skip to Main Content

America’s Science Decline – Neil deGrasse Tyson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXIR9ve0JU0

Via

Dieser Beitrag hat 183 Kommentare
  1. @WereTiggy It’s not a great situation but it“s not as bad as it seems for Canada. Our population is very small compared to our land area so the relative size of the maps are a little skewed. The amount of science we’re doing isn’t very high, but the quality of science research is very high. Many landmark studies and programs take place in Canada.

  2. Those charts are ridiculously flawed as everyone here has pointed out. But people dig colourful bullshit like this so they’re not gonna question it

  3. @halavais its nice to have an upbeat outlook, but advances in science also mean patents and commercialization of scientific findings… we’ll likely end up needing/forced to buy from whoever does the most (useful) science.

  4. @SlothsILike absolutely… even if it were based on e.g. per capita, the netherlands would come out a head of densly populated nigeria, mexico, etc (maybe even india). one should wonder though is „why“ europe/east asia is bigger than say s. america, africa…. racism? poverty?.. iq??…

  5. @yurianne07 Denial of facts and high levels of religiosity go hand in hand. To hold religious beliefs you need to either be A) unintelligent B) uneducated C) highly compartmentalised in your understanding of the world around you and the application of logic and the scientific process.

  6. @yurianne07 Denial of facts and high levels of religiosity go hand in hand. To hold religious beliefs you need to either be A) unintelligent B) uneducated C) highly compartmentalised in your understanding of the world around you and the application of logic and the scientific process.

  7. Okey, I may be Swedish and drunk, but I repeat myself… But what if you guys in the USA scrapped one aircraft carrier and used that money for science stuff instead?

  8. Okey, I may be Swedish and drunk, but I repeat myself… But what if you guys in the USA scrapped one aircraft carrier and used that money for science stuff instead?

  9. Okey, I may be Swedish and drunk, but I repeat myself… But what if you guys in the USA scrapped one aircraft carrier and used that money for science stuff instead?

  10. Okey, I may be Swedish and drunk, but I repeat myself… But what if you guys in the USA scrapped one aircraft carrier and used that money for science stuff instead?

  11. @Ryantron9000 In the US, the National Academy of Sciences has ~7% of members that believe in some kind of ‚god‘. In the Royal Society of fellows that figure is 3.3%.

    One example that illustrates how cognitive style (i.e. hurr durr i have faith vs critical thinking) affects religiosity is:

    h t t p :// tinyurl . com /728 ytfq

  12. @Ryantron9000 In the US, the National Academy of Sciences has ~7% of members that believe in some kind of ‚god‘. In the Royal Society of fellows that figure is 3.3%.

    One example that illustrates how cognitive style (i.e. hurr durr i have faith vs critical thinking) affects religiosity is:

    h t t p :// tinyurl . com /728 ytfq

  13. @Ryantron9000 In the US, the National Academy of Sciences has ~7% of members that believe in some kind of ‚god‘. In the Royal Society of fellows that figure is 3.3%.

    One example that illustrates how cognitive style (i.e. hurr durr i have faith vs critical thinking) affects religiosity is:

    h t t p :// tinyurl . com /728 ytfq

  14. @SupermarketsRevil In addition to empirical evidence demonstrating an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence, it is entirely possible to draw conclusions about the mindset of religious people simply from a philosophical perspective.

    Q. Are theists rational? Well, what do they believe? That something exists outside of the natural universe? AND they claim to know very specific details of that thing WITHOUT evidence? haha oh wow.

    A. Theists are highly irrational.

  15. @SupermarketsRevil In addition to empirical evidence demonstrating an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence, it is entirely possible to draw conclusions about the mindset of religious people simply from a philosophical perspective.

    Q. Are theists rational? Well, what do they believe? That something exists outside of the natural universe? AND they claim to know very specific details of that thing WITHOUT evidence? haha oh wow.

    A. Theists are highly irrational.

  16. @SupermarketsRevil In addition to empirical evidence demonstrating an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence, it is entirely possible to draw conclusions about the mindset of religious people simply from a philosophical perspective.

    Q. Are theists rational? Well, what do they believe? That something exists outside of the natural universe? AND they claim to know very specific details of that thing WITHOUT evidence? haha oh wow.

    A. Theists are highly irrational.

  17. @SupermarketsRevil In addition to empirical evidence demonstrating an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence, it is entirely possible to draw conclusions about the mindset of religious people simply from a philosophical perspective.

    Q. Are theists rational? Well, what do they believe? That something exists outside of the natural universe? AND they claim to know very specific details of that thing WITHOUT evidence? haha oh wow.

    A. Theists are highly irrational.

  18. @SupermarketsRevil In addition to empirical evidence demonstrating an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence, it is entirely possible to draw conclusions about the mindset of religious people simply from a philosophical perspective.

    Q. Are theists rational? Well, what do they believe? That something exists outside of the natural universe? AND they claim to know very specific details of that thing WITHOUT evidence? haha oh wow.

    A. Theists are highly irrational.

  19. @SupermarketsRevil In addition to empirical evidence demonstrating an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence, it is entirely possible to draw conclusions about the mindset of religious people simply from a philosophical perspective.

    Q. Are theists rational? Well, what do they believe? That something exists outside of the natural universe? AND they claim to know very specific details of that thing WITHOUT evidence? haha oh wow.

    A. Theists are highly irrational.

  20. @SupermarketsRevil hahahahahaha why do you have to use so many filler words to get your point across. you are not convincing anyone you are smart. btw you just replied to yourself

  21. @SupermarketsRevil hahahahahaha why do you have to use so many filler words to get your point across. you are not convincing anyone you are smart. btw you just replied to yourself

  22. @SupermarketsRevil hahahahahaha why do you have to use so many filler words to get your point across. you are not convincing anyone you are smart. btw you just replied to yourself

  23. @SupermarketsRevil hahahahahaha why do you have to use so many filler words to get your point across. you are not convincing anyone you are smart. btw you just replied to yourself

  24. @SupermarketsRevil hahahahahaha why do you have to use so many filler words to get your point across. you are not convincing anyone you are smart. btw you just replied to yourself

  25. @SupermarketsRevil hahahahahaha why do you have to use so many filler words to get your point across. you are not convincing anyone you are smart. btw you just replied to yourself

  26. @SupermarketsRevil hahahahahaha why do you have to use so many filler words to get your point across. you are not convincing anyone you are smart. btw you just replied to yourself

  27. @SupermarketsRevil hahahahahaha why do you have to use so many filler words to get your point across. you are not convincing anyone you are smart. btw you just replied to yourself

  28. @lnclincoln yar gota hate dem dar smarty paents ppl dat use too many words thikn dey so smat

    Clearly you are not familiar with the logical fallacy ‚ad hominem‘, not to mention the fact that you failed to address the body of my argument.

    Very impressive.Now go back to your NASCAR

  29. @lnclincoln yar gota hate dem dar smarty paents ppl dat use too many words thikn dey so smat

    Clearly you are not familiar with the logical fallacy ‚ad hominem‘, not to mention the fact that you failed to address the body of my argument.

    Very impressive.Now go back to your NASCAR

  30. @lnclincoln yar gota hate dem dar smarty paents ppl dat use too many words thikn dey so smat

    Clearly you are not familiar with the logical fallacy ‚ad hominem‘, not to mention the fact that you failed to address the body of my argument.

    Very impressive.Now go back to your NASCAR

  31. @lnclincoln yar gota hate dem dar smarty paents ppl dat use too many words thikn dey so smat

    Clearly you are not familiar with the logical fallacy ‚ad hominem‘, not to mention the fact that you failed to address the body of my argument.

    Very impressive.Now go back to your NASCAR

  32. @lnclincoln yar gota hate dem dar smarty paents ppl dat use too many words thikn dey so smat

    Clearly you are not familiar with the logical fallacy ‚ad hominem‘, not to mention the fact that you failed to address the body of my argument.

    Very impressive.Now go back to your NASCAR

  33. @lnclincoln yar gota hate dem dar smarty paents ppl dat use too many words thikn dey so smat

    Clearly you are not familiar with the logical fallacy ‚ad hominem‘, not to mention the fact that you failed to address the body of my argument.

    Very impressive.Now go back to your NASCAR

  34. @lnclincoln yar gota hate dem dar smarty paents ppl dat use too many words thikn dey so smat

    Clearly you are not familiar with the logical fallacy ‚ad hominem‘, not to mention the fact that you failed to address the body of my argument.

    Very impressive.Now go back to your NASCAR

  35. @lnclincoln yar gota hate dem dar smarty paents ppl dat use too many words thikn dey so smat

    Clearly you are not familiar with the logical fallacy ‚ad hominem‘, not to mention the fact that you failed to address the body of my argument.

    Very impressive.Now go back to your NASCAR

  36. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  37. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  38. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  39. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  40. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  41. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  42. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  43. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  44. @SupermarketsRevil first of all you replied to yourself and are arguing with yourself, i just noticed that you use alot of filler words to make you sound smarter than you actually are.

    you could have just told the guy believing in god is bullshit and a waste of time

  45. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  46. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  47. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  48. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  49. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  50. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  51. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  52. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  53. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  54. @lnclincoln „first of all you replied to yourself“– It was a continuation of the same discussion. As long as the comment is there to be read, which is obviously is, what difference does it make?

    „i just noticed that you use alot of filler words“–Define ‚filler words‘ and then explain how verbosity supposedly detracts from the merit of my argument.

    Rather hypocritical that you denounce verbosity as a waste of time, and yet you waste time with such inane interjections

  55. @CBMaster2 you’re stupid, science is key to development whether it’d be technological or medical or what not. Don’t matter how big a population is if they are getting out done in all those aspects of science because I say again, science is key to development. Think about what you write before you say something CBMaster2 or shall I say CockBlockingMaster2

  56. @CBMaster2 you’re stupid, science is key to development whether it’d be technological or medical or what not. Don’t matter how big a population is if they are getting out done in all those aspects of science because I say again, science is key to development. Think about what you write before you say something CBMaster2 or shall I say CockBlockingMaster2

  57. @CBMaster2 you’re stupid, science is key to development whether it’d be technological or medical or what not. Don’t matter how big a population is if they are getting out done in all those aspects of science because I say again, science is key to development. Think about what you write before you say something CBMaster2 or shall I say CockBlockingMaster2

  58. @CBMaster2 you’re stupid, science is key to development whether it’d be technological or medical or what not. Don’t matter how big a population is if they are getting out done in all those aspects of science because I say again, science is key to development. Think about what you write before you say something CBMaster2 or shall I say CockBlockingMaster2

  59. @CBMaster2 you’re stupid, science is key to development whether it’d be technological or medical or what not. Don’t matter how big a population is if they are getting out done in all those aspects of science because I say again, science is key to development. Think about what you write before you say something CBMaster2 or shall I say CockBlockingMaster2

  60. @CBMaster2 you’re stupid, science is key to development whether it’d be technological or medical or what not. Don’t matter how big a population is if they are getting out done in all those aspects of science because I say again, science is key to development. Think about what you write before you say something CBMaster2 or shall I say CockBlockingMaster2

  61. @CBMaster2 you’re stupid, science is key to development whether it’d be technological or medical or what not. Don’t matter how big a population is if they are getting out done in all those aspects of science because I say again, science is key to development. Think about what you write before you say something CBMaster2 or shall I say CockBlockingMaster2

  62. @GoldenChokohate Dude, you are stupid. All I said is if a country is really big (like Canada, Autralia, etc.) with only 3000 people and every person has multiple PHDs in science fields, the country will still appear small on neil’s map, simply because his map compares the size of the country vs people in the country that does science. It should be number of people in the country vs people in the country that does science…

  63. @GoldenChokohate Dude, you are stupid. All I said is if a country is really big (like Canada, Autralia, etc.) with only 3000 people and every person has multiple PHDs in science fields, the country will still appear small on neil’s map, simply because his map compares the size of the country vs people in the country that does science. It should be number of people in the country vs people in the country that does science…

  64. @GoldenChokohate Dude, you are stupid. All I said is if a country is really big (like Canada, Autralia, etc.) with only 3000 people and every person has multiple PHDs in science fields, the country will still appear small on neil’s map, simply because his map compares the size of the country vs people in the country that does science. It should be number of people in the country vs people in the country that does science…

  65. @GoldenChokohate Dude, you are stupid. All I said is if a country is really big (like Canada, Autralia, etc.) with only 3000 people and every person has multiple PHDs in science fields, the country will still appear small on neil’s map, simply because his map compares the size of the country vs people in the country that does science. It should be number of people in the country vs people in the country that does science…

  66. @GoldenChokohate Dude, you are stupid. All I said is if a country is really big (like Canada, Autralia, etc.) with only 3000 people and every person has multiple PHDs in science fields, the country will still appear small on neil’s map, simply because his map compares the size of the country vs people in the country that does science. It should be number of people in the country vs people in the country that does science…

  67. @GoldenChokohate Dude, you are stupid. All I said is if a country is really big (like Canada, Autralia, etc.) with only 3000 people and every person has multiple PHDs in science fields, the country will still appear small on neil’s map, simply because his map compares the size of the country vs people in the country that does science. It should be number of people in the country vs people in the country that does science…

  68. @GoldenChokohate Dude, you are stupid. All I said is if a country is really big (like Canada, Autralia, etc.) with only 3000 people and every person has multiple PHDs in science fields, the country will still appear small on neil’s map, simply because his map compares the size of the country vs people in the country that does science. It should be number of people in the country vs people in the country that does science…

  69. @GoldenChokohate Dude, you are stupid. All I said is if a country is really big (like Canada, Autralia, etc.) with only 3000 people and every person has multiple PHDs in science fields, the country will still appear small on neil’s map, simply because his map compares the size of the country vs people in the country that does science. It should be number of people in the country vs people in the country that does science…

  70. Yeah, this was posted on my birthday!!!
    But in all seriousness, the US seems to be losing its role as the technological, scientific, economic, and political powerhouse of the world. We’re just a military empire now. Kudos to Western Europe and Japan! Hopefully, I can contribute to these statistics, though I’m most likely to move to Europe for a few years, so I guess I won’t be contributing much to my fellow Americans, unfortunately.

  71. Yeah, this was posted on my birthday!!!
    But in all seriousness, the US seems to be losing its role as the technological, scientific, economic, and political powerhouse of the world. We’re just a military empire now. Kudos to Western Europe and Japan! Hopefully, I can contribute to these statistics, though I’m most likely to move to Europe for a few years, so I guess I won’t be contributing much to my fellow Americans, unfortunately.

  72. Yeah, this was posted on my birthday!!!
    But in all seriousness, the US seems to be losing its role as the technological, scientific, economic, and political powerhouse of the world. We’re just a military empire now. Kudos to Western Europe and Japan! Hopefully, I can contribute to these statistics, though I’m most likely to move to Europe for a few years, so I guess I won’t be contributing much to my fellow Americans, unfortunately.

  73. Yeah, this was posted on my birthday!!!
    But in all seriousness, the US seems to be losing its role as the technological, scientific, economic, and political powerhouse of the world. We’re just a military empire now. Kudos to Western Europe and Japan! Hopefully, I can contribute to these statistics, though I’m most likely to move to Europe for a few years, so I guess I won’t be contributing much to my fellow Americans, unfortunately.

  74. Yeah, this was posted on my birthday!!!
    But in all seriousness, the US seems to be losing its role as the technological, scientific, economic, and political powerhouse of the world. We’re just a military empire now. Kudos to Western Europe and Japan! Hopefully, I can contribute to these statistics, though I’m most likely to move to Europe for a few years, so I guess I won’t be contributing much to my fellow Americans, unfortunately.

  75. Yeah, this was posted on my birthday!!!
    But in all seriousness, the US seems to be losing its role as the technological, scientific, economic, and political powerhouse of the world. We’re just a military empire now. Kudos to Western Europe and Japan! Hopefully, I can contribute to these statistics, though I’m most likely to move to Europe for a few years, so I guess I won’t be contributing much to my fellow Americans, unfortunately.

  76. Yeah, this was posted on my birthday!!!
    But in all seriousness, the US seems to be losing its role as the technological, scientific, economic, and political powerhouse of the world. We’re just a military empire now. Kudos to Western Europe and Japan! Hopefully, I can contribute to these statistics, though I’m most likely to move to Europe for a few years, so I guess I won’t be contributing much to my fellow Americans, unfortunately.

  77. Yeah, this was posted on my birthday!!!
    But in all seriousness, the US seems to be losing its role as the technological, scientific, economic, and political powerhouse of the world. We’re just a military empire now. Kudos to Western Europe and Japan! Hopefully, I can contribute to these statistics, though I’m most likely to move to Europe for a few years, so I guess I won’t be contributing much to my fellow Americans, unfortunately.

  78. consider the degree of outsourcing over the last couple of decades by technology companies like IBM and then ask why this may be happening. Consider the negative influence by religious zealotry on vital areas of study such as stem cell research. It is no wonder why science is abandoning the US in favor of open investments by emerging economies. Stupid Americans.

  79. consider the degree of outsourcing over the last couple of decades by technology companies like IBM and then ask why this may be happening. Consider the negative influence by religious zealotry on vital areas of study such as stem cell research. It is no wonder why science is abandoning the US in favor of open investments by emerging economies. Stupid Americans.

  80. consider the degree of outsourcing over the last couple of decades by technology companies like IBM and then ask why this may be happening. Consider the negative influence by religious zealotry on vital areas of study such as stem cell research. It is no wonder why science is abandoning the US in favor of open investments by emerging economies. Stupid Americans.

  81. consider the degree of outsourcing over the last couple of decades by technology companies like IBM and then ask why this may be happening. Consider the negative influence by religious zealotry on vital areas of study such as stem cell research. It is no wonder why science is abandoning the US in favor of open investments by emerging economies. Stupid Americans.

  82. consider the degree of outsourcing over the last couple of decades by technology companies like IBM and then ask why this may be happening. Consider the negative influence by religious zealotry on vital areas of study such as stem cell research. It is no wonder why science is abandoning the US in favor of open investments by emerging economies. Stupid Americans.

  83. consider the degree of outsourcing over the last couple of decades by technology companies like IBM and then ask why this may be happening. Consider the negative influence by religious zealotry on vital areas of study such as stem cell research. It is no wonder why science is abandoning the US in favor of open investments by emerging economies. Stupid Americans.

  84. consider the degree of outsourcing over the last couple of decades by technology companies like IBM and then ask why this may be happening. Consider the negative influence by religious zealotry on vital areas of study such as stem cell research. It is no wonder why science is abandoning the US in favor of open investments by emerging economies. Stupid Americans.

  85. @Frederiksen78 I hear ya. I don’t mean for people to lose hope or to put America down. It’s just that I’m a firm believer in tough love. So this video should serve as a wake up call, a call to arms, a swift kick in the ass.

  86. @Frederiksen78 I hear ya. I don’t mean for people to lose hope or to put America down. It’s just that I’m a firm believer in tough love. So this video should serve as a wake up call, a call to arms, a swift kick in the ass.

  87. @Frederiksen78 I hear ya. I don’t mean for people to lose hope or to put America down. It’s just that I’m a firm believer in tough love. So this video should serve as a wake up call, a call to arms, a swift kick in the ass.

  88. @Frederiksen78 I hear ya. I don’t mean for people to lose hope or to put America down. It’s just that I’m a firm believer in tough love. So this video should serve as a wake up call, a call to arms, a swift kick in the ass.

  89. @Frederiksen78 I hear ya. I don’t mean for people to lose hope or to put America down. It’s just that I’m a firm believer in tough love. So this video should serve as a wake up call, a call to arms, a swift kick in the ass.

  90. @Frederiksen78 I hear ya. I don’t mean for people to lose hope or to put America down. It’s just that I’m a firm believer in tough love. So this video should serve as a wake up call, a call to arms, a swift kick in the ass.

  91. America’s far too busy instructing Africa on how to properly persecute witches while simultaneously worshiping Israel’s magic mountain to do science. The country is creeping to 16 Trillion debt too; halfway there. Thanks Palin; and those before you. Go with „god“; to a land far away, please.

  92. Interesting how he fails to mention that countries like China are simply catching up. Trends don’t usually last and since China had nearly no scientific development a couple decades ago, this isn’t all too troubling unless it continues for a good while.

  93. You see how the first sentence contradicts the last? You don’t say „always“ then give an exception. Dumb ass.

  94. but Sweden shrinks to nothing! that big pink blob in the top left of Europe is great Britain no? look at its position relative to Germany and France. But if you really meant proud to be part of Europe then i’m right with you on that

  95. did you read the comment i was replying to? china has always been the leader in science and technology. Europeans have only been out of the dark ages a couple of centuries.

  96. What about quality of research. Just because some countries are churning out so called research doesn’t mean that it’s of any great quality.

  97. The fact that USA didn’t increase as much in the last decade does NOT mean USA doesn’t still have excellent quantity and quality researchers. It could just mean that the rest of the world is catching up.

  98. Even though this is a hard wake-up call, most americans will not wake up from their American Dream/Fantasy…

    This is because only few of them are aware of how important science really is in the development of the standard of living, in their country and elsewhere…

    This in term comes from the science v religion debate, and when you challenge someone“s faith, they shut you out faster than you can say „but look at this!“

  99. You clearly didn’t understand it at all. The map shows that for example Europe (which was huge in the beginning (at least the size of the US) and still is huge on the second map while the US has shrunk conciderably. So ‚The rest of the world catching up‘ doesn’t fly here. It clearly shows the amount of scientific research in the US is declining unlike Europe.

  100. When it’s peer reviewed you can be sure it’s quality science because the entire global scientific community has reviewed it. The US is shrinking from being a scientific powerhouse to be a relative nothing in comparison to Europe, Japan and China.

    The signs are all there for even the layman to see. For the first time in history the worlds most powerful atom smasher is not in the US, it’s in Europe and you will find that all the top US scientists will move there.

  101. Damn living in such a small country as The Netherlands i’m really pleased to see how visible we are on this map. Didn’t expect that.

  102. Well the internet, invented by an Englishman but all American from then on.

    And space science – pretty much invented that. We may have discovered the genome, but after that – mostly America.

    As a small country we punch well above our weight in the sciences, I’m proud of that. And America has far more than it’s fair share of bone headed idiots, not to mention rather a lot of crazy religious buffoons. But let’s keep it real, the US is number one in science…

  103. The USA benefit from their top notch universities (so does the UK) and their still functioning system to integrate well educated immigrants of all colours and creeds. I dare say that many of the American Nobel price laureates for physics and chemistry were not born in the US and virtually all of them do not believe in invisible pink unicorns.

    Anyway, according to this video, things are changing. Apollo 11 was 1969, the internet was conceived in the 70 and iPhones are built in China.

Kommentare sind geschlossen.

Back To Top