←back to thread

EPA says it will eliminate its scientific research arm

(www.nytimes.com)
261 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 23:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
globalview ◴[19 Jul 25 00:46 UTC] No.44611487[source]▶
A lot of comments are rightfully pointing out the destructive nature of this move. But looking at it from another angle, is it possible this is a symptom of a deeper problem?

What if a significant portion of the electorate no longer believes institutions like the EPA are neutral arbiters of science, but instead see them as political actors pushing an agenda? If that belief is widespread, is an action like this seen not as 'destruction', but as 'dismantling a biased system', even if it seems counterproductive to the rest of us?

replies(7): >>44611499 #>>44611551 #>>44611557 #>>44611672 #>>44612027 #>>44613535 #>>44614601 #
throwawaymaths ◴[19 Jul 25 00:47 UTC] No.44611499[source]▶
can we imagine no other ways besides the EPA to take care of the environment? if we can't, then it was always a precarious situation.
replies(1): >>44613429 #
ImaCake ◴[19 Jul 25 07:46 UTC] No.44613429[source]▶
Arguably, institutions like the EPA exist to moderate extremes. The EPA simulatenously prevents industry from causing cancer clusters and extinctions while also preventing eco-terrorism. All the science, surveys, and purple prose done by the EPA and consultants is arguably kinda bullshit, but it is very useful bullshit because its a whole lot better than assassinated mining executives and hospitals full of throat cancer victims.
replies(1): >>44616557 #
throwawaymaths ◴[19 Jul 25 15:54 UTC] No.44616557[source]▶
wow. so as our society our only options are "do nothing" or "murder executives". i am sorry for your worldview.
replies(2): >>44617836 #>>44620552 #
1. ImaCake ◴[19 Jul 25 23:46 UTC] No.44620552[source]▶
>our only options are "do nothing" or "murder executives".

Well no, we can have some form of mediator institution which arbitrates such debates peacefully. You could also setup a ritualised debate implicitly agreed to by both parties so you could do this without an EPA - this is essentially how humans did things before we invented rationalised nation states.

You should avoid silly personal attacks, you might get better responses from people.