Patriotic Nylon and Epistemological Rockets

Jim heartfield jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Mon Jan 25 23:44:05 PST 1999


In message <XFMail.990125192726.cgrimes at tsoft.com>, Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at tsoft.com> writes


> What is selected
>to study, what is selected to develop, what direction those choices
>take, and finally how we decide among equal scientific truths, which
>is more important to know, are all determined through the history and
>socio-political context. And of course all that is driven by cash
>flow. Right?

Well, I didn't expect them to be decided by the toss of a coin, or outside of history.


>
>So, for example, why we even have such a thing as rocket science was
>configured in the contexts of nationalism and war. After all rockets
>are basically worthless as a tool for knowledge and barely qualify as
>physical science.

Rockets are worthless as a tool for knowledge? What about communication satellites? Knowledge without the rocket would still be at the telegraphy stage.


>
>But in any case, you can be sure that rockets will veer off toward
>somebody, because that's how they were conceived in the first place,
>and that is what they do best. We can quibble over London or Bagdad.

That's not a problem of the science, but of the politics. After all, the Royal Air Force bombed Baghdad with Phosphorous Bombs before they had rockets, back in the 1920s.


>As for nylon, I am not so sure about the lack of patriotism in nylon
>either.

I'd love to see the patriotism molecule.


> Everything is made with some
>variation of petro-chemical fibers. Where the hell did the goose down
>sleeping bag go?

To hell, where it belongs. -- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list