I didnt think so, I study molecular bio and aside from nursing programs, males are predominantly involved in the research. I see the article as a reasonable explanation for the why behind the what personally.
A lot of people probably already knew this, but it’s useful to have studies like this to shove in the face of the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” crowd. It’s frustrating because we can change this, we don’t have to accept a society that simply revolves around “Whoever makes the most money gets to make the rules”.
I, personally, would like a society that cherishes camaraderie and compassion while also rewarding innovation and talent. There are too many people who believe in this zero-sum game that seems to pit everyone against everyone in this race to gather the most wealth; this is why we’re all struggling, because rich people have gathered the most wealth, and they are trying to protect it at all costs by using the wealth to control the rules that control how they gained the wealth to begin with. It’s all awful and we need to change it now.
I would challenge that any society which has any significant amount of wealth disparity wouldn’t eventually devolve into “whoever makes the most money gets to make the rules”. Money is an abstraction of human value, so if one person has significantly more abstract-value than most people, their power and influence will always be more than people who have less even if it isn’t as direct as our system via eg lobbying. On top of that, any economic system which has even the slightest asymptotic behavior towards wealth consolidation will eventually have wealth disparity.
Personally I like economic systems that use money as a price signal because of how decentralized it can be, but I’m not sure how you would avoid these tendencies without some major overhaul in the fundamental principles. Market socialism is at least better, since no one solely owns the means of production so it’s harder to accumulate wealth but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it isn’t possible at all.
Maybe a change in ethos like you said, competition can inspire innovation but it can also lead to tremendous waste as competitors reinvent their own wheels. Encouraging cooperation in tandem with competition could produce a more well-rounded society, but there will always be sociopaths who want power for its own sake and will naturally rise to the top and ruin whatever good thing we have going on. Maybe something like radical anarchism, which rejects (unjustified) hierarchy and makes it exceptionally difficult for anyone to gain coercive power? Fat chance ever implementing something like that, though.
We could get by with our current system we have, simply change the tax system to tax profit way more, so that it’s impossible to become a billionaire. And all that money is used to keep everyone housed, fed, and healthy. The people that want to abuse people for profit won’t have anyone to abuse anymore because people won’t be forced to work in unfair jobs with unfair wages. Wages will rise to natural level to meet what people think those jobs are worth doing. Some companies will find this unsustainable and will go away, and good riddance.
Wait. I really don’t mean this to sound rude here, but I have to ask… they actually needed a study for this??? Because I feel like it’s pretty obvious if one has spent any time working in the real world and not living in a vacuum of privileged wealth.
Yes, in fact it’s the most obvious things which need scientific study most desperately, because what’s “obvious” today may tomorrow be “cigarettes are good for your health”. If something is obvious (and isn’t a value or opinion), that’s a red flag that you should double-check because it might be an overlooked assumption rather than an objective truth. That being said it’s not exactly “sexy” science since the result tends to be “our hypothesis was correct”. The Ig Nobel Prize has some good example of this, dumb “obvious” or “pointless” research that on further reflection makes you think.
You’d be surprised by how much seemingly obvious folk wisdom turns out to be bullshit when scrutiny is applied. It’s good to test the basics, as it can clear up faulty assumptions later. Anti-poor rhetoric is a staple of right-wing propaganda, so it’s nice to have research on our side.
It’s more like we have a hundred years of studies that make this point, but it’s always good to test for different causes of inequality to inform policy better.
The thing with science is that you can’t just accept things because they seem obvious. The scientific method exists for a reason. Sometimes things that look obvious turn out to be false, and sometimes proving an obvious thing to be true is a necessary first step to have a solid foundation from which to build other more nuanced hypotheses. Either way, the point is that studies aren’t all about finding some new and surprising conclusion. Sometimes they’re about taking something you were pretty sure of already, and making it into actual science.
Wow, that’s quite a jump. Since I can remember following the topic the jumps in estimated age were getting smaller and smaller as measurements were getting more and more precise. So this is a bit mind-blowing if true.
The tired light hypothesis has been fringe for decades. This is an interesting application of it, but this paper isn't going to be accepted without some rather vigorous challenge. It'll be years of new observations and dozens of new studies re-examining already published data before the dust settles on this.
This seems to be using the initial red shift data that has been shown to be wrong with none being over 15. The initial redshift of z ≈ 16.4 was actually 4.9 after spectroscopic verification. This study had only 2 over 10 with the max of 11.4.
There is a much better explanation which is either MOND or MoND-mimicking superfluid dark matter causing structure formation a little sooner, plus early usual overestimation of the number of actual early galaxies. New data always takes a little time to analyze properly. Tired light is outdated.
I feel like they should have used “suggests” instead of “puts.” “Puts” makes it sound like it’s a sure thing, but it seems like it hasn’t been verified yet
There’s definitely been life in other places beyond earth. That’s an unfathomable amount of time for matter not to have self-organised in the unfathomable amount of space that exists before it happened here. It may all be dead by now and we may never see it, but this feels like game over for any earth-centric model that still exists.
I’m not following why you think that’s in contrast with what I’ve said. I agree that simple life being everywhere is more likely than complex being anywhere.
It seems to me that simple life being anywhere could be unlikely enough.
Maybe we don’t disagree. I just think that if complex life like us could evolve in a relatively (to the overall universe) time, and the elements to make up life are everywhere (based on recent studies), it would be weird if simpler life forms didn’t evolve in such a vast amount of time.
It seems to me the only reason we think it’s unlikely is because of our earth- and human-centric beliefs. We want to believe we’re special, to the point we’re hostile to the idea.
We’re discovering that Mars and Venus have complex structures that likely break our concept of life, and some people are reacting badly to that. I didn’t necessarily think you were against what I said, but others were hostile towards my comment.
I was just commenting on a random thread, and I wasn’t directing anything at you. I’m sorry if it came across that way.
That sounds much like the "just asking questions" excuse. As a writer you should know the power of words and how the nuances of their meaning affect the message. Dismissing the meaning of your words with the excuse of just "throwing words around" is dangerous and frankly shameful for any writer who isn't a hack.
Edit: maybe I got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. You're good, but that did not resonate well with me.
Regardless of whether I meant it as a doorway into conversation – and that wasn’t an excuse, but a threshold to conversation – if you’re going to pin me on it, I’ll say yes, I think the odds are nearly 100% life exists not just elsewhere, but everywhere.
I personally think that’s the inevitable conclusion of 3-dimensional space. That’s just my personal opinion, though.
Call me a hack if you like.
(e: removed unnecessary snark.)
• Sample size of 170, which even the researchers admitted was low
• First study done during the lockdowns, which they posited may have had a negative affect as people tried to cope with financial stress, sudden social isolation, and caring for a pet without ever leaving the house. It did, they found.
• Second study taken post-lockdown, unable to compare depression and anxiety as they did not bother measuring those the first time (why not?)
• Trained animals do provide a benefit, actually; friendly obedience and a relaxed personality found in support animals suggested to be a factor but they never measured that either I guess.
• 95% report greater life consistency and a sense of love, so maybe pets are helpful for someone in vital need of emotional support, we don't know.
Overall, I think if they tried really, really hard, and I mean really put their minds to it, they could write a worse headline for such an ambiguous and unhelpful article.
I’d consider a sample size of 170 to be pretty large, if the sample was drawn with perfect randomness from the population. But this one wasn’t, it was self-selected. Also wasn’t a clinical trial, and while they seem to know what they’re doing with setting up the questionnaire, I would assume it would result in larger measurement error, which would need more samples to be able to correct for.
Completely agree with you though - the conclusions that it seems reasonable to draw from this are ‘not much, really’. Seems to disagree with the results of a larger study by many of the same authors, too, which say that companion animals did result in a smaller decline in mental health during lockdown.
This is anecdotal, but I've loved animals my entire life. I was going to be a vet, but changed careers because my internship made me afraid it would ruin my love of animals.
I've had a very rough twenty years. I was married to a man who turned out was abusive to animals, so I gave up my dream of having pets. When I bucked my entire culture to divorce him, I fought my way back to enough financial security to own them again.
My first pet was 5 when I got him. I had three years of his endless health problems, but I loved him and he died. Then I got a couple of puppies and I love them, but...I don't think I'll own any more dogs. Dealing with other pet owners has been a nightmare. Off leash, poorly trained, outright dangerous dogs everywhere.
But even more to the point, I'm a terrible owner for them. I'm allergic, so I only play with them before my shower. And my mental health has me barely able to function some days. And I'll never be able to own the property they need to truly flourish. They deserve better than me. So I agree. Poor mental health can be exacerbated by pet ownership.
phys.org
Oldest