From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 16:05:51 BST
Hi
Sorry but this seems to me naive in turn.
Utility is an abstract term. Our society is structured
to deliver share holder value -not so abstract. Our
societies are spectacularly unequal. Therefore they may well be delivering
increased wealth to a minority at the expense of the majority.
Also what is being delivered may be of value to the present
generation but neglecting the generations who are yet to own any shares
in biotech companies. Hence, eco-disaster is a possibility.
But equally, I am not prepared to just accept without argument
whatever are the current dominant values or views, that would be
a recipe for static stagnation.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> Hi David,
>
> As an economist, I could address this. Not that my training makes me an
expert.
> because there could be other economists who disagree. But, you are
suggesting
> that research funding is dictating the direction of science in the
biological
> community. This is very possible in the short-term. But economic theory
would
> suggest in the long run it would be the utility of an idea --or cash
value--
> that wins out. One hundred and fifty years would certainly qualify as the
long
> run. I am also sure that Sheldrake has had an outside source of funding
for his
> research at some time. Funding is something we should watch, but I think
it is
> a stretch to think that some outside influence has dictated the use of
Darwinism
> in biology over some other theory. Naive, to say the least. The utility,
> usefulness, or cash-value of any idea will ultimately decide which idea
wins in
> a community of researchers.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> > Jonathna
> > Sure, Darwinian research programme is
> > interesting, let it keep going, but I am concerned
> > that not enough people/research funds are thinking
> > out of this box.
> >
> > DM
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:25 AM
> > Subject: RE: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> >
> >
> > > Hi Scott, Andy, Dave M. and all,
> > >
> > > SCOTT said:
> > > I don't know of a single case where one species has been
> > > observed to come into existence due solely to random genetic mutation
and
> > > natural selection. In fact, I doubt that one could ever determine
that:
> > the
> > > doubter could always say, how do you know there were no other factors
> > > involved?
> > >
> > > JONATHAN replies:
> > > Clearly, Scott seems to be under a misconception as to how species
"come
> > > into existence".
> > > The idea that species definitions are inherent in nature though, is
> > > completely wrong. What constitutes a species, and when a "new" species
> > > should be recognised is a decision taken by consensus of the
biological
> > > research community. The biological literature is full of this. I just
did
> > a
> > > search for the keyword "new species" in the PubMed database, and came
up
> > > with over 4000 hits, 177 of them papers published this year (2003).
> > > The fact that genetic mutation and selection occur is indisputable -
both
> > > have been observed and documented.
> > > IMNSHO, this provides a perfectly adequate basis for understanding how
> > > biological diversity arises.
> > >
> > > DAVID M.
> > > No evolution without Darwin this is just bad information,
> > > check your history of science, e.g. A.R.Wallace. There have also been
many
> > > other evolutionary theorists. See Peter Bowler's book on the history
of
> > > evolution. Darwin is only a few
> > > chapters. Sure Darwin is almost the only game in town now, and this is
> > > causing a great stagnation in thinking.
> > >
> > > JONATHAN replies:
> > > According to Occam's razor, Darwin's model is the winning paradigm -
this
> > is
> > > the model that biologists have accepted by consensus, and I know of no
> > > simpler or more persuasive explanation. Rather than "causing a great
> > > stagnation in thinking", the opposite is true - there has been a
> > tremendous
> > > flowering in biology since Darwin, that was boosted enormously by
Watson
> > and
> > > Crick's discovery of a hereditary mechanism. Without the double helix
(or
> > > something similar), Darwin may well have ended up in the scientific
> > dustbin,
> > > but without Darwin, Watson and Crick would have been a mere blip on
the
> > > landscape of structural chemistry.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archives:
> > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > Nov '02 Onward -
> > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 16:09:37 BST