GENTECH archive


Re: scientist / master conductor

Dear Robert,

>When there exist one billion hungry bellies, the priorities of those
>starving people are that they receive 365 billion dollars so that they
>might eat a daily lunch and then fertilize a barren planet.

Too simple. Should you give what to eat to the number of persons who
are actually starving, you would have more persons. Sorry to be crude,
but I prefer things to be said, even if I regret things to be as they are.
Even if it is cynical, it is truth.

This proves that the problem is not only to feed. But also to educate.
It is even deeper : do we HAVE to educate to population limitations ?
And the usual american way of seing things (notice the order) :
1) feeding the world
2) educating
3) make them consumers

is stupid. Why do you think everybody should want to be consumers ?
Is there only one model of life in the world ?
Of course, it should be the one of the USA ... I reject it.
Why do you think so many enterprises want to promote this ?
just to have more clients. And GMO are a good way of achieving
the very first point ... and the third.

So you are promoting this system ?

I do not trust it.

>How can we
>justify financing the means to cure society's ills?  Without the profit
>motive, who would then perform the research?

Isn'it the goal of states, and definitely not the one of firms ?
I am not reproching anything to firms. It's their rule to earn more and more 
money. It would be unfair to make such a reproch. But ,again, it is not
their goal.

Moreover, I already analyzed the reasonnement. Each point could look obvious,
but the overall reasonnement is false. Where's the bug ?
0) We all need progress
1) progress needs research and newity (I stress this word)
2) research needs interessement
3) interessement needs free enterprises
4) free entreprises need no governements

... no governement makes no rule except the rule of the strongest.

All this is garbage. Actually, it rests on the philosophical _credo_
very american (and not european nor asiatic), that newity is progress,
and that progress is good.

I do not want to bother people on the list with my own thoughts. So, I stop.

Anyway, I did not say anything very different from what thinks Robert :
I refuse to restrict the goal of Science to be only profit or
productivity. The problem is not to get richer, but to use in a
better way our richness, and to adapt to our wealthes. If the ground can
feed 100 persons, let's try to adapt our population to this fact, when we
know this limit. Do not see this limit as "injustice". Life has always been in
limits and if we want to trangress them, we won't go far.

Let's be more pragmatic and not ideologic.