[lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn on India: wrong? (was, U.N. seeks aid...)

[ravi]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> uvj at vsnl.com quoted:
> 
>> One thing I will say, we must not become anti-science. It will only
>>  put us backward. So, you must have the power to discriminate,
>> analyse to find what is good for us. We must not say,
>> bio-technology is good or bio-technology is bad. There is nothing
>> like that. Anything may be good or bad, depending on how you use
>> it. That is when ethical considerations come in. I always said, you
>> need three kinds of mechanisms -- bio-surveillance, bio-ethics and 
>> bio-safety. If you put all these mechanisms, you can use these 
>> technologies safely.
> 
> This seems extremely sensible & persuasive.
> 

so, then, let me ask you a few questions: who has become "anti-science"? 
and why would being that way put us backward? and why is being put 
backward necessarily a bad thing? what is up with the lecture about "we 
must not"??! i am not part of this dude's "we".

first we create a caricature out of shiva. then we identify anybody 
criticizing any specific or general technology with this caricature. 
then we mount lofty arguments about what "we" _must_ do and "we" _must 
not_ do. and for safe measure we stick our argument on to the reigning 
paradigm/religion of the day. i didnt see the entire piece in detail, 
but it would have been a grave oversight, surely, if the word 
"postmodern" was absent in it.

the real "we", the people, need to carry out surveillance on those who 
propose to change their lives. *they* need to (and will) decide on what 
is ethical and what is useful. the criteria they use will be up to them. 
i hope it is not necessary (though MP was kind enough to cast some light 
on it in his response) to rehash, on this list, the history of the 
application of science/technology (by its practitioners)...

	--ravi