Kathryn wrote:
>Don't see what understanding has to do with domination but obviously
>the more I understand about the workings of the world the better I
>can interract with it
Yes, the difference between domination of nature and forming
a partnership is a fuzzy line. One clear example of science
not being interested in nature might be the current topic
in the US congress. Here is a news snippet:
While the media and some in Congress question the
appointments of Ashcroft, Chavez, and Norton, the move
toward Star Wars and the expenditure of over $100 billion
to get there is not open for public discussion. The
creation of a new arms race in space and the U.S.
violation of the ABM and Outer Space Treaties seems to be
an insignificant issue to the corporate controlled media.
I don't think military spending is remotely connected with helping
diversity or nature. It almost always results in destruction and
consumes vast amounts of resources. We could feed most of the
world and convert much of the world to solar energy for the
same amount of money.
Another example closer to home might be gene splicing that
is primarily driven by the profit motive. This may increase
diversity but it gobbles resources and may peril the existing
ecology. A better example might be marketing research. We
allocate huge amounts of resource to this endeavor and indirectly
the environment suffers.
Here are some curious quotes related to science:
Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at
science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?
--Kelvin Throop, III
Reality is for people who can't face science fiction.
THE GOLDEN RULE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES. The one who has the
gold makes the rules.
Science is true. Don't be misled by facts.
jeff
