Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet on June 27, 2007 Over at Framing Science, I’ve posed a question to readers to comment on:
In the coming decades, what are the next great framing controversies? What are the public engagement flashpoints to anticipate? On what issues can we apply a scientific understanding of the public and the media system to avoid communication failures?
Here’s the chance to offer some of your own thoughts.
We (The USA) WILL lose a city due to a Muslim atomic attack.
The question will be “What is a proper response”. It will be a suicide attack, no surprise, so the actual perpetrator will be destroyed.
If this happens when Bush/ Cheney are still in office, I have no doubt the response will be quick, and it will be wrong.
So. We have the science and technology to obliterate entire countries. Do we use this power, or can we find other, better solutions?
Good luck on the test kids.
Now that Craig Venter has transplanted genomes between species of bacteria and human-animal chimeric embryos are more science than science-fiction, I predict we may need new frames to understand “human.”
Growth. We need a much better understanding of the consequences of the naive assumption that growth is always a good thing in the economy, in cities and towns, in nations, …. The planet is finite so growth as we understand it today — greater consumption and expanding populations — must hit a wall. We need a new understanding of economics. We need to find ways for politicians to NOT run on a pro-growth platform.
June 27, 2007
June 29, 2007
July 23, 2007