This is the root of the questions that I have with Barry on that "What happens when Citizens lose faith" thread. If you are to truly have a modern advanced society do you not need a theoretical basis for the systems of culture? Do you not also need to know the purpose of each of those systems and how to design better, more humane, more efficient systems as planning for your future?
All cultural systems, seem to be, flawed in some major ways. The big flaw is that a society based on any one of them tends to act like a cancer in the body and eliminate and mess up the rest of the systems. Look at Religion and Science today. The scientists are fighting a battle with the metaphysics of their own brain and have little to nothing to do with the religion of the theologians that I studied with in Presbyterian College who essentially were Scots from Saint Andrews in Scotland. They were tough scholars and had no issues with scientific theory. But the scientists don't go to people like them to explore religion and the religious system in humanity. Instead the scientists go to the "preachers on the street" who are authority freaks and who believe nonsense about thousands of year old books and have no real understanding of semiotics and the problems of translation. In short they like to pick on people who are the equivalent of me asking physics majors from Ivy League Schools now CEOS for major corporations about the place of theoretical science in the market. They may be smart people with big responsibilities but their specialties and life experiences make them inadequate to understand the necessities of things like Environmentally testing Genetically modified plants or acting like a Doctor testing an experimental drug on himself because he hurts and wants to be healed first. They also have problems that makes it impossible for them to seriously plot environmental consequences down to the seventh generation. Consider that dam in China as an example of a colossal enginering success and failure at the same time. We rarely plot the implications of large scale systems before we put them into effect. Look at today's Congress or the handling of Nuclear Power where we are all the guinea pigs for a severely compromised private sector. Business and morality are polar opposites. Considering the mass experimentation on military personnel by the research scientists in the 19th and 20th centuries as well as helpless minorities and hapless animal species who share systems with us, one could make the case for science being amoral as well. There has been so little serious research and education into the roots of morality, and how the human has handled it, that we are currently at the mercy of amateurs both in business and science when it concerns morality. Neither business nor science has been very successful at finding the reasons for the purposes of Artistic Systems in human development and culture; and although both Science and Business are under the super structure of education, both science and business treats teachers and the design of the education system like poor trailer trash. But it is the religion cultural system that is assigned the worst treatment of all and business has decided that its sole purpose is as the opiate of the masses so that they can be manipulated strategically. In that case, the best religion is a mega-church under a single individual with only tentative connections to other churches. It's easier to handle "local" strategically than the Catholic Hierarchy or their Systematic Theologians who are some of the toughest warriors I've encountered. Business and economic science has recently begun to tear into the science part of public health because of its costs. What does this resemble most? My friend who was a wonderful human being whose cancer was inoperable because his heart was too damaged by the chemistry of his work before he retired and whose funeral is tomorrow. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D and N Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:15 PM To: Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] GM foods - the US experiment As a follow-up to the last post (by Darryl). Keith, your blindness re: corporations and your comments from a personal and obviously uninformed POV once again astound me. Genetic mutilation is insanity. The only underlying design I can understand from the effects of this 'science ' is to gain total control over the ownership of all foods worldwide. Economics (profit, profit, profit) is a 'Farengy' (read more Sci. Fi.) attitude which has now developed into full-blown warfare against the future of humanity in this realm of reality. Darryl On 8/8/2011 6:14 AM, Keith Hudson wrote: Barry, At 13:09 08/08/2011, you wrote: You may want to look at some of the information at http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genet ic_engineering/impacts-of-genetic.html I'm afraid that I'd take no notice of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Worthy though it seems, attractive though its website is, there isn't a single scientist mentioned as a patron or a researcher or a member. Is that not a teeny weeny bit odd? As I wrote before on this thread to Mike, there are thousands of scientists who work outside the GM industries and whose career depends not one little bit on whatever they might say about GM food who would have something to say (and would be prepared to give their name to) if there was any specific danger that is presently conceivable. Keith Barry Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/08/ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
