"the idea that ' a truly appropriate technology must be one which can be understood and managed by ordinary people' is ridiculous."
No, it is not ridiculous. Contrary to your evident elitism, people are capable of amazing things. In a well educated and egalitarian society there is no reason why all essential technologies could not be within the purview of the management of the vast majority of citizens. There are already examples of communities where the public manages quite complex systems such as power generation; I see no reason why this same model should not extend to transport; it is certainly achievable in housing and textiles; it is not only achievable but highly practical and empowering in food production. In electronics and computing very many people who have never walked the hallowed halls of universities show remarkable abilities.
Arguing that ordinary people should be able to manage and understand the technologies on which their communities depend is not the same as saying that we should all be able to disassemble and reassemble every piece of that technology. The point is simple, technology should be accessible to those who use it; appropriate technology does not give over the power of life and death to technocratic elites.
Now, if you think that this means I rule out nuclear power stations; international space stations; space programmes in general; GM crops; and in short all of the gigantic capital projects of late hierarchical society then you'd be right. This does not make me a primitivist. I direct you to the works of, amongst others: Murray Bookchin; E.F Schumacher and Lewis Mumford.
Jude, you may well know a great deal about genetics, well done. I am afraid in other areas your arguments are no more than ill informed dogma.
Wasn't the government planning a series of public meetings on GM?
I am worried about anti-science hysteria.
The MMR jab scare was a disaster and has ultimately led to a massive increase in kids not getting vaccinated and getting measles.
Kropotkin, your world view is completely out of synch with mine. I do not believe that my view is ill informed but I will follow your suggestion and add Bookchin and Schumacher to my reading list.
Bukh, I am not sure if the government held such meetings. The big players with influence are the Nuffield council, the HFEA and so on but I don't believe they do enough to counter the anti-science hysteria which is worrying.
jude
"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net
"Not only is this untrue but technically impossible."
Jude, you may care to rephrase your above statement.
Firstly, it is absolutely true that GM scientists have been working on one-time-only-harvest crops, so-called "terminator technology".
Secondly, as a scientist you should know better than anyone the unwisdom of suggesting anything is "technically impossible."
It is technically impossible, as the science stands at the moment, to use genetic manipulation to create a trait that is repressed in one generation but present in subsequent. That is to have sterile seeds several generations down. I concede this might be possible one day.
Of course you can make something that has sterile seed as it is, as with certain cases of hybridization but then as Maddan pointed out, who in God's name would buy it?
This technology (which is what you're refering to) the patent to which was bought by Monsanto in the early nineties was never taken to market and Monsanto abandoned developing it almost a decade ago.
jude
"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net
Kropotkin - I have a couple of questions. On forums I find it hard to measure the tone of my comments so I'll say from the outset I'm not seeking an argument, neither am I trying to be antagonistic. I simply don't think I see the world how you do, and I'm curious about your views.
So:
1. Does your view presuppose that 'ordinary' people actually want to manage and understand the technologies upon which their communities rely? I ask because based on personal experience, I think there are a lot of people who are all to pleased to abdicate responsibility for doing so. I think there are many 'ordinary' people who would cite that exact abdication as being one of the great benefits of our society.
2. I have a problem understanding labels like elite and ordinary. You say, "In electronics and computing very many people who have never walked the hallowed halls of universities show remarkable abilities." It seems from this you are classing these people as 'ordinary'. But what if they use their skills to contribute to "gigantic capital projects of late hierarchical society"? Or to make new ones? Are they then the elite? And is that bad? I suppose the bigger question is - what happens if the ordinary people are set free of the hierarchical society and just set about building another?
Um, okay I've gone on a bit, but I'm interested. And I know you've said to read this and that (I've read a fair bit of Chomsky, but none of the others) - but I'm more interested in your views than those of your sources.
Feel free to email me if you'd prefer.
Cheers
Enzo..
www.thedevilbetweenus.com
I just listened to a presentation that would have some baring on this subject. Unfortunately I only caught the back end of it, but the general concept was as follows.
The general idea is the creation of synthetic life.
Placing specific genes in to donor cells such that those cells take on new identity and function.
One proposed utilization of this technology is to synthesize living organisms that utilize carbon dioxide and sunlight in the production of alternative to fossil fuels.
An interesting idear...:D
Enzo, I appreciate your feelings about tone on forums, I too often have problems gauging the tenor of both mine and other people's comments.
1. I agree that presently very many people do seem to prefer the abdication of responsibility that comes as part and parcel of our hierarchical mass society. I do not presuppose otherwise. In fact I would argue that after something like 6000 years of hierarchical society it would be rather surprising if the majority of people did believe that they were capable of achieving some advanced level of participatory citizenship. Nevertheless, the struggle against hierarchical society, or, if you prefer, for liberty, has a very long history. We live in a paradoxical era when the potential for the creation of a libertarian society exists as never before but alongside the unprecedented dominance of the ideologies of hierarchy and domination. I do not believe that the struggle for liberty will ever be entirely extinguished, but I agree we face a task of extraordinary proportions if we are to convince increasing numbers of people that the solutions to both social and ecological crises are to be found in the creation of a libertarian society founded on the principle of equality of outcomes and the radical dissolution of hierarchy.
2.People with extraordinary skills do not necessarily have to form an elite in hierarchical terms. It is axiomatic that in an ecological libertarian communist society more and more people would find that they could realise their potential as human beings to an extent unprecedented in human history. In hierarchical societies the realisation of human potential is by definition limited to "the winners", their supporters and their offspring. So the question is, is it possible to imagine the existence of experts, leaders even, in a society without hierarchy? I would argue that it is, but it would depend upon the full exercise of citizenship by us all; a libertarian society could only survive if it was built to ensure solidarity; if it had the equivalent of a strong immune system to counter the possible re-emergence of hierarchy.
The emergence of hierarchy has already occurred once in human history; that it could happen again even in the midst of a libertarian world cannot be denied. We would have a couple of advantages over our ancestors : firstly we have the lessons of history; secondly we have technology which can be enormously liberating on a human scale, under the control of communities or perhaps at a bio-regional level.
Many revolutionaries will behave as if the change they advocate would forever end the struggles which have marked human history. Unfortunately it seems that millenarianism is one of those things to which people can easily fall prey. I would argue that there can never be the perfect society; that struggle for liberty and peace will always be necessary. However, a historic and unprecedented shift towards an egalitarian, ecological and libertarian society seems both necessary and desirable to me (and to a few others still thinking in the traditions of the left).
I do not think the chances of this coming about are huge, but this is where reason and passion lead me. I think that it is much more likely that hierarchy will plough on, homogenising both society and eco-sphere, until we, or our near descendants, find ourselves living on a desertified world, devoid of diversity, devoid of the potential for alternative ways of life or of thought.
Iv not wanted to get involved in the political aspect of this thread, but you have mentioned something Kropotkin, regarding the hierarchal nature of Society's, that i have an interest in.
I am assuming that you will agree that it is likely that hierarchal Societies and there-for agriculture, came about as a consequence of the need for nomadic females to give birth, care for, feed, and protect there children?
The Hunter gatherer being responsible for the hunting and 'in my view', the female being responsible for the emergence agriculture.
Assuming this is a reasonable argument kp, do you agree that it is likely that the first human settlements came about out of the need to protect children, livestock, and so on.
Individuals working to together for the common good of all and so the emergence of early Societies.
Assuming this is a reasonable model kp, can we assume that the Hunter gatherer, being skilled in the use of weapon's and killing, 'but no longer necessary in that capacity', 'because of the emergences of agriculture',became the protector?
or in modern terms, the law enforcers, the governing body's?
Ie, Humans felt the need for protection from other humans and so elected the 'Hunter' who eventually become leaders?
Would you agree that this is as likely an account, 'at a basic level', for the origin of hierarchal Society's kp?
Sorry kP. I forgot to indicat which aspect i had an interest in.
My question relates specifically to this:
"So the question is, is it possible to imagine the existence of experts, leaders even, in a society without hierarchy? I would argue that it is, but it would depend upon the full exercise of citizenship by us all; a libertarian society could only survive if it was built to ensure solidarity; if it had the equivalent of a strong immune system to counter the possible re-emergence of hierarchy"
Hi jrc,
I think I would give more weight to the rise in population density as the most crucial factor in the gradual transition from hunting and gathering to more settled agrarian lifestyles. It seems likely (see Colin Tudge) that these early agrarian societies could soon support higher populations still and became trapped in the more labour and land intensive way of life that had initially been forced upon them.
The rise of hierarchy has also been a matter of great discussion. I am persuaded by Murray Bookchin's account which emphasises the role of elders in the development of the earliest hierarchical societies, again as a response to resource competition and insecurity. Bookchin outlines the evolution of hierarchy through elders and the rise of priests and warriors to the development of domination of women and the idea of domination over Nature.
I do not believe that the rise of hierarchy was in anyway inevitable, although the fact that people had no prior experience of domination (immunity if you like) certainly made them susceptible to it once conditions had made for its appearance. I do not agree with Bookchin that we might see the rise of hierarchical societies as in some way progressive (necessary in other words to arrive later at libertarian societies) and I believe that it is possible to imagine a world in which hierarchical societies might never have arisen. As John Lonsdale puts it, the historical imagination must leave the dead room to dance.
Still, neither the exact origins of hierarchy nor the reasons for the adoption of agriculture are terribly important unless one believes that there is some immutable path down which humanity must walk. I do not and therefore whilst these subjects make for interesting discussion they do not greatly influence my (anti-)politics.
With regard to the idea of leaders and experts in non-hierarchical societies, as I have said I do believe that it is perfectly possible for influential and knowledgeable people to live happily in a free society without setting themselves up as a new hierarchy. In fact, I suggest that we would make much better use of the vast potential of the human race if influence were not so thoroughly channelled down the well-worn tracks inevitably inherent in hierarchical societies.
So here is your guide to living in the New Society: listen to the knowledgeable; do not resent those who take appropriate leadership roles to perform specific tasks, but do not ever allow anyone to turn their influence in one situation into the foundations of a new hierarchical society. Liberty, equality and solidarity would be our greatest weapons against the dead hand of hierarchy.
Frankly I'm not having the best of days, but I hope some of this is interesting and or useful. Argue away if not; I'm happy to debate without ever expecting to win.
Sorry to hear your day is not so good kp. And yes, i do find your ideas of much interest and informative.
I to enjoy the debate kp. D:
Hope your day improves.
Regards.
Crops are a commodity and babies are not or shouldn't be treated as such.
A plant is alive but it doesn't have the same attributes of a human being. Gene modification in humans opens up a different and far more complicated ethical minefield. For example many people believe it is acceptable to 'design' a baby (although it is selection rather than design) which will be a bone marrow match for a sick sibling and in fact this has already been done in this country. But one has to consider how this will affect the donor child who might feel selected at embryo level as a 'spare part'.
Many people feel it is unacceptable to select for desirable characteristics such as intelligence or eye colour or even gender. In the US where sperm donor anonymity is still the norm there exists a company who sells donor sperm and you can select desirable characteristics in the extensive donor portfolio. As well as physical characteristics, academic qualifications are supplied (a Phd is more pricey than a Batchelor, a Nobel Laureate more pricey than a Phd etc) and the donor even gives a synopsis of his world view! My main concern about this is that the chances of a half brother and sister from a popular donor meeting and marrying (without realising that they're half siblings) are higher than anyone will care to admit. In fact it's an issue swept under the carpet.
I'm undecided about the ethics but am initially uneasy about the 'children as commodity' feeling this engenders.
jude
"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net
"Is it ok to create designer babies then?"
Like all ethical questions, there can only be subjective answers, but if designer babies allowed us to cure hereditary genetic disorders, would that be a bad thing?
Do you mean cure or eliminate: screening and selection of embryos known not to have a specific genetic disorder or modification of an egg, embryo or baby stage to eliminate a genetic disorder (eg. gene therapy where therapeutic genes are inserted into the cells of an individual usually by a vector virus).
The first is more cost effective and more widespead at this stage in science and technology but more problematic ethically.
Many disabled people especially, see this as a kind of 'embryo-stage' eugenics and feel it reinforces society's negative view of their intrinsic value.
jude
"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net
What might be called a Genetically Modified baby (as opposed to genetically selected) would necessarily be a cure.
I can unserstand how the idea of selecting embryos leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, and it is obviously a short step from selecting to avoid disease/disability to selecting to avoid ginger hair. However, as you said, we already select, we select when we chose a mate. IVF, too, involves selecting embryos.
People have to work out for themselves what they think is right and wrong. My point is just that the technology is neither good nor bad, it is only technology.
Well I cant represent all IVF Clinics on this but the one I worked at did not 'Select' on the bases of intellect or profile.
Manly on the amount of eggs available and which looked most healthy, etc.
Moor screening than selecting.
As for what constitutes Living? Tis a subjective mater me thinks.
D:
The intellect or profile clinic is a sperm donation site rather than IVF
Check this out! http://www.fairfaxcryobank.com/NewSpermDonors.aspx
On a random tangent I don't understand why people are ginger-ist. P is ginger and my gradfather was a red-head so I am hopeful for auburn offspring. When you see a flame atop someone's head amidst those people with dull brown and black and mousy hair it looks magnificent!
jude
"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net
At $465 for a vial of semen I'd sincerely hope the company verified the certificates with the universities!
jude
"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net
Jude. I have a question that may be relevant to this discussion and you are better placed than I to answer it.
If memory serves me right, the main problem with ivf was, 'in the case of the 'spermatozoa', the protein head on the sperm was often insufficiently coted, or was damaged in the cryogenic proses?
I'm I right in thinking that the main problem with the conception part was that at some chemical level, the protein on both the sperm and egg are incompatible? 'I'm thinking lock and key model hear'.
and if so, is there an argument to support the notion that at a genetic level, nature built in some mechanism to prevent, or to more difficult, 'some' interspecies from combining genes?
Are some Humans genetically less compatible with others?
or is it purely physiological?
It was over 10 years ago I studied this stuff with academic rigour but I keep up to date (ish) with developments in medical journals so my answer is tentative.
There was news in Nature last year that research had emerged to demonstrate that genes could predict the success of IVF. A lack of success though was attributed to eggs having shorter telomeres (the end part of chromosomes) rather than protein incompatibility.
You might be thinking about a different piece of research I haven't come across but I'll keep an eye out.
"Are some Humans genetically less compatible with others?"
I think people will shrink from statements like this because it could be used, for example to justify an apartheid style regime.
If there is any truth in it, I don't know. I will investigate.
j
Pages