Houston-area school board votes to remove 13 chapters from state-approved science textbooks, citing controversial topics

[rambot]

You are free to believe that.

You are also free to be wrong.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have been talking at length with this CF member about this already.

You can teach science and evidence without injecting your political activism.

Except, and this is key here, the teaching of the science and the presentation of the evidence is being portrayed as political activism. Because there are those whose opposition to the science and the evidence is part of their political leanings.

You seem to be okay with injecting political activism if it means NOT teaching science and evidence.

Human caused climate change is real. That's not political, that's just objective reality.

Human caused climate change not only will have deleterious effects on the world, it already does. We are already experiencing the effects of climate change, and it will only get worse. That's not political, that's just objective reality.

This is not political activism, this is science.

What is political activism is banning science classes from teaching science because it offends the delicate sensibilities of politicians who depend on a scientifically illiterate and ill-informed voting base, because they are getting kickbacks from billion dollar corporations which are governed entirely by short term profit motive and which have a fiduciary duty to keep their investors and stockholders pockets full, even if it means longterm harm to the planet and human civilization on the whole.

So, to be perfectly honest, when you say "you can teach science and evidence without injecting your political activism" I am highly skeptical of your sincerity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[driewerf]

Except, and this is key here, the teaching of the science and the presentation of the evidence is being portrayed as political activism. Because there are those whose opposition to the science and the evidence is part of their political leanings.

You seem to be okay with injecting political activism if it means NOT teaching science and evidence.

Human caused climate change is real. That's not political, that's just objective reality.

Human caused climate change not only will have deleterious effects on the world, it already does. We are already experiencing the effects of climate change, and it will only get worse. That's not political, that's just objective reality.

This is not political activism, this is science.

What is political activism is banning science classes from teaching science because it offends the delicate sensibilities of politicians who depend on a scientifically illiterate and ill-informed voting base, because they are getting kickbacks from billion dollar corporations which are governed entirely by short term profit motive and which have a fiduciary duty to keep their investors and stockholders pockets full, even if it means longterm harm to the planet and human civilization on the whole.

So, to be perfectly honest, when you say "you can teach science and evidence without injecting your political activism" I am highly skeptical of your sincerity.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree to the full.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Here's another relevant metaphor:

Tragedy of the commons​

The tragedy of the commons is a metaphoric label for a concept that is widely discussed, and criticised, in economics, ecology and other sciences. According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up destroying its value altogether. Even if some users exercised voluntary restraint, the other users would merely supplant them, the predictable result being a tragedy for all.

A Homeowner Mutiny in Florida Is Leaving the State More Vulnerable to Hurricanes​

The town’s only protection from the Gulf of Mexico’s increasingly erratic stormsis a pristine beach that draws millions of tourists every year — but that beach is disappearing fast. A series of storms, culminating in last fall’s Hurricane Idalia, have eroded most of the sand that protects Redington Shores and the towns around it, leaving residents just one big wave away from water overtaking their homes.

This standoff highlights growing tensions between the federal government and homeowners in coastal areas that are threatened by climate change. As sea levels have risen and strong storms have caused greater damage than ever before, the costs of protecting and insuring beach fronts in Florida and other states have increased rapidly.

The Corps put the easement policy in place decades ago to ensure that it didn’t spend public money to restore private beaches, but the agency didn’t begin enforcing the rule in earnest until after Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

In the years since, the agency has warned Pinellas County and other local governments that they won’t get any more sand unless they get easements from all the property owners on their beaches. The Corps says it first raised the issue with Pinellas back in 2017, but tensions started rising last year after Idalia eroded the area’s beaches to a dangerous degree, creating a desperate need for new protective sand.

Pinellas County officials tried their best to obtain these easements, even going from door to door and pleading with residents to “sign for sand.” Nevertheless, around half of the 461 property owners along the barrier island have refused to grant them.

Owners’ reasons for refusing easements are numerous, but most cite a fear that granting public access to the sand behind their property will encourage tourists to venture up on their dunes or sit on the sea walls behind their homes. Sure, they can’t stop tourists and beachgoers from using the beach that sits between the erosion line and the water [which is already free for the public to access] — but they don’t want them coming any closer.

“For a lot of people, the privacy is more important to them than the risk of destruction,”