‘Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of college-educated women believe it is more important to prioritize protecting the environment…’
And who have never gone hungry, never had to go without, struggle, live in some grotty, tiny, dank apartment with three or four kids, and unable to find a job.
I am gaining some sympathy with Pol Pot’s idea to drive the educated and intellectuals out of the cities to work in the fields and know what subsistance, hard work and hunger is about.
Re. attitudes about environmental concern and about Trump, I am not surprised, but let us not fall into the trap of saying that men who did not go to college favor the economy over the environment or favor Trump because they are uneducated/ignorant. Rather, those attitude differences arise because those who finished college have been indoctrinated and/or hold the snobbish view that graduates are "experts" because it validates their own choices of affiliation.
Granted, I am biased in that direction, so treat me with skepticism too.
On the attractiveness question, I think there had been a taboo on any man thinking another man was "attractive," even as a matter of aesthetics. When I was younger, I'd never have said or even consciously thought that a man was attractive. Now, I have no problem discussing a man's attractiveness with my wife or anyone. (I find that some resemblance to me is a correlative factor!)
The first question is not well posed. It should be how much discounted future harm are people willing to accept to maintain/increase growth in consumption of non-environmental goods and services. It's not clear that there IS any trade off of GD_P_ and CO2/methane reduction, just a need to shift to investment in a lot of new net CO2 reducing technologies. And certainly it is wrong to ask the question as if environmental investments will mean fewer JOBS. The Fed can hit its inflation-employment targets as well with a tax on net CO2/methane emissions as without one.
‘Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of college-educated women believe it is more important to prioritize protecting the environment…’
And who have never gone hungry, never had to go without, struggle, live in some grotty, tiny, dank apartment with three or four kids, and unable to find a job.
I am gaining some sympathy with Pol Pot’s idea to drive the educated and intellectuals out of the cities to work in the fields and know what subsistance, hard work and hunger is about.
> Nearly half (47 percent) of men report that they think about sex most days or every day.
This seems drastically low. Throws the whole study into question!
Re. attitudes about environmental concern and about Trump, I am not surprised, but let us not fall into the trap of saying that men who did not go to college favor the economy over the environment or favor Trump because they are uneducated/ignorant. Rather, those attitude differences arise because those who finished college have been indoctrinated and/or hold the snobbish view that graduates are "experts" because it validates their own choices of affiliation.
Granted, I am biased in that direction, so treat me with skepticism too.
On the attractiveness question, I think there had been a taboo on any man thinking another man was "attractive," even as a matter of aesthetics. When I was younger, I'd never have said or even consciously thought that a man was attractive. Now, I have no problem discussing a man's attractiveness with my wife or anyone. (I find that some resemblance to me is a correlative factor!)
I don't see how evolutionary psychology has any implications for the reported changes in hetero-gender attraction.
The first question is not well posed. It should be how much discounted future harm are people willing to accept to maintain/increase growth in consumption of non-environmental goods and services. It's not clear that there IS any trade off of GD_P_ and CO2/methane reduction, just a need to shift to investment in a lot of new net CO2 reducing technologies. And certainly it is wrong to ask the question as if environmental investments will mean fewer JOBS. The Fed can hit its inflation-employment targets as well with a tax on net CO2/methane emissions as without one.