GENTECH archive


Re: scientists archive 624

Hi Rick,

Happy to have you back. Even if (mainly if ?) I disagree with you, I
appreciate when you make understandable posts (not always the case).

I admit I was not clear enough.
You wrote :
>for a despotic national leader somewhere
I made it clear that I do not condemn multinationals. So, I surely
would not have used your words for a multinational.
I wrote, in post 48 :
"It's their rule to earn more and more 
money. It would be unfair to make such a reproch [of earning money].".
And the totalitarism that I foresee (different from the ones we knew),
will not come from the states.

All what I condemn is the evolution of firms that increase their power,
in such a way that the persons at the bottom cannot follow. Even the
states do not increase their power as much. It leads us to
an increase of the ratio between the strongest and the weakest. This measures,
to my mind, the error of our societies.

You wrote also :
"all scientists accept limits to their power".
I'm dead sure that the scientists who work with a firm accept limits.
I am sure also that scientists accept _some_ limits.
Notice that your claim of "ALL scientists" is very risky. I have
counter examples

When I wrote :
"But in the same time, they refuse to be limited in their own power",
I was partly wrong, because I meant  that they,  IN THEIR GLOBALITY,
refuse to have their job limited by anyone else than them or their peers.

Indeed, there exists some major scientists cannot imagine having
the(ir) research limited !!
I think it proves that your sentence is false.

It's natural that they love what they do, and that they want to have
more postdocs, allowances, ... but, why should we hear only their
_corporatist_ opinion ?

More interesting, you wrote :
>The overwhelming majority, even in genetic
>engineering, would be amused to read that you thought we had any real
Do not you see that you are giving to me an argument : If you do not have
any real power, then you must be utilized...

One could say that you do not have any idea of the goals of those who
have the power. I think it is a philosophical error :
The newity of our societies is that NO PHYSICAL BODY has the power. It
is from the interaction of the moral bodies (firms) that emerges something
that some guys want to interpret and call the power. But it does not make sense.
These moral bodies do not have emotive or reasonnable thougths.

Moreover let me remind you that you remain responsible of your acts,
even if you only obey, even if you have no power. In the french\
constitution, the duty of disobedience is inscribed. Even if french did
not use it enough.

On your post : 
>at least the original Jurassic Park is impossible.
and you give the argument :
>DNA from insects
>in amber was actually modern contamination.
Not a proof. You accustomed me to better argumentation. ;))

Best wishes to all from the christian calendar.