follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Why can't we all get along on climate change? (Science of Science Communication course, session 4) | Main | "Tragedy of the Science-Communication Commons" (lecture summary, slides) »

Much scarier than nanotechnology, part 2

And you thought you'd already seen the worst of it ...


And yes, I get your point now...

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

Haha it's funny to me how people are quick to call something a threat which endangers some aspect of the planet without looking at a bird's eye view (pun intended in this cats killing birds case). I mean, environmental nazi's are screaming cats destroy the wild life and bla bla. Meanwhile, in nature, the smallest fish gets eaten by the small fish, the small fish gets eaten by the medium sized fish, the medium by the large, and so on. It's a food chain. Different species balance things out so no one species (except for humans) becomes a plague. So, the real question that should be asked isn't "should we feel guilty about yet another aspect of our lives which destroys the planet because us humans are sooooo bad for everything and everyone" but... "do cats keep the species they prey on in check or have cats themselves become a plague to the extend of them threatening the survival of other species?"

June 25, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterAaron Claeys

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>