren't anti-science; and there are democrats who are. However, there are a ton of republicans (especially the religious fundamentalists) who are crazy anti-science (and these numbers seem to be rising sadly enough). And what is worst of all, is that nearly all politicians are extremely scientifically illiterate; so they are usually in a position of not knowing what the hell they are talking about in the realm of science.
Also, let's not forget who wrote the dissenting opinion in Edwards v Aguillard (the SCOTUS case deciding the constitutionality of creationism in public schools). Hint: it wasn't one of the Democrat appointees.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS YOU ENDLESSLY."
I think this is misleading because everyone I talked to at Brookhaven National Laboratory during that time said the budgets were cut, except as it related to possible terrorist attacks, which were much increased. In that case, it seem more like they are supporting defense, rather than science.
@osp80 When people stop being skeptical of research, then science has died; there is NO such thing as settled science, there are theories and laws and exceptions to both. It's something to say a scientist wants to see if emissions have an affect on the Earth, it's another to say a scientist wants to prove global warming exist, by the latter the scientist has entered personal bias into the equation and will do anything necessary to prove himself correct.
The only problem is that the budget probably is not truly increasing... its just that inflation is lessening the value of the dollar. It would be more interesting to see if the % of federal budget going towards science research is up rather than seeing if the grants are increasing.
@winginater I mean no offense my friend, but Democrats had a majority under Bush, unsure if it was the entirety of both terms, and Republicans achieved the house majority 2 years under Obama's term. I'm not sure what source you are using, but there are some inconsistencies in it.
There is a difference between forced government funding which eventually leads to inefficiency and waste; and private sector funding, which is voluntary and demands efficiency. Little waste. It is the difference between 1st category spending and 4th category spending.
OK - here's an example of how Neil deGrasse Tyson is used by liberals. Bill Maher recently had him as a guest on the show. Also on the show was a Republican guy (don't know his name but he seemed like a nice guy and pretty moderate / reasonable) .
Anyways, when Bill Maher introduces the Republican guy he says something like - "boy, you might have a problem with this show, we have a black scientist on!" That wasn't Mr Tyson's fault of course, but it's an example of the "black scientist fetish."
If you want to believe that the reason Tyson has achieved his status as somewhat-famous is because of liberals and their (insert sexual metaphor here) about his blackness and not because of his skills, experience, his entertaining personality etc. then fine; Be "brutally honest", but it's just opinionated conjecture.
@TheGravitationist I am not begrudging Tyson's legitimate accomplishments. He's smart, fairly entertaining, a pretty good "popularizer" of science. I was merely commenting on the overblown reaction to him such as the #1 rated comment above (Neil deGrasse Tyson= Genius) This overblown reaction is very common when a black man is seen doing something previously in the white domain. Obama is a perfect example. Yes, he's smart but he's not THAT smart (and I think we're all beginning to see that now.)
@bersaba IQ is hardly a measure of intelligence. It's a test to see how fast and efficiently you can solve little puzzles. Einstein was notorious for being slow in math, he probably would of scored a little over average had he taken one. A high IQ means you can play sudoku well, it doesn't measure creativity, imagination or inventiveness which are much deeper forms of intelligence.
I agree. Not only that, but most psychologists don't measure with a number, but a percentile range anyhow. My point wasn't to comment on the validity of the IQ measure, but the definition of genius (which is over a certain IQ percentile range, I think the 97th percentile).
@WindleClassic - White liberals love to see black scientists on TV/Movies because it reinforces their egalitarian worldview. A recent example - the movie "A Dolphin's Tale" is based on a true story about 2 white scientists Kevin Carroll and Dan Strzempka who invented a mechanical tail for an injured dolphin. The producers turned the 2 white scientists into 1 black scientist Dr McCarthy (a man who NEVER EXISTED) played by Morgan Freeman.
@utube9000 I usually try to stay out of the fray on youtube but that seems ignorant. To simplify it to the fact that I enjoy listening to Mr. Tyson simply because he is a black man is idiotic. I don't wish to insult you directly as we have never met so i will simply say that I am sure you mistyped and everyone makes mistakes.
@Smaurice7 I did not mistype, what I said is 100% true. White liberals have a guilt complex that compels them to promote and celebrate any black man who shows above average intelligence and speaking skills. Don't get me wrong - I think Mr Tyson is a legitimately smart man and he is entertaining but the phenomenon I speak of is real.
@utube9000 How can a psychological disorder (the so-called "guilt complex") exclusive to a particular political affiliation? Do you have any scientific data on this disorder that supports your claims?
@utube9000 Right. And black folks are uppity. 100% true? Are you also that asshole who misuses the term "literally?"
I literally can't believe you mean this. Aside from being a shopworn conservative platitude that is offensive to just about everybody it addresses, and even if there is some truth to it, based on US history etc., there's no way it's true. If I poll 1000 people asking if they believed that Lincoln was still alive 5 or 6 would say yes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
May I be brutally honest for a minute? In my opinion, Neil deGrass Tyson is totally overrated and overexposed. If this guy was white, he would get significantly less attention, perhaps even none at all. He's definitely a smart guy and god bless em, but really, let's be honest - a "black scientist" is a liberal's wet dream and they will exploit and overexpose him to no end!
@utube9000 LOL life must be miserable for you. If a black person is successful, he must be successful because he is black not because of his intellect.
@WindleClassic Shhh. Don't distract Mr. Big Brain. It's difficult enough knowing everything about everybody and everything without you nattering in the background. Just be quiet and thankful that there is someone like him to tell us what's what.
@utube9000 You're the only one here who keeps going on about how black he is and how all white people feel about clever black people. Nobody else even brought race up until you started whining about it. I think it's far more likely that you have some kind of fucked up conflict about race relations that enables you to make stupid sweeping generalizations and, as a bonus, probably makes you a real drag at parties.
@tpstrat14 your opinion doesn't really matter, since you're an uneducated, illogical nobody. People like you do not teach at Ivy League schools... you tend to work at Wal-Mart. So continue to live your failed miserable life, while we, who know the importance of Science (the study of the truth), will continue with success and enlightenment.
So, just the environment and stem cells, that's the only examples you can think of? Not, oh say for instance, the "Intelligent Design" bullshit that they keep trying to shove into classrooms?
@Sylocat He said pretty much "who gave science more money' He didn't say who supports science more/better.
I mean obviously he's point has some flaws, but his point is still valid.
I mean who cares if Reps.gave NASA 5 trill and robot tech 2 trill dollars.If on the other side they blocked science that could have rid us of cancer and aids and allowed people to live to 250 years.
Who knows what we would have if religion didn't make reps stop certain science steps.Money isn't everything.
@rjh00 yeah,i wanna know about space as much as the next guy but it'll matter a lot less if every coastal city is inundated with water because republicans are owned by oil,gas,and coal companies that tell them global warming is a hoax,ignoring science
Who cares about increased spending when u, as the person with more authority over people than anybody else, the leader of ur nation, speak out against science & campaign on opposition to science publicly. There is no weight behind increased spending now when the next or next but one president is going to be more anti-science than u because it has become more popular among ppl to deny & neglect science, as it has. Evolution? Just a theory. Anthroprogenic climate change? Not real…
The funny thing is, American politics are so retarded Americans think they really have the choice between 2 opponents when in fact democrats and republicans only differ on societal or moral issues, while applying an almost identical socioeconomic program. Clinton was the one who opened the Pandore's box with his subprimes. His politic was so rightist Sarkozy seems like a communist next to him.
The question is not about or not increased money means "caring about something". It is more important to determine whether or not this is an act of kindness or a political move. Altruism or political agenda?
@Emaniac69 Marx really did 'care' about Russia. He thought communism was the best solution. He was sincere. Sincerity is an over-rated virtue. If I have an 'agenda' but I am helping you out, then that is better than someone who means well but is killing you.
One factor Degrasse doesn't mention is global warming, and the Republicans intellectually-corrupt assault on the science behind it, actively distorting facts.
Although I partially agree, his examples are not very good because the Presidency is a bad indicator of domestic policy. Congress is numero uno in that arena. During most of both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Republicans were in charge of Congress; they focused on deficit reductions during the Clinton administration but decided to start spending again during the Bush administration, and now that Obama is President, they've gone back to whinging about the deficit again.
I realize wikipedia is not the most reliable resource, but what the hell is this guy talking about when he says the NASA budget increased by 40% during the Bush administration? It stayed between 15 and 17 billion (fluctuating) increasing by an at most 1/2 billion every year (sometimes actually decreasing). This is pretty much identical to Clinton's habits (who was devoting a larger percentage of the entire budget to NASA). Clinton was decreasing the budget percentage, Bush CONTINUED the decrease
@SezSays He said the National Science Foundation, not NASA, went up 40%. He said NASA went up "about 20%" and the Wikipedia article to which you refer confirms that NASA increased about 28%
@tpstrat14 I'm a person and I don't need religion to live my life... Wait... Science doesn't help people with living their life? So all the vaccines, medications, computers, communications, and transportations allowed by science; things you seem to take for granted, haven't helped us?
@ArtistryofDebauchery Nope, none of it has helped us. Hatred still runs rampant. Only religion can solve hatred (that is if we use it to do so). Science has not even the slightest INTENTION of easing the world's hatred.
@ArtistryofDebauchery I'm not going to reject technology, but I'm also not going to say that it means something special to me. Only God is special to me. Nothing else at all.
@tpstrat14 That's your choice. But the fact of the matter is, science's benefits greatly outweigh its downfalls. It puts food on our table, water in our sinks, and roofs over our heads. Things most people on the planet only wish they could have. That's special to me..
Without science, I wouldn't be here, and chances are... you wouldn't either.
@ArtistryofDebauchery In the end what does our science give the world? That's right, nothing but pollution. So before you say the good outweighs the bad, remember that you're speaking about the good it gives to humanity. The world would be a lot better off without humans and their "science". And eventually, our raping of the world will come back and bite us. Meanwhile, I'm using all sorts of man made power, causing tons of pollution.... uggh... I'll stop talking...
@tpstrat14 Oh yah! I'm not denying pollution, ICBMs, mass extinctions, and other problems worsened by technology. These all suck... but who's really at fault here? It's not science, it's human error where it goes bad..
"With great power comes great responsibility" (yah that's right, I just quoted spider man ;) We can learn from our mistakes.. that's the beauty of science! It's constantly changing.
Even right now, we are finding ways to reduce pollution with science, how great is that?
@ArtistryofDebauchery It's great, but people seek more than just how to physically get by. That's where religion comes in. Not even necessarily religion, but if you don't have some spiritual center about you, then you're lost. Technology will never be able to provide this. (i.e. you'll always be able to sit in a meadow and do some serious, soul-searching meditation no matter how great technology is)
@ArtistryofDebauchery Do you believe in love? Or is that just an evolutionary byproduct? Because to me, love is universal. No matter what you believe... atheist, Hindu, Christian, whatever.... I think we all feel that we have a real, true, eternal purpose that centers around learning how to express and accept love.
@tpstrat14 Love is the result of chemical product in our brain , that does not make it any less special.
God has nothing to do with love, a simple example of this is gay people, God dislikes gay people yet he would "make" them fall in love with people of their same sex.Yeah that isn't hypocritical.
@rjh00 Who said God dislikes gay people? I don't know what God you're talking about. The God I love is the God that loves everything and everyone equally and infinitely no matter what you do or who you are....
@tpstrat14 I don't "believe" such things when I have hard facts... I accept them. I accept the limbic system, oxytocin, serotonin and various other chemical cocktails. If this is what you call love, then so be it, it's fact. Not magic coursing through one's veins...
@tpstrat14 I have no reason to believe in magic... Why should I? Card tricks are indeed interesting, but there are plenty of things in the real world I find much more amazing.
One does not need to believe in a supreme being to be thankful or even admire the world around him. I am proof of that...
@ArtistryofDebauchery Sure, but I am finding more and more that atheists not only disbelieve in a creator, but they don't believe in anything at all!!! I mean, do you really think that no one has a soul? You think everything is just exactly how it looks? We live, we die, no purpose, no afterlife, FOR SUUUURREE?!?!?!?!?!?!
@tpstrat14 What's so bad about not having a divine purpose? There are many ways you can use your life to an advantage. Carpe Diem. Still borns didn't have a purpose in life, neither did the countless amount of infants who used to die after birth. Now they're saved by science...
@tpstrat14 The concept of an extra-material "soul" existing within everyone (except for animals for some reason...) Is quite illogical... Natural phenomena like emotions can be easily explained by science.. It is for this unsatisfactory explanation, religions condemn science and remain bigoted on unsupported beliefs.
@tpstrat14 Spoken like someone shaking with fear that we may be right. Why do you care if we don't buy what you're selling? And what are you selling, anyway? Science has consistently delivered the things that religion only promised. You get to live to 80, drive to work, fly on vacation, download Stryker mp3s, and generally do whatever the hell you want because of what science, reason, and the ideas of the enlightenment gave you. You could at least be a little bit grateful.
@etherbingedotorg "science" as you like to call it, has given the world a pollution problem. We may just wipe ourselves out eventually if we don't stop worshipping science and technology. Something imaginary like God is a better thing to worship considering something imaginary can't cause any harm, you know?
@tpstrat14 Yeah, I like to call it science because that's what it's called. And do you really think that "science" has us teetering on the edge of some cataclysmic precipice right now? "Pollution," as you like to call it, is a manageable issue that isn't going to end life on earth. And as far as imaginary-hero worship being benign, tell that to the folks in the twin towers. Then think of the billions of lives saved by Borlaug's genetics work alone, and that polio and smallpox are gone.
@etherbingedotorg Yes, Muslims are religious people and yes, Islam is everything in their lives, so when they do anything at all, their religion inevitably comes out as a reason. But you really think it's their ideas of God that is making them hate us or maybe it's that AMERICA HAS BEEN SLAUGHTERING THEIR PEOPLE FOR DECADES. One is a real reason to hate and the other is fake. It's funny, you anti-religion freaks will give credit to the gods you don't believe in only when they do bad...
@tpstrat14 Again, don't presume to understand how I think. You've already shown yourself to be clueless in that regard. I'm well aware of all the good things religion can and does provide: charity, a sense of community, hope. But we weren't talking about those things. I was specifically referring to 9/11, and the people who flew those planes in the name of your god, in response to your claim that science caused pollution. Are Smith and Wesson responsible for every gun death?
@etherbingedotorg No I cannot yet say that trading long, healthy lives for no pollution is a good idea. Give it a few hundred years, though. Ozone is shrinking and no one wants to put a stop to nuclear power. Remember, the industrial revolution is only a couple hundred years back. Give it time. We'll keep building nuclear power plants next to fault lines and store the waste in the plants. We'll keep driving cars way too much. Give it time. We'll be VERY sorry VERY soon...
@tpstrat14 Remember, without everything science has done for us you'd be living in your own filth, lucky to live past 30, your wife would only have a fair chance of living through any one of her 9 or 10 childbirths, and if someone could adequately describe pollution as it exists today and offer it in exchange for a long, healthy, productive life relatively free of much of the poverty and class strife we lost when we realized that Kings are no better than serfs, I think you'd take the trade.
??????? translate this paragraph from p.c. idiot / liberal douchebag please. Americans have been slaughtering muslims for decades? what? your ignorance is surpassed only by your stupidity tpstrat14 religions of all stripes are essentially the agents of darkness, the enemies of pluralism, learning and multiculturalism. And yeah douche- muslims mainly perpetrate shit because like all religious idiots their holy book tells them they can (i.e.Tripoli and the Barbary Corsairs)
@tpstrat14 Try reading a history book at least for a nice change instead of buying bullets for the enemies of civilization as some guilt- ridden, angsty, liberal apologist douche bag MORON
@tpstrat14 Don't try to blame 911 on some socio-economic bullshit. If that were the case, then we would also have Tibetan suicide bombers......and we don't. We don't because the religion they follow doesn't command them to do it, UNLIKE the Koran, which actually does order Muslims to kill, enslave, or convert the rest of the planet. It's a totalitarian political ideology, AND a religion, all rolled into one. That's why it's more dangerous than other religions.
@rep300 Before we go on, be honest with me. Are you talking about "Tibetan suicide bombers" because YOU made the connection between violence and Islam? Or were you just plagiarizing Sam Harris' ideas?
@tpstrat14 And don't misrepresent my beliefs. I believe in many, many things, but the difference between us is I do my best to believe in things for which there is evidence. Not because I'd like them to exist, but because there's cause to think they actually do. But while your childish oversimplification of my beliefs might make mockery easier and provide for better sleep at night, the fact that you have no idea at all what I believe or why is sad and more than a little pathetic.
@ArtistryofDebauchery Ok so try this thought on for size. Let's say WWAAYYY in the future science can figure out a way to create a powerful drug that gives you EXACTLY the same chemical flow in your brain as you get from real interpersonal "love". First of all, do you think this is possible? Second, would it be exactly the same if it were the same chemicals? OOORRR... is it like I said and your eternal purpose is to love and be loved by others?
PEOPLE!!
THIS VIDEO IS OVER 3 YEARS OLD!!
THE TEA-PARTY & THE CURRENT CROP OF REPUBLICANS WEREN'T EVEN ON THE HORIZON.
DR. TYSON PROBABLY HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION NOW - OR WE SHOULD ALLOW HIM THE POSSIBILITY OF ONE.
Candyliz2003 1 day ago
Scientists would make the best politicians.
RottenRroses 1 day ago
The fact is Republicans are more pro-science and more pro-American than Democrats. Remember that next time you vote.
jogeryjogo 2 days ago
@jogeryjogo This is such a silly, glib thing to say, and flies in the face of any statistical rigor. It's just a copout. Republicans and Democrats are both widely varied and complex, and you just can't sum up ideologies of 320 million people in a single sentence like that. Try harder, jogeryjogo.
VeefDaddy2 2 days ago
@jogeryjogo well fuck america
DieOrBlink 2 days ago
@jogeryjogo Are you kidding me?
Show me any peer-reviewed study that says republicans are more pro-science.
Given most conservatives don't believe in evolution or climate change, I find this hard to believe.
Almost every republican candidate was anti-science.
TheSnoopy1750 1 day ago
@TheSnoopy1750
I think he may have different views now (this was 3 yrs ago) - considering the prominence of Tea-Party ppl and the current crop of politicians running for Prez.
Candyliz2003 1 day ago
@Candyliz2003 Good observation, the republican party is now the anti-science party without question.
TheSnoopy1750 1 day ago
@jogeryjogo That is not true. Neither is "more" American. They are both American. In fact when you get off the abortion, evolution talking points, most Americans agree on politics. We all want a more efficient government, better public education, better welfare programs that are there to help get one on their feet, but not to be a permanent way of life, and affordable health care. The big money people are keeping us all apart by focusing us on what we won't agree on. Let's get passed it.
InteGrayting2 22 hours ago
Obama shuts down NASA and Newt makes a campaign promise of colonizing the moon. I've never seen a more apparent example of what Dr. Tyson is talking about.
GridJumping 3 days ago
@GridJumping At the risk of starting an argument or going off track, Obama did not shut down NASA. He ended the program that involved sending people to space for no particular reason, using technology that had not been improved since the 1970s, and returning with no new or useful information. NASA is still running strong and is focusing its time on more efficient means of space travel rather than needlessly sending men to space to float around for a month.
Kross2099 3 days ago
Top comments are both about Neil deGrasse Tyson for president: I support this because I want a badass for the president!!
KnightBeren 1 week ago
I'm not buying this at all >_> He has two points, one being Rep. put more money into science. Take away funding for NASA and then how much funding are you left with? (obvious bias being an astrophysicist O.o). I really don't even agree with the premise, I would say funding for education is more important. His other ex. is horrible >_> a judge doing what he is required to do is not "pro science". Rep. and only Rep. are the only ones bringing up this issue and it's supported by all Rep candidates
Douglas1102 1 week ago
@Douglas1102 errr, you did notice NASA was the one that got the least extra money? Also, he did ask, what would you say is pro-science, education in science, or investment in science, which at this time are completely different. I can't go sitting on a hill waiting for apples with elementary knowledge of physics and complex maths and change the world.
His example was more the point that he was not afraid, simply because he anticipated their decision due to certain motivations.
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
Im gonna have to disagree here. You cant keep funding science while crashing the economy, his points here as just not good. I could use the same logic to justify dictatorial communism.
Oh look, the amount of science being done under Lenin and Stalin is way higher then what the Tzar ever did, that must mean dictatorial communism is a good thing.
Bravo, I thought this guy was smart, obviously I was wrong.
gulbirk 1 week ago
@gulbirk the economic benefits that innovation generates are often realised over long periods of time. Economic ups and downs are short term events. To cut science funding simply for short term fiscal expediency has long term detrimental economic effects. While I can see where your trying to go with your analogy, it is erroneous.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense Its not. Focusing on science is not what CREATES a stabil economy. NASA for example, has not contributed allot to creating a stabil or functioning economy. Science should be the result of a functioning society, but if you set up one that doesnt work (like republicans do) then it doesnt matter if you fund science.
Besides, I could again use USSR as an example, but no one would accept that, so why should people accept this?
gulbirk 1 week ago
@gulbirk noone can accuse any side of the US government of focusing on science to create a stable economy. science spending is dwarfed by military spending and spending in other areas anyway. I was reading an interesting paper last year that mentioned for every dollar spent in ag science in the US, $22 comes back in tax. Interesting
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense And how is that? Just because an article says something that doesnt make it true. Sorry, but the argument that republicans run the country in a better way then democrats because they spend more (only in certain periods btw) on science, simply doesnt work.
gulbirk 1 week ago
@gulbirk Don't get me wrong, I think most republicans are batshit crazy and couldn't organise a root in a brothel with a fistful of cash. I'm trying to find the paper I was reading. I know for fact it was published in a peer reviewed economics journal so I am extremely confident that it was accurate. I don't read biased papers.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense I understand. I also understand that science is of course neccesary. I am not proposing to stop funding science. My point was that even though you fund science, that wouldnt matter much if other things like schools, hospitals, working condititions, welfare, general wealth, etc failed.
gulbirk 1 week ago
@gulbirk true, and I understand your point. The funding of science though is a fraction of those other things..at least in my country anyway. Anyhow, nice exchanging ideas with you. Cheers :0)
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
Watch out, we got a badass over here.
TheBassrules4394 1 week ago
I´m with everyone on the "Neil Degrasse Tyson for President", but don´t make him just president of the United States, make him President of Earth !
bmartins6018 1 week ago
He forgot one, Bush is a proponent of Intelligent Design
radejeff 2 weeks ago
Neither party is truly pro-science. Pro-science means pro-sckepticism. Skepticism questions all forms of authority. Governments would never truly support science as a mindset because it empowers people and that indicates a lack of need for government.
ElBarto1193 3 weeks ago
@ElBarto1193 If people are well educated and informed in sciences or mathematics, I see no reason why they would think there is no need for a government... the two areas have little to do with one another. And to say empowerment ruins government, what about the civil rights movements of African Americans and women? They aren't uniquely controlled by the government law anymore, yet I doubt they feel that they should be without it.
WingedDrant 2 weeks ago
@WingedDrant Enlightened and intelligent people realize that the borders encounter today are man-made. Why are specific races denoted in laws? A scientific person knows that the law was necessary until most people got over their preconceptions. t works to single out certain groups when they don't need it because most people have moved forward. Scientific enlightenment posits one single government, government of the self by the individual.
ElBarto1193 2 weeks ago
@ElBarto1193 That sounds like spirituality, not science, and though I'd love it if that could be true and people could run everything without a controlling party, it just makes no sense considering the diversity of humans; a system of law is in place as a makeshift mediator of conflicting ideals, while commerce and trade are also governed for equality and to prevent bias and monopolization. We could live without it, and it would be interesting, but we couldn't develop as we do now.
WingedDrant 2 weeks ago
@WingedDrant You can meld spirituality and because it is not opposed to progress like institutionalized religions are. That's try, but that's why the libertarian principle of self control; willful self governance is essential to the peaceful interaction of diverse cultures, hell diverse individuals. We would all have to agree to publicly fund science despite having different interpretations, we must be accepting of others while being comfortable with the niche of our own interpretation.
ElBarto1193 2 weeks ago
@ElBarto1193 *that's try = that's true
ElBarto1193 2 weeks ago
@ElBarto1193 What happens when people start to develop viruses and diseases, for understanding or otherwise? There are many people who believe in eugenics, and because I don't personally agree with the termination of bloodlines - or potentially people directly - as I think most people don't, I would like there to be a broader and more direct action than what would come of individualization to people who could now perform experiments at their will. Some things do need order.
WingedDrant 2 weeks ago
@WingedDrant I'm saying the bad (eugenics) would have to respect the validity of the counterpoints, therefore not seek to force it upon those opposed butt rather convince the opposition to join. Also eugenic programs, such as those carried out by Monsanto, are mainly conducted out of greed. You may ask to what degree can ambition no longer be defined as good ambition, but rather greed.
ElBarto1193 2 weeks ago
@ElBarto1193 I posit that given that we are a social species, desire is a want or a need, but the compulsion towards a goal is not so sociopathic that we are unwilling to make compromises in the context of the desires of others. Greed is a corruption of this; wanting more than you have a right to take. What I mean is that one is willing to frack everyone else's right to equal opportunities by taking, without consideration of the far reaching consequences outside one's own personal bubble.
ElBarto1193 2 weeks ago
@ElBarto1193 I'd like to see everyone considering everyone else, but forcing these views on them already involves an overarching control decided ultimately by a few individuals probably chosen by the public, since there are too many people in the world to have such a large scale conversation with all of them. If we were to become truly independent, we can't be picky, and would have to except everyone's right to do what they want. I think what we have now is because that won't work.
WingedDrant 2 weeks ago
@WingedDrant All true, which is why we can't hope to change the mindset of anyone with other than the new generations while they're in their youth. I don't believe we've ever made an ernest attempt at such a movement though.
ElBarto1193 2 weeks ago
@ElBarto1193 Also true - I guess we can just watch what happens and where we're heading as a community. It's a nice idea whether it will happen or not.
WingedDrant 2 weeks ago
@WingedDrant I agree.
ElBarto1193 2 weeks ago
MUH ASTROPHYSICS
MrDonneiDarko 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
“the budget is the skeleton of the state stripped of all misleading ideologies” – Joseph Schumpeter
saxz99 3 weeks ago
>science started to suffer. With so much easy money, few wanted to study the hard sciences. And the social sciences suffered in another way: The ties with the government became too tight, and created a culture where controversial issues, and tough discussions were avoided. Too critical, and you could risk getting no more money.
MrDonneiDarko 3 weeks ago
NASA
MrDonneiDarko 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER
datbrayciss 3 weeks ago
@datbrayciss shut up /new/
Th3Insurgent 3 weeks ago
Unfortunately, the same reason i worry about climate change and stem cell policy is that same people done like evolution either.
stevobowles1 4 weeks ago
Politics is like fog, it tends to form in the same certain areas and it's scary because it's hard to see through.
zizwop 4 weeks ago 3
He is right on the money, science needs to separate, yet include religion because-Goodness over Damnation or the Male GOD believes in the true essence of creation.
spboike 1 month ago
Republicans and Democrats are the same thing to me. A frustrating, time consuming, roadblock.
mikeydoes 1 month ago 6
Please make this man president.
blitzphilosophy 1 month ago 50
@blitzphilosophy 16 likes.. that's seems like enough :D:D:D:D
andreirocks1992 2 weeks ago
@blitzphilosophy this dude doesnt want to do that.
Whatwon1 1 week ago
The principle should be a Democratic one, though(or shared amongst both parties at least). Looks like party politics muddles things up.
Waluigi101 1 month ago
im a republican there for im pro scienctist towards the climate-hoax.
hansson2000 1 month ago
hes a comedian and a physicist. ownage?
nightreaper999 1 month ago
Intelligent Design is a philosophy, an idea, not a science. Science is doing actual research.
ChrisLong1980 2 months ago
@ChrisLong1980
Philosophy means love of thought or wisdom, neither is involved in "intelligent" design.
OscarBrasa 1 month ago
I am very fun at parties!
utube9000 2 months ago
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
crazysoxx98 2 months ago 33
Dems
bermudaguy1 2 months ago
There is just too much generalizing. There are republicans who aren't anti-science; and there are democrats who are. However, there are a ton of republicans (especially the religious fundamentalists) who are crazy anti-science (and these numbers seem to be rising sadly enough). And what is worst of all, is that nearly all politicians are extremely scientifically illiterate; so they are usually in a position of not knowing what the hell they are talking about in the realm of science.
brez002 2 months ago 3
lol, look at all the butt hurt liberals frantically trying to salvage their pseudo progressive principals.
baihbalm 2 months ago
At the same time they have an anti-science rhetoric, questioning basic science i.e. evolution, climate change etc.
JTS11d6 2 months ago
He said it on fora.Not utube.
Falcor50 2 months ago
What an interesting response. I greatly respect Tyson.
MRobyGuitar 3 months ago
Creationism?
ienjoypaninis 3 months ago
How about global warming Mr Tyson?
Also, let's not forget who wrote the dissenting opinion in Edwards v Aguillard (the SCOTUS case deciding the constitutionality of creationism in public schools). Hint: it wasn't one of the Democrat appointees.
NigraHerder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neil deGrasse Tyson - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS YOU ENDLESSLY."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
I think this is misleading because everyone I talked to at Brookhaven National Laboratory during that time said the budgets were cut, except as it related to possible terrorist attacks, which were much increased. In that case, it seem more like they are supporting defense, rather than science.
Sunnietubas 3 months ago
@osp80 When people stop being skeptical of research, then science has died; there is NO such thing as settled science, there are theories and laws and exceptions to both. It's something to say a scientist wants to see if emissions have an affect on the Earth, it's another to say a scientist wants to prove global warming exist, by the latter the scientist has entered personal bias into the equation and will do anything necessary to prove himself correct.
darkma1ice 3 months ago
The only problem is that the budget probably is not truly increasing... its just that inflation is lessening the value of the dollar. It would be more interesting to see if the % of federal budget going towards science research is up rather than seeing if the grants are increasing.
DrCube 3 months ago
Neil deGrasse Tyson for President!!!
ProbablyHittingOnYou 3 months ago
But who had the house majority during these times?
barisaxkid 4 months ago 64
@barisaxkid
Exactly. Anyone who knows anything about politics realizes that Congress are the ones who dictate policy.
Tragedyking 3 months ago
@barisaxkid President writes the budget.
raptors222222 2 months ago
@raptors222222 Which must be approved by Congress.
Vund 2 months ago
@Vund As Neil said, "Politics is the currency."
raptors222222 2 months ago
Comment removed
winginater 2 weeks ago
@barisaxkid Majority: Democrat 1989-1995; Republican 1995-2007; Democrat 2007-2011
I don't think your point is really proven
winginater 2 weeks ago
@winginater I mean no offense my friend, but Democrats had a majority under Bush, unsure if it was the entirety of both terms, and Republicans achieved the house majority 2 years under Obama's term. I'm not sure what source you are using, but there are some inconsistencies in it.
freewebjunk 2 weeks ago
I did not know that.
GeneralGrove 4 months ago
There is a difference between forced government funding which eventually leads to inefficiency and waste; and private sector funding, which is voluntary and demands efficiency. Little waste. It is the difference between 1st category spending and 4th category spending.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@XxRomanov93xX Sorry, I'm not a Republican.
utube9000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An annoying thing is... that republicans are pretty consistently pro-tax-cuts.
This along with budget spending increases means they increase our national debt.
WE NEED A MIX.
Someone who isn't afraid of raising taxes, and someone who knows we can't spend more than we have.
TheReasonWhyGuy 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheReasonWhyGuy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about the Tea Party?
discipleoftheteapot 4 months ago
everything he says is so well thought out Peace to Neil
Razz000 4 months ago
@utube9000 he was just making a point FOR republicans.
You can't be serious.
virulentRant 4 months ago
Ya, so what? How does that negate what I said?
utube9000 4 months ago
OK - here's an example of how Neil deGrasse Tyson is used by liberals. Bill Maher recently had him as a guest on the show. Also on the show was a Republican guy (don't know his name but he seemed like a nice guy and pretty moderate / reasonable) .
Anyways, when Bill Maher introduces the Republican guy he says something like - "boy, you might have a problem with this show, we have a black scientist on!" That wasn't Mr Tyson's fault of course, but it's an example of the "black scientist fetish."
utube9000 4 months ago
@utube9000
If you want to believe that the reason Tyson has achieved his status as somewhat-famous is because of liberals and their (insert sexual metaphor here) about his blackness and not because of his skills, experience, his entertaining personality etc. then fine; Be "brutally honest", but it's just opinionated conjecture.
TheGravitationist 4 months ago
@TheGravitationist I am not begrudging Tyson's legitimate accomplishments. He's smart, fairly entertaining, a pretty good "popularizer" of science. I was merely commenting on the overblown reaction to him such as the #1 rated comment above (Neil deGrasse Tyson= Genius) This overblown reaction is very common when a black man is seen doing something previously in the white domain. Obama is a perfect example. Yes, he's smart but he's not THAT smart (and I think we're all beginning to see that now.)
utube9000 4 months ago
@utube9000
Actually I think Neil is actually a genius (as in his IQ percentile range).
bersaba 4 months ago 41
@bersaba He may well be, I don't know.
utube9000 4 months ago
@bersaba IQ is hardly a measure of intelligence. It's a test to see how fast and efficiently you can solve little puzzles. Einstein was notorious for being slow in math, he probably would of scored a little over average had he taken one. A high IQ means you can play sudoku well, it doesn't measure creativity, imagination or inventiveness which are much deeper forms of intelligence.
JarethGT 3 months ago 3
@JarethGT
I agree. Not only that, but most psychologists don't measure with a number, but a percentile range anyhow. My point wasn't to comment on the validity of the IQ measure, but the definition of genius (which is over a certain IQ percentile range, I think the 97th percentile).
bersaba 3 months ago
@utube9000 Black scientist fetish?
WindleClassic 3 months ago
@WindleClassic - White liberals love to see black scientists on TV/Movies because it reinforces their egalitarian worldview. A recent example - the movie "A Dolphin's Tale" is based on a true story about 2 white scientists Kevin Carroll and Dan Strzempka who invented a mechanical tail for an injured dolphin. The producers turned the 2 white scientists into 1 black scientist Dr McCarthy (a man who NEVER EXISTED) played by Morgan Freeman.
utube9000 3 months ago
@utube9000 I usually try to stay out of the fray on youtube but that seems ignorant. To simplify it to the fact that I enjoy listening to Mr. Tyson simply because he is a black man is idiotic. I don't wish to insult you directly as we have never met so i will simply say that I am sure you mistyped and everyone makes mistakes.
Smaurice7 3 months ago
@Smaurice7 I did not mistype, what I said is 100% true. White liberals have a guilt complex that compels them to promote and celebrate any black man who shows above average intelligence and speaking skills. Don't get me wrong - I think Mr Tyson is a legitimately smart man and he is entertaining but the phenomenon I speak of is real.
utube9000 3 months ago
@utube9000 How can a psychological disorder (the so-called "guilt complex") exclusive to a particular political affiliation? Do you have any scientific data on this disorder that supports your claims?
Muaguana 2 months ago
@Muaguana He said it over youtube, so probably not.
MetastasisVideos 2 months ago
@utube9000 Right. And black folks are uppity. 100% true? Are you also that asshole who misuses the term "literally?"
I literally can't believe you mean this. Aside from being a shopworn conservative platitude that is offensive to just about everybody it addresses, and even if there is some truth to it, based on US history etc., there's no way it's true. If I poll 1000 people asking if they believed that Lincoln was still alive 5 or 6 would say yes.
etherbingedotorg 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
May I be brutally honest for a minute? In my opinion, Neil deGrass Tyson is totally overrated and overexposed. If this guy was white, he would get significantly less attention, perhaps even none at all. He's definitely a smart guy and god bless em, but really, let's be honest - a "black scientist" is a liberal's wet dream and they will exploit and overexpose him to no end!
utube9000 4 months ago
@utube9000 If he was white, he'd be carl sagan.
flyingmonkeyskin 4 months ago 4
@utube9000 LOL life must be miserable for you. If a black person is successful, he must be successful because he is black not because of his intellect.
OmerK 4 months ago
@OmerK Actually, life is pretty awesome for me.
utube9000 4 months ago
@utube9000 Holy shit....thats just about the stupidest thing I have ever read.
WindleClassic 3 months ago
@WindleClassic Shhh. Don't distract Mr. Big Brain. It's difficult enough knowing everything about everybody and everything without you nattering in the background. Just be quiet and thankful that there is someone like him to tell us what's what.
etherbingedotorg 2 months ago
@utube9000 You're the only one here who keeps going on about how black he is and how all white people feel about clever black people. Nobody else even brought race up until you started whining about it. I think it's far more likely that you have some kind of fucked up conflict about race relations that enables you to make stupid sweeping generalizations and, as a bonus, probably makes you a real drag at parties.
etherbingedotorg 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 your opinion doesn't really matter, since you're an uneducated, illogical nobody. People like you do not teach at Ivy League schools... you tend to work at Wal-Mart. So continue to live your failed miserable life, while we, who know the importance of Science (the study of the truth), will continue with success and enlightenment.
pnickel000 5 months ago
So, just the environment and stem cells, that's the only examples you can think of? Not, oh say for instance, the "Intelligent Design" bullshit that they keep trying to shove into classrooms?
Sylocat 5 months ago
@Sylocat He said pretty much "who gave science more money' He didn't say who supports science more/better.
I mean obviously he's point has some flaws, but his point is still valid.
I mean who cares if Reps.gave NASA 5 trill and robot tech 2 trill dollars.If on the other side they blocked science that could have rid us of cancer and aids and allowed people to live to 250 years.
Who knows what we would have if religion didn't make reps stop certain science steps.Money isn't everything.
rjh00 5 months ago
@rjh00 yeah,i wanna know about space as much as the next guy but it'll matter a lot less if every coastal city is inundated with water because republicans are owned by oil,gas,and coal companies that tell them global warming is a hoax,ignoring science
osp80 4 months ago
There is a 2005 book, "The Republican War on Science," by Chris Mooney with an alternate view.
zarkoff45 5 months ago
He left out conservative evolution deniers
TheLittlewing22 5 months ago
Who cares about increased spending when u, as the person with more authority over people than anybody else, the leader of ur nation, speak out against science & campaign on opposition to science publicly. There is no weight behind increased spending now when the next or next but one president is going to be more anti-science than u because it has become more popular among ppl to deny & neglect science, as it has. Evolution? Just a theory. Anthroprogenic climate change? Not real…
playgrrrr 5 months ago
The funny thing is, American politics are so retarded Americans think they really have the choice between 2 opponents when in fact democrats and republicans only differ on societal or moral issues, while applying an almost identical socioeconomic program. Clinton was the one who opened the Pandore's box with his subprimes. His politic was so rightist Sarkozy seems like a communist next to him.
Anticlericanaille 5 months ago
While this does apply to Bush and the past 10 years, the republican candidates aren't looking so promising on science.
Cactarpus 5 months ago
@Cactarpus i would submit that neither are the democrats.
williamhad 5 months ago
The question is not about or not increased money means "caring about something". It is more important to determine whether or not this is an act of kindness or a political move. Altruism or political agenda?
Emaniac69 5 months ago
@Emaniac69 Marx really did 'care' about Russia. He thought communism was the best solution. He was sincere. Sincerity is an over-rated virtue. If I have an 'agenda' but I am helping you out, then that is better than someone who means well but is killing you.
dmg46664 5 months ago
Funny how America has the left waaaay righter than the rest of the world.
D3mi4n 5 months ago
i can listen to this guy for hours.
clemenza1234 5 months ago 21
they are both corrupt systems
jjuggernaut 5 months ago
One factor Degrasse doesn't mention is global warming, and the Republicans intellectually-corrupt assault on the science behind it, actively distorting facts.
IndianKBlue 5 months ago
Although I partially agree, his examples are not very good because the Presidency is a bad indicator of domestic policy. Congress is numero uno in that arena. During most of both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Republicans were in charge of Congress; they focused on deficit reductions during the Clinton administration but decided to start spending again during the Bush administration, and now that Obama is President, they've gone back to whinging about the deficit again.
Ponicalica 5 months ago
Neil deGrasse Tyson = Genius.
TheLordHodne 5 months ago 56
I realize wikipedia is not the most reliable resource, but what the hell is this guy talking about when he says the NASA budget increased by 40% during the Bush administration? It stayed between 15 and 17 billion (fluctuating) increasing by an at most 1/2 billion every year (sometimes actually decreasing). This is pretty much identical to Clinton's habits (who was devoting a larger percentage of the entire budget to NASA). Clinton was decreasing the budget percentage, Bush CONTINUED the decrease
SezSays 6 months ago
@SezSays He said the National Science Foundation, not NASA, went up 40%. He said NASA went up "about 20%" and the Wikipedia article to which you refer confirms that NASA increased about 28%
lawfulneutral 5 months ago 2
@SezSays
Neil - 1
You - fail4ever.
mecher3k 5 months ago
Science is the world of tomorrow. If anyone is afraid of that, then they're afraid of reality.
ArtistryofDebauchery 6 months ago 32
@ArtistryofDebauchery And religion is stuck in the world of yesterday.
lawfulneutral 5 months ago 10
@ArtistryofDebauchery Religion will ALWAYS be with us because people need to live their life. Science does NOTHING in helping THAT
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 I'm a person and I don't need religion to live my life... Wait... Science doesn't help people with living their life? So all the vaccines, medications, computers, communications, and transportations allowed by science; things you seem to take for granted, haven't helped us?
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Nope, none of it has helped us. Hatred still runs rampant. Only religion can solve hatred (that is if we use it to do so). Science has not even the slightest INTENTION of easing the world's hatred.
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 Lol, ok then please explain to me how you're responding to me. Divine magic?
It's called science, and whether you like it or not, you're helplessly depended on it.
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery I'm not going to reject technology, but I'm also not going to say that it means something special to me. Only God is special to me. Nothing else at all.
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 That's your choice. But the fact of the matter is, science's benefits greatly outweigh its downfalls. It puts food on our table, water in our sinks, and roofs over our heads. Things most people on the planet only wish they could have. That's special to me..
Without science, I wouldn't be here, and chances are... you wouldn't either.
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery In the end what does our science give the world? That's right, nothing but pollution. So before you say the good outweighs the bad, remember that you're speaking about the good it gives to humanity. The world would be a lot better off without humans and their "science". And eventually, our raping of the world will come back and bite us. Meanwhile, I'm using all sorts of man made power, causing tons of pollution.... uggh... I'll stop talking...
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 Oh yah! I'm not denying pollution, ICBMs, mass extinctions, and other problems worsened by technology. These all suck... but who's really at fault here? It's not science, it's human error where it goes bad..
"With great power comes great responsibility" (yah that's right, I just quoted spider man ;) We can learn from our mistakes.. that's the beauty of science! It's constantly changing.
Even right now, we are finding ways to reduce pollution with science, how great is that?
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery It's great, but people seek more than just how to physically get by. That's where religion comes in. Not even necessarily religion, but if you don't have some spiritual center about you, then you're lost. Technology will never be able to provide this. (i.e. you'll always be able to sit in a meadow and do some serious, soul-searching meditation no matter how great technology is)
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 To a certain extent, science does indeed have its "can's" and "cannot's". But so does religion.
Run a society based on praying for food, water, etc... and it wont survive.
Run a society on reason and logic; finding ways to survive better on your own, and it'll become a resistant and powerful nation.
But you're right, many people need to have a "purpose" in life. That's where religion can be beneficial.
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Do you believe in love? Or is that just an evolutionary byproduct? Because to me, love is universal. No matter what you believe... atheist, Hindu, Christian, whatever.... I think we all feel that we have a real, true, eternal purpose that centers around learning how to express and accept love.
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 Love is the result of chemical product in our brain , that does not make it any less special.
God has nothing to do with love, a simple example of this is gay people, God dislikes gay people yet he would "make" them fall in love with people of their same sex.Yeah that isn't hypocritical.
rjh00 5 months ago
@rjh00 Who said God dislikes gay people? I don't know what God you're talking about. The God I love is the God that loves everything and everyone equally and infinitely no matter what you do or who you are....
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 Uhmmmm The God of the bible, you know, the Bibles which is supposedly the word of God so everything in it is God's view.
Maybe you should read your bible, if you are one of the followers of the Christian God.
rjh00 5 months ago
@rjh00 I'm not a Christian... I have no idea what their holy book says.... ANYWAYS>>.........
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 I don't "believe" such things when I have hard facts... I accept them. I accept the limbic system, oxytocin, serotonin and various other chemical cocktails. If this is what you call love, then so be it, it's fact. Not magic coursing through one's veins...
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
Comment removed
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 I have no reason to believe in magic... Why should I? Card tricks are indeed interesting, but there are plenty of things in the real world I find much more amazing.
One does not need to believe in a supreme being to be thankful or even admire the world around him. I am proof of that...
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Sure, but I am finding more and more that atheists not only disbelieve in a creator, but they don't believe in anything at all!!! I mean, do you really think that no one has a soul? You think everything is just exactly how it looks? We live, we die, no purpose, no afterlife, FOR SUUUURREE?!?!?!?!?!?!
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 What's so bad about not having a divine purpose? There are many ways you can use your life to an advantage. Carpe Diem. Still borns didn't have a purpose in life, neither did the countless amount of infants who used to die after birth. Now they're saved by science...
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 The concept of an extra-material "soul" existing within everyone (except for animals for some reason...) Is quite illogical... Natural phenomena like emotions can be easily explained by science.. It is for this unsatisfactory explanation, religions condemn science and remain bigoted on unsupported beliefs.
Fact > Belief
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 Spoken like someone shaking with fear that we may be right. Why do you care if we don't buy what you're selling? And what are you selling, anyway? Science has consistently delivered the things that religion only promised. You get to live to 80, drive to work, fly on vacation, download Stryker mp3s, and generally do whatever the hell you want because of what science, reason, and the ideas of the enlightenment gave you. You could at least be a little bit grateful.
etherbingedotorg 2 months ago
@etherbingedotorg "science" as you like to call it, has given the world a pollution problem. We may just wipe ourselves out eventually if we don't stop worshipping science and technology. Something imaginary like God is a better thing to worship considering something imaginary can't cause any harm, you know?
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 Yeah, I like to call it science because that's what it's called. And do you really think that "science" has us teetering on the edge of some cataclysmic precipice right now? "Pollution," as you like to call it, is a manageable issue that isn't going to end life on earth. And as far as imaginary-hero worship being benign, tell that to the folks in the twin towers. Then think of the billions of lives saved by Borlaug's genetics work alone, and that polio and smallpox are gone.
etherbingedotorg 2 months ago
@etherbingedotorg Yes, Muslims are religious people and yes, Islam is everything in their lives, so when they do anything at all, their religion inevitably comes out as a reason. But you really think it's their ideas of God that is making them hate us or maybe it's that AMERICA HAS BEEN SLAUGHTERING THEIR PEOPLE FOR DECADES. One is a real reason to hate and the other is fake. It's funny, you anti-religion freaks will give credit to the gods you don't believe in only when they do bad...
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 Again, don't presume to understand how I think. You've already shown yourself to be clueless in that regard. I'm well aware of all the good things religion can and does provide: charity, a sense of community, hope. But we weren't talking about those things. I was specifically referring to 9/11, and the people who flew those planes in the name of your god, in response to your claim that science caused pollution. Are Smith and Wesson responsible for every gun death?
etherbingedotorg 2 months ago
@etherbingedotorg No I cannot yet say that trading long, healthy lives for no pollution is a good idea. Give it a few hundred years, though. Ozone is shrinking and no one wants to put a stop to nuclear power. Remember, the industrial revolution is only a couple hundred years back. Give it time. We'll keep building nuclear power plants next to fault lines and store the waste in the plants. We'll keep driving cars way too much. Give it time. We'll be VERY sorry VERY soon...
tpstrat14 2 months ago
@tpstrat14 Remember, without everything science has done for us you'd be living in your own filth, lucky to live past 30, your wife would only have a fair chance of living through any one of her 9 or 10 childbirths, and if someone could adequately describe pollution as it exists today and offer it in exchange for a long, healthy, productive life relatively free of much of the poverty and class strife we lost when we realized that Kings are no better than serfs, I think you'd take the trade.
etherbingedotorg 2 months ago
??????? translate this paragraph from p.c. idiot / liberal douchebag please. Americans have been slaughtering muslims for decades? what? your ignorance is surpassed only by your stupidity tpstrat14 religions of all stripes are essentially the agents of darkness, the enemies of pluralism, learning and multiculturalism. And yeah douche- muslims mainly perpetrate shit because like all religious idiots their holy book tells them they can (i.e.Tripoli and the Barbary Corsairs)
Killzswich 1 month ago 2
@tpstrat14 Try reading a history book at least for a nice change instead of buying bullets for the enemies of civilization as some guilt- ridden, angsty, liberal apologist douche bag MORON
Killzswich 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 Don't try to blame 911 on some socio-economic bullshit. If that were the case, then we would also have Tibetan suicide bombers......and we don't. We don't because the religion they follow doesn't command them to do it, UNLIKE the Koran, which actually does order Muslims to kill, enslave, or convert the rest of the planet. It's a totalitarian political ideology, AND a religion, all rolled into one. That's why it's more dangerous than other religions.
rep300 1 month ago
@rep300 "Tibetan suicide bombers" Yep, I've already heard Sam Harris's routine. I didn't read the rest of your comment....
tpstrat14 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 So you're admitting that denial is your position? Alright then.
rep300 1 month ago
@rep300 Before we go on, be honest with me. Are you talking about "Tibetan suicide bombers" because YOU made the connection between violence and Islam? Or were you just plagiarizing Sam Harris' ideas?
tpstrat14 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 ladies and gentlemen of the internet, we have a winner
parkerthehicks 1 month ago
@tpstrat14 And don't misrepresent my beliefs. I believe in many, many things, but the difference between us is I do my best to believe in things for which there is evidence. Not because I'd like them to exist, but because there's cause to think they actually do. But while your childish oversimplification of my beliefs might make mockery easier and provide for better sleep at night, the fact that you have no idea at all what I believe or why is sad and more than a little pathetic.
etherbingedotorg 2 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Love is a card trick? Holy shit man. Nevermind.....
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 Magic is, reread my comment before you post...
ArtistryofDebauchery 5 months ago
@ArtistryofDebauchery Ok so try this thought on for size. Let's say WWAAYYY in the future science can figure out a way to create a powerful drug that gives you EXACTLY the same chemical flow in your brain as you get from real interpersonal "love". First of all, do you think this is possible? Second, would it be exactly the same if it were the same chemicals? OOORRR... is it like I said and your eternal purpose is to love and be loved by others?
tpstrat14 5 months ago