Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 17:12:54 BST

  • Next message: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)"

    Hi David,

    You said: "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."

    Andy: You have said a lot here that I don't disagree with at all, but it
    completely misses the point. I mean COMPLETELY. I was only addressing the
    suggestion I think you made that the current paradigm in biology--mainly,
    neo-Darwinism--is somehow lead by funding. I am trying not to laugh, because I
    can tell you take yourself VERY seriously. But where did the above come from?
    What neurons were firing to produce that?

    You also said: "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."

    Andy: And you shouldn't. I am not asking you to. All I am asking is why should
    anyone in the biological community take you seriosly? What are you really
    offering them. ABSOLUTELY, nothing.

    Thanks,
    Andy

    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 - 17:14:05 BST