> 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