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

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 21:43:34 BST

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Chance and natural selection"

    Hi David,

    Check the original post. The post you made to the list were in
    response to my earlier post not jonathans. I might be confused (but not that
    confused), but it appeared that way to me. In fact, I am quite sure.
    Absolutely sure.

    Not concerned (with you taking yourself too seriously) really, I was just making
    an observation.

    Regards,
    Andy

    > Hi Andy
    >
    > You seem to have picked up something I said in reply
    > to Jonathan, no wonder you ask where it came from.
    >
    > Can I do serious, maybe, but I have mainly been feeling playful so far. But
    > I do talk a lot. And I very much enjoy
    > a large sweeping discussion. Thanks for the concern
    > but I am quite laid back thanks.
    >
    > DM
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <abahn@comcast.net>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 5:12 PM
    > Subject: 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
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 - 21:45:44 BST