On Feb 21, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 14:33, Jeffrey Hergan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I think of history as >> always at least trying to move toward what is better. For example, >> we want to be more civilized, more athletic, more virtuous, more >> ethical, more prosperous and so on. And the advances we look at >> throughout human history are always things that we say have made a >> contribution to the good, in some way or another. But when I push >> the issue, it strikes me that "the good" or "what is better" turns >> out to be "what is more human". And _that_ turns out to be, for >> example, more altruistic, more intelligent, more creative, more >> loving, more understanding, more just, more wise. > > You've already picked a subject, but you could also go in the other > direction and pick someone who has been negatively influential. > Someone who has delayed those advances or even turned them back. And > then you get into a really interesting investigation of why someone > might make such a "negative" impact and how their goals were formed.
Lysenko comes to mind immediately. Why? Political goals interfering with scientific inquiry. > > -- > -- -- > arno s hautala /-\ [email protected] > -- -- _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
