Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong hated people and killed tens of millions of them, but they didn’t hate science. So why have things deteriorated so badly, science-wise, with today’s left?
Consider some examples. Democrats believe in astrology by a two-to-one margin over Republicans. Same with fortune telling.
Other examples are more complicated but equally striking.
Like almost all other animals, humans exist in two distinct sexes: male and female. At the genetic level, the distinction is crystal clear. Males have an X and a Y chromosome, while females have two X’s. (There are instances of an extra X or Y but they are exceedingly rare.)
Generally speaking, these different genotypes express in different phenotypes, such as different morphology, microbiology, procreation, hormones and temperament. Nearly all real scientists agree with this.
But the left now tells us that there are 64 “genders.” They define “gender” as something different from “sex” in order to get around that inconvenient chromosome obstacle, while deceitfully using the two terms interchangeably when helpful to advance their agenda. Such as enabling men with trendy sexual proclivities to destroy legitimate women’s sport competition.
The left’s position here is not a scientific one, though they couch it as that. It’s a political one. They don’t argue with scientists who disagree with their political position on this issue, because they have no real science argument. Instead they cancel those scientists.
Then there’s abortion. I believe that we lack the moral authority to take a human life, and so abortion is wrong. (Contrary to most of my tribe, I believe the same about capital punishment.)
But I would not outlaw abortion. It’s a vexing, complicated issue. Although I think it’s morally wrong, I’m not prepared to make everything I think is morally wrong into a crime.
The left disagrees with my moral position, but goes further than mere disagreement. They deny the complexity of the issue. They say there’s not a moral issue at all, because the fetus is not alive.
That’s unscientific. Any biologist would say the fetus is palpably alive. It’s a collection of structured cells that multiplies and metabolizes. Unliving things don’t do that.
OK, says the left, but it’s just a “blob of cells.”
That, too, is unscientific. We know from ultrasounds and from miscarriages and the remains of aborted fetuses that a fetus resembles a baby a few months after conception, and is nearly fully formed by month seven or eight at which time they frequently survive premature birth – and occasionally survive an abortion and are killed on the operating table.
Let’s debate abortion as the complicated moral issue it is, where we weight interests of the fetus, the mother, the father, society and morality.
Don’t insult the conversation with mind-numbing sloganeering like “My body, my choice.” Will we next justify infanticide with “My family, my choice”? Or mass murder with “My neighborhood, my choice”?
Then there’s the purported epidemic (or is it a “pandemic” now?) of white-on-black police violence.
Except, scientifically speaking, there’s not. An Obama Department of Justice study showed that a black unarmed suspect is more likely to be shot by a black or Hispanic cop than by a white one. The likelihood of a black man being killed by a white cop is about 1/18th the likelihood of the cop being killed by that black man.
While blacks account for over half of homicides and robberies, they are only about a quarter of police killings. Some 94% of black murder victims were killed by other blacks – even though blacks comprise only 13% of the population.
Don’t get me wrong. Although it’s rare in comparison to other violence, it sometimes happens. The George Floyd video was sickening.
But one instance does not prove a general problem. The data show that this “problem” is a myth. Science says this “problem” is fake.
When I repeat that fact, people on the left don’t rebut me, engage in an analytical debate or offer facts. They just call me names.
Then there’s nuclear power. In France, 75% of the country’s electricity is nuclear generated. Scientists agree that nuclear power is safer than coal, natural gas, wind or solar. And it generates zero greenhouse gas.
But the left hates it. Because hating it apparently makes them feel good.
Which brings me back to the question posed at the outset. I think the reason so many on the left are anti-science is because they don’t look for solutions that work. They look for solutions that feel good to them.
They even argue that way. They argue not so much that their proposals will solve the problems — because they won’t — but that they are more virtuous than the right’s proposals that will. That’s why Barrack Obama would often dodge analytical debate with the sacharine and sanctimoneous saying, “That’s not who we are.”
He was right. Problem solvers are not who they are. Feel-gooders are who they are. Obama knew that and exploited it.
But feel-goodery is the antithesis of science. It’s unintellectual, childish and self-indulgent. The world would become a better place and the debate between left and right would be more constructive and civil if the left could get over it.
In other words, just grow up.