Despite the title this is not just about the US, the general issues are worth thinking about.
I will state the obvious. As said in the video, humans are prone to confirmation bias. Stated differently, there is no shortage of magical thinkers...in any society. But the obvious part I mean is that religiosity fans the flames, greatly expands and encourages magical thinking.
Many societies have significant religious populations. The U.S., unfortunately, has so many that, when encouraged to act politically in service of their religious indoctrination, they become a serious threat to the whole process of secular government. So much for separation of church and state.
Science is far from termilally ill in America. We continue to contribute significantlt to the world's scientific community. We are very polarized. Perhaps 30-40% are anti-science, a similar amount pro-science, and the rest are not paying attention. The problem and battle is over who gets the opportunity to set governmental and other institutional policies: scientists, those listening to the science, or the enemies of science.
My personal thread of hope I cling to is that fundamentalism as a preportion of the citizenry is on the decline and already is a minority. My alarm comes in witnessing over the past few decades just how extreme, unethical, dishonest, and even brutal "God's people" have shown themselves willing to be for their goal of seizing and clinging to power that, numerically, they have no democratic right to. How meek and mild and Christlike they are(n't!) Way to turn that other cheek, Xtians!
Hm-mm, did my listening to 25 minutes of that make me any smarter?
I heard no one say, “If they do X, I won’t have a paying job.”
Will listening to this make you smarter? Maybe that depends on your definition of smarter. Maybe that depends largely on you and how you process what you listen to.
I confess you lost me as to how having a paying job relates directly to intelligence.
@MikeInBatonRouge In algebra, an X represents something else.
Although a climate change remedy didn’t cost me a paying job, my X represented a climate change remedy. Were any of the speakers concerned that a remedy may put him out of a paying job? If so, his saying so might have persuaded me to listen more closely.
@yvilletom Oh, so your perspective is that personal economics definition deserves to be the determining factor in whether anyone listens to scientific recommendations for public policy? Okay, in that light your comment makes sense to me. I agree; individually we DO have to be concerned for how we survive economically.
However, from a public policy standpoint, the climate science has already shown resoundingly that to ignore the climate change disaster will not only be environmentally disastrous, but also economically devestating, and in fact it already has begun to be in huge ways. Policy makers need to have a heart and seriously prioritize social safety nets for people as part and parcel of addressing climate threats. But to simply ignore the science, because we are afraid of the unknown if we upset the status quo, is woefully near-sighted.
@Fernapple Thanks for your concern. I heard mentions of money but did not hear it described as a benefit anyone had lost. I have done many hours of public speaking and am always explicit about benefits and costs, even repeating my mentions of them. If you will identify the specific economic impact, I will know you’re not gaslighting me.
@yvilletom The speaker Margaret Atwood, plainly states, within that bracket, refering to the subject of paying jobs. Which you may recall was your original question, not "economic impact" by the way.
"And that can get very entrenched until people see that by trying to solve the problem, jobs can be created and money can be made. And that will be the tipping point in public consciousness in this country. Other countries are already there."