Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2000 11:55:39 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
><< IT doesn't have to be one or the other ( genetic engineering or
>starving)... ... ...Improving rice can only further reinforce the
dependancy
>on it. >>
>
>> Contradictory thoughts, at best.
And at worst?
The conclusion is
>> simplistic, mechanistic
>> and reductionistic.
>
>As well as being conclusionistic.
Could you be more explicitic, or is it just judgementalistic?
joke apart, , i don't really understand what you mean could you elaborate
on it.?
in case you just missunderstood , i try again.
I don't see contradictions at all between those 2 sentences . they were just
an attempt to get out of the usual dichotonic way of seeing life.
I should have put improving between " " , because i don't personally see
manipulations on what IS as improvment . this kind of simplistic response to
a problem ( by "improving " ) is an attempt to hide the problem from the
awareness and in fact reinforce it and worsen it by postponing the outcomes
. Indian peoples if they go toward cultivating that kind of rice will worsen
their difficulties at feeding themselves. That is a projectivistic view of
the future from my part.
i am not expecting to change the course of history
but i need to say what i see ( even if it is from a simplistic
,reductionnistic, mechanistic ou conclusionistic point of view.) In fact i
don't pretend to be more that that ,i am just an individual with only 2 eyes
and ears ( not a good place to be to have an wholistic view)
jean-claude
|
|
|