Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconblamethe1st: More from BlameThe1st


Featured in Collections

Libertarian by MyNameIsArchie

Journals by DFdirector




Details

Submitted on
August 29, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,489
Favourites
8 (who?)
Comments
96
×
I haven't exactly followed the internet cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson, but if this tweet is any indicator, then the guy isn't quite the super genius others portray him to be:

I don't know why they call it social science. It's simple: eliminate the rich. There, I've solved the biggest problems in social science. Try doing some real science sometime.
He doesn't even try to sugarcoat his sentiments! He doesn't say "tax the rich" or "force the rich to pay their fair share." He outright says "eliminate the rich." (And I can only assume by guillotine!)

If this guy were truly the genius his followers claim he is, then he could have easily spotted the glaring flaw in his logic: if you "eliminate" the  richest people (the richest one percent, I assume), that just make the next people down the rich. You haven't eliminated the rich. You've only changed who the rich is.

The only way to eliminate "the rich" is to reduce humanity to one person. As long as you have more than one person, and someone else has more wealth than the other, you will always have someone who is rich.

This is why I can never take wealth redistribution seriously, whether it cloaks itself as communism, socialism, or welfarism: it's completely utopian! You cannot realistically solve the world's problems by attacking the rich and trying to make everyone equal. You will always fail. It would be ideal if everyone had equal wealth. That sounds nice on paper. But it only works on paper. It can never work in practice because it ignores human nature. You cannot attempt to help human beings while ignoring human nature.

Ignoring nature in any form is anti-science, which in turn makes Mr. Tyson ironically anti-science, despite being the scientist he is.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconthat90sguy:
That90sGuy Featured By Owner Sep 24, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the men I look up to. I consider him to be an intelligent man(who's very existence proves intelligent design, otherwise Dr. Tyson would not exist, because evolution cannot make a man that badass). Ultimately, I wish to shake his hand.

But he is as much a social scientist as I am an astrophysicist! And I want to be one myself because of him!
Reply
:iconthat90sguy:
That90sGuy Featured By Owner Sep 24, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
The fuck? How'd this get down here?
Reply
:iconmulliganator:
mulliganator Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Many of the issues in social science stem from inequalities in "class"-- divided into wealth, power, and prestige. You can gain the other two easily with wealth. People with wealth have total power over 1) What society is taught in school, media, and elsewhere 2) What people believe as a result of that (including the mindset that supports their oppression) and 3) means of production in the US and elsewhere.

If wealth is redistributed so that it cannot be exchanged for power, no one should have the power to push society into a mindset that perpetuates our biggest issues in society-- the exact issues sociologists study.
Reply
:iconmulliganator:
mulliganator Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"if you "eliminate" the  richest people (the richest one percent, I assume), that just make the next people down the rich" 
He didn't mean literally eliminate them. He meant eliminating the richness from them and the system that profits them more than any human could ever need. If you redistribute resources and wealth in a relatively equal way, there will be those who have more money, but "rich" would have much less meaning and would not compare to the rich today.

To say that "handing down" the money would make other rich people would require that the money be distributed to a small amount of people. But if you support a greater population with the money, the wealth would be too "diluted" to make any one person rich. It would simply increase the quality of life for those oppressed by capitalism.
Reply
:iconthe-laughing-rabbit:
The-Laughing-Rabbit Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The date says June 31st. there is no June 31st.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
"If you "eliminate" the  richest people (the richest one percent, I assume), that just make the next people down the rich. You haven't eliminated the rich. You've only changed who the rich is."

I'm constantly explaining this to social democrats!!
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Really? Because it seems like a sentiment you would easily agree with.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2013
Not at all. Far be it from me to support populist cries of "get rid of the richest". I oppose the concept of wealth/poverty. If you remove the richest under capitalism, the next richest people will simply become the richest: The form of inequality is still identical. This is why fundamental inequalities cannot be removed in a capitalist framework ie by social democrats.
Reply
:iconmaurisaeth:
Maurisaeth Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013
Tyson's quote that "science is true, whether you believe in it or not" is nauseating. I'd much rather think of science as a method of inquiry rather than a worldview in and of itself.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
If noone believed in science, in what sense would it be true? It just becomes a meaningless dogma to say so! Belief is the primary component in truth!
Reply
Add a Comment: