edit: the user above has made significant changes to their post since I replied initially; at first, the post above only contained a single link to the letter...
It appears that "...a proposal by a government working group that schools should give the same weight to Maori mythology as they do to science in the classroom" is a misrepresentation. The author of this article has taken up this issue because it appears to fit a political hobby horse of his.
One might read this article and conclude that The Woke Have Done It Again, they have Defied Science and Suggested that Mythology is Just As Important As Darwin.
However, one of the authors of the government working group material has also commented publicly about this and her take casts things in a slightly different light:
"The sentence quoted in the Listener letter as proof of the need to ‘defend’ science was from a section I largely wrote about the strand of the Pūtaiao curriculum that did not have a direct equivalent in the NZC Science learning area, on the history and philosophy of science. The sentence quoted was part of a description of the possible scope of studies of socioscientific issues, from a Māori perspective, by senior secondary students of Pūtaiao. To respond as fearfully as these seven professors, from the top science university in the country, to a single sentence that suggests taking a critical look at the involvement of science in colonisation of Māori, does the public face of science no favours at all. This failure in terms of academic standards explains the strong criticism of the letter that was expressed by the Royal Society as well as many leading scientists and academics (May, 2021)."[1]
Are those crazy (left-wing, out of touch, 'woke') government working groups really Denying Science?
Or did some scientists take something out of context and misunderstand it, then scream that they were being cancelled when other academics expressed disagreement with their ideas?
* (Edit: actually, I thought about it, and I decided that it does matter: I'm not really comfortable with our politics, which are quite different from UK/US politics, being used for grist in northern culture-war mills.)
Let's say the guy did take her out of context and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse. Why is the appropriate response to someone taking you out of context opening an official inquiry into his behavior? Miscommunication happens all of the time, why are they forming an investigative panel?
>Or did some scientists take something out of context and misunderstand it, then scream that they were being cancelled when other academics expressed disagreement with their ideas?
Well, wouldn't the existence of the panel lend some weight to their claims they are being cancelled? I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action? He published a letter, and it was a pretty respectful letter at that. Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context?
> and use the issue because it fits his hobby horse.
I was talking about the columnist from the Spectator, not the scientist.
> I mean really, what did the guy that was so bad that the university decided it needed to take disciplinary action?
The university didn't take action (apart from the email from the VC, the full content of which we don't have to hand). It was the Royal Society of New Zealand that set up the panel. Totally different. I think your question here is answered by the text I quoted in my earlier post:
"To respond as fearfully as these seven professors, from the top science university in the country, to a single sentence that suggests taking a critical look at the involvement of science in colonisation of Māori, does the public face of science no favours at all. This failure in terms of academic standards explains the strong criticism of the letter that was expressed by the Royal Society as well as many leading scientists and academics."
edit:
>Is he being investigated for taking someone out of context?
I see what you are getting at, but I think the issue is more that the letter publicly misrepresented something in a way that was in itself not scientific.
I'll have to think about it, but I'm leaning toward thinking the Spectator columnist, at least, is badly misrepresenting what has happened.
Beyond that I actually don't really have strong feelings about this yet because it's honestly the first I've heard of it, even though I live in NZ.
I will further note that understanding the royal society vs university distinction here is pretty important, but it seems that you've already made up your mind.
That doesn’t seem fair, I’ve not made up my mind. I just want to understand why you think people forming a panel to remove you from the royal society of New Zealand because you published a polite letter does not constitute cancelling.
Yeah, it seems step 1 is scream "I'm under attack" step 2 is people point out you aren't, and step 3 is to use step 2 to prove that you're under attack.
A statement from Jackie Talbot, an advisor to New Zealand's ministry of education, speaking about changes to qualifications attainable by NZ secondary school students:
"'It traces back to 2019 when the Government agreed to strengthen NCEA, with a commitment to explicitly reflect and promote mana ōrite mō tē mātauranga Māori, or parity for Māori knowledge, within the main secondary school qualification.
...
She said it means "making sure teachers are supported to design courses that include both what has become known as mātauranga pūtaiao and the scientific knowledge, skills and understandings that have traditionally been taught in New Zealand schools - which we have referred to at times using the phrase 'Western science'."
> The sentence quoted in the Listener letter as proof of the need to ‘defend’ science was from a section I largely wrote about the strand of the Pūtaiao curriculum that did not have a direct equivalent in the NZC Science learning area, on the history and philosophy of science. The sentence quoted was part of a description of the possible scope of studies of socioscientific issues, from a Māori perspective, by senior secondary students of Pūtaiao.
It does not, it's about history. If you want to link it to science, its ethic and epistemology, or philosophy? Not STEM at least. That's why the comment is interesting, it is the same stuff than "woke people against classic letters at Princeton!!!1!". I seem to fall for it each time, then research (or in this case, read comments!) about context, and then i'm disappointed in myself, two years ago this would've tingled my bullshit senses, nowaday i fall almost every time. I should stop working for a bank
I tend to think that the person who buys the bottle and chooses to throw it away or recycle it has produced the waste, no one throws sealed bottles of Coca-Cola away.
If I buy a bottle of Coca-Cola, drink it then throw it out my car window, is Coca-Cola responsible for that bottle being swept into a storm drain and into a river? I don't think so.
Coca-Cola produces valuable goods, if you choose to take an action that results in the bottle floating out to sea, it's your fault, you don't get to blame Coca-Cola. That is what I mean by personal responsibility.
If my local recycling company sells bulk recycled plastic to an Asian commodity broker with the understanding that the plastic will be used to make new goods and the broker decides to dump the plastic in the ocean, is my local recycling company to blame for the plastic in the Ocean?
>Coca-Cola produces valuable goods, if you choose to take an action that results in the bottle floating out to sea, it's your fault, you don't get to blame Coca-Cola. That is what I mean by personal responsibility.
So in your ideal world it is 100% personal responsibility and 0% corporate responsibility, right?
"Phillip Morris produces valuable goods, if you choose to take an action that leads to your body growing a tumour, it's your fault, you don't get to blame Phillip Morris."
Corporations like Coca-Cola have successfully pushed the negative externalities of their product into the world we all have to live in, while keeping the profits.
That is correct, unless you did some due diligence and were fed incorrect information by a universally trusted authority, in that case you were deceived. You need to take personal responsibility until it becomes abundantly clear that you were duped into some behavior. You take responsibility for your own actions, you don't get to blame anyone. If you throw the bottle out the window, you polluted. The comparison to phillip morris is not apt, is Coca-Cola claiming plastic does not harm the environment, no they are not. Phillip Morris claimed smoking did not cause physical harm, very different.
Don't let yourself fall into a state of victimhood, where if you find your behavior producing outcomes that is not optimal you start looking for external forces to blame, you need to start taking responsibility for your own actions.
Glass bottles are more reusable and recyclable, but transporting glass burns more fuel. Reuse requires a lot of water to wash the bottles (though perhaps washing can be made more efficient) while remanufacturing crushed glass into bottles uses additional energy.
Still I'd be in favor of going back to glass because they are nicer than plastic and soda seems to taste better in glass bottles, perhaps in part because it doesn't have to be overcarbonated.
No I'm not splitting hairs at all. The local bottling companies have significant operational freedom. They could stop selling plastic bottles and only use glass or aluminum if they wanted to.
>The U.S. isn't even in the top 10 producers of plastic waste in oceans (it's something like >30th on the list).
Coca-Cola and Pepsi are consistently the biggest offenders in plastic waste.
The United States should be the shining global role model we are so often told it is, and legislate to force better corporate behaviour around these issues.
At this point the consumer-blaming logic regarding single use plastic bottles is like "Well, we just make cigarettes, we can't help it if people smoke them and get sick."
Why? Why should the US shoulder the load that will disproportionately affect the finances of the lower and middle class and make essentially no environmental impact?
Given that it's individuals who transported those single-use items to the location where they were consumed, it makes perfect sense that those same individuals should transport them back to trash handling facilities. How else are you going to bring drinks to a picnic, if not in some sort of container, that you are then responsible for regardless of how many times that container can be used or what it's made of?
If you read my link, it's not even about "trash handling facilities", but about the profitability of single-use bottles vs refillable ones for manufacturers.
There are lots of things in what we call civilised society that act as gentle guidance mechanisms to encourage compliance toward some end that is desirable for everybody.
Without some incentive to transport single use items to an appropriate receptacle some people will always just throw them on the ground, as it costs them nothing to do so.
The makers of single use drink bottles have thus privatised profit and socialised the negative externalities of their product. The money goes in their pockets, and the bottles go in the ocean.
I’m not sure Mother Jones is always the best source of information for accurate historical analysis. I have serious issues with the first paragraph and don’t really feel up to a piece long rebuttal.
As you say in your OP, plastic trash should be a moral issue, but where we appear to disagree is in where the moral responsibility should lie.
I think it should lie at least half with manufacturers who provide their product in plastic bottles that can costlessly be thrown away, into the sea, by consumers.
There is no penalty to the individual for doing so.
Gasoline used to have lead in it. Now it doesn't, because people realised it's bad for us and the world we live in.
When supermarkets used to give plastic bags away for free, it would be common to see them blowing around, floating down rivers in urban areas like jellyfish, etc. Now, in places where supermarkets have either been forced to charge for them (or eliminate them) etc, you rarely see plastic bags as a form of roaming trash.
Somebody took a 1% hit to their profits, maybe. But the world didn't end.
>Who in the world has genuinely condemned the Uighyur atrocities that China continues to this day?
Parliaments, heads of state, etc have referred to this as "genocide" despite insufficient evidence (the view of US state department lawyers). I don't know what further condemnation you're looking for there.
(edit: *genocide is a significant label, whether China's mistreatment qualifies as that is probably to be determined, but evidence of mistreatment exists)
Right, and I guess we agree that on a condemnation scale of 1-10, being under suspicion of committing genocide, to the degree that nation states open formal investigations is not low?
What's interesting about this stuff is that it seems to support interpretation through multiple cognitive frameworks. There could be a mystical/esoteric explanation for why those people became so attached to the characters or fictions. Or it could be that they were already vulnerable to schizophrenic or depersonalization/derealization-type disorders.
It's like how you'll sometimes hear/read people say that tantra/mediation stuff like Kundalini can be dangerous because it results in an energy imbalance that could potentially be irreparable and/or lead to lasting damage.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/inside-the-bungled-bir...