|
Post by robeiae on Apr 29, 2021 9:19:37 GMT -5
...I hate it with the white-hot passion of a thousand hatey suns. Look at this crap: Are our pets gobbling up the planet?Here's Vox's tweet on the piece: See that line, "one expert suggested reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership in favor of other animals"? That expert is Gregory Okin, a professor of GEOGRAPHY at UCLA. Needless to say...
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 29, 2021 9:34:18 GMT -5
Kant was a professor of geography, too. But he never let that stop him from commenting on animal ethics.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 29, 2021 11:49:02 GMT -5
Kant was a professor of geography, too. But he never let that stop him from commenting on animal ethics. Hey, don't even get me started on Rousseau...
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 29, 2021 19:10:39 GMT -5
Not surprised that they'd run something that stupid. I dunno, maybe the format is a bit out there, but the basic thesis about pet ownership seems reasonable. Now the tweet in response about drowning a dog... that was stupid, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 30, 2021 16:45:59 GMT -5
Yup, I was looking at the wrong tweet. I have become that which I loathe. Still think Vox is garbage, though.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 30, 2021 17:03:12 GMT -5
I'm all for responsible pet ownership, but the idea that dog and cat owners are a primary problem when it comes to climate change or the like is ridiculous and then some. And again, citing an "expert" on this is laughable, when that expert is a geography prof with a very clear agenda. I mean come on, there are an awful lot of places to go--when it comes to addressing climate change--before going there. Carbon footprint, my ass.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 30, 2021 18:13:36 GMT -5
Sad that "news" can be created simply from what one person no one's ever heard of says.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 30, 2021 18:26:47 GMT -5
I'm all for responsible pet ownership, but the idea that dog and cat owners are a primary problem when it comes to climate change or the like is ridiculous and then some. Oh, I agree completely. But I don't think the piece is really arguing that. On the issue of meat-production, it says meat production drives about 14.5 percent of human-made greenhouse gases. (Obviously the burning of fossil fuels contributes quite a bit more.) But it's not even saying that pet food is the primary culprit within the area of meat production. It says about 25 percent, so I would infer from that that human food is the primary driver, rather than pet food. Now, I think you're right that there are other places to go first, when it comes to addressing climate change. The author could've instead written about the need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. But I dunno, maybe he already has. And I know personally, I've already heard that message seemingly a million times before (I would bet you have, as well.) I like the idea of (relatively) new angles and new ideas for things people can do to make the planet slightly better off. The author even frames the issue in terms of how one can make pet care more eco-friendly while still caring for the happiness of one's pets. It literally asks the question "So what can I do to keep Tycho happy while reducing his environmental impact?" Now, that tweet about drowning a dog... that was ridiculous and then some. ETA: Also, that picture of Tycho Brahe and the dog with matching ruffled collars was hilarious, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 30, 2021 18:30:34 GMT -5
Sad that "news" can be created simply from what one person no one's ever heard of says. Is that really what happened here, though? Doesn't look like it to me.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 30, 2021 18:45:56 GMT -5
Re: Okin, I actually thought you had a fair point on him, but now I'm not even sure about that. Here's his bio page from UCLA... www.ioes.ucla.edu/person/gregory-okin/Looks to me like his academic career goes far beyond mere geography. (Maybe Vox should've mentioned that, to be fair.) Does he have an agenda? I dunno, possibly. Your link shows that he published a paper a few years ago on the topic of food consumption by animals and its environmental impact. But so what? If I were writing a piece on topic X, I too would probably cite someone who's published previously on said topic. I guess one could cite someone who only deals w/ geography, so as to avoid the appearance of an agenda, but then people would probably complain about that, too.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 30, 2021 18:58:07 GMT -5
Sad that "news" can be created simply from what one person no one's ever heard of says. Is that really what happened here, though? Doesn't look like it to me. I was commenting to a more general pattern I've noticed where some/many news organizations will find one random "expert" from some university making some claim that supports or is otherwise congruous with the political bent of that news org and then write up an entire story based around it, as if that one person's opinion/claim is somehow authoritative. This, from what I can tell, seems to fit that pattern. I also find that cartoon presentation to be dumb, but that's a separate point.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 30, 2021 19:00:07 GMT -5
Re: Okin, I actually thought you had a fair point on him, but now I'm not even sure about that. Here's his bio page from UCLA... www.ioes.ucla.edu/person/gregory-okin/Looks to me like his academic career goes far beyond mere geography. (Maybe Vox should've mentioned that, to be fair.) Does he have an agenda? I dunno, possibly. Your link shows that he published a paper a few years ago on the topic of food consumption by animals and its environmental impact. But so what? If I were writing a piece on topic X, I too would probably cite someone who's published previously on said topic. I guess one could cite someone who only deals w/ geography, so as to avoid the appearance of an agenda, but then people would probably complain about that, too. I can't speak for Rob, but to me it comes across as an example of epistemic trespassing, which is a pernicious tendency that seems to be on the rise lately. academic.oup.com/mind/article/128/510/367/4850765
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Apr 30, 2021 19:29:56 GMT -5
I was commenting to a more general pattern I've noticed where some/many news organizations will find one random "expert" from some university making some claim that supports or is otherwise congruous with the political bent of that news org and then write up an entire story based around it, as if that one person's opinion/claim is somehow authoritative. This, from what I can tell, seems to fit that pattern. It's not clear at all to me that that's what happened here, though. Did the author start writing the piece and then look for a source to support the thesis, or did he (or Vox) come across Okin's work first and then decide to write an entire story around it? Okin is only referred to very briefly in the piece itself, to support one specific point that came up. So I would tend to think it's more the former than the latter, but I honestly don't know for sure. Is there another way to tell? Seems like a bit of a chicken and egg type question. That seems fair enough. It looks to me like most of his research is in environmental sciences, though. Is it possible that it's actually geography that he's under-qualified to talk about, rather than environmental sciences? Or possible that he knows a lot about both?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 30, 2021 19:33:23 GMT -5
I had never heard that term, but yes that's part of what I'm getting at. The Vox piece just cites him as an expert. On what? His recommendation in the piece is that people look for other pets to replace dogs and cats. From that, his field of expertise could be just about anything, from veterinarian medicine to psychology to population control to climate change. But I have to say that geography was a bit of a surprise...
The point is, who says he has any real expertise to support his recommendation? As far as I can tell, only this Vox writer.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 30, 2021 19:37:45 GMT -5
I was commenting to a more general pattern I've noticed where some/many news organizations will find one random "expert" from some university making some claim that supports or is otherwise congruous with the political bent of that news org and then write up an entire story based around it, as if that one person's opinion/claim is somehow authoritative. This, from what I can tell, seems to fit that pattern. It's not clear at all to me that that's what happened here, though. Did the author start writing the piece and then look for a source to support the thesis, or did he (or Vox) come across Okin's work first and then decide to write an entire story around it? Okin is only referred to very briefly in the piece itself, to support one specific point that came up. So I would tend to think it's more the former than the latter, but I honestly don't know for sure. Is there another way to tell? Seems like a bit of a chicken and egg type question. If you look at Okin's paper and at the points made in the Vox piece, it's pretty obvious that the Vox piece is based primarily on Okin's paper.
|
|