Hello,
Ahmed wrote:- On the first point, I am not saying anything, but I note that your message is ambiguous (it is sometimes difficult not to be when you have to settle for a few lines): you say first that it is difficult to oppose certain techniques and then that if everyone can have it it reduces it, or can reduce its harmfulness, which seems to me questionable.
So frankly, I don't think I'm ambiguous, but actually I'm trying to keep it short.
My point is as follows: to oppose a technique is - at best - an error concerning the choice of the fight (and I am very very measured in formulating it thus). A technique / technology / process will tend to democratize, simplify, repeat itself, cost less, spread. We cannot guarantee to keep central control. We may not agree, but what I say does not constitute a judgment, nor did I say that it reduces the harmfulness (tell me where I would have said otherwise).
My comparison is on purpose, because like Glypho, phyto, GMOs; nuclear power is a totem which most often obscures all measure with neoconservative reactions from the 90s-2000s: "if you are not with us, then you are in the axis of evil".
I'm not saying that for you, eh, but I've already experienced it and seen it.
So, in my eyes I specify, the will to ban GMOs (the result of a technology otherwise used since the 70s) is an error concerning the very subject of combat and which I think will lead in any case to their acceptance close to the terms desired by manufacturers. Just as those who believed that the USSR and the US could reserve and confine the exclusivity of military nuclear were wrong.
My opinion therefore goes more in the direction of breaking the logic of privatization of the living (more precisely of genetic information), which very strongly limits the potentialities of profit and also modifies part of the economic determinism of which we spoke.
- On the second, you "only partly agree", but you do not seem disposed to discuss it ...
Sorry, let's say that I was suspicious since I had the impression that they made me say what I did not say.
however, it could be interesting. I understand that your reservation finds its justification when you write:
... but focusing only on that is sometimes a way of looking at yourself outside the system, showing your finger and thus being on the right side of the finger.
I hear that remark and it is true that the leaders do not take all the responsibility and that each of us, to varying degrees,
like it or not, contributes as an agent of the system to run the machine. Because there is no outside to this system, at most we can hope to "drag our feet a little" and above all try to understand how it works.
Indeed, you understood me (or I expressed myself better :-D)
I understand what you are saying about economic determinisms, I don't know if I underestimate them. I know they exist, I cannot quantify them. I am aware that I cannot totally escape them. I agree that they adversely affect the behavior of the players in the Company and that some could be changed favorably and perhaps even quite easily. On the other hand, I rather have the intuition that this is not the cornerstone of the problem, that it remains a consequence of what we are rather than a cause. But there it is intuitive. I have no arguments, no conviction and even less evidence.
@+