Greetings Economists, On Jul 1, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
hasn't it been known for awhile that it takes more than one gene to encourage diabetes, etc.?
Doyle; The debate has been around for quite awhile. S.J. Gould would write mocking comments about the Genome Project before he died. He was highly skeptical of the underlying 'gene' theory. What's different now is the weight a large study brings to assumptions behind finding a gene that defines 'gayness'. Determining a sense a gene provides for form and structure, business people have long built business plans around a direct correlation between idea and profit. An impediment to growing network business practices that incorporate network production processes has a lot of support in conservative circles around traditional or orthodox liberal economic theory. In a sense the debate in business circles is gradually evolving to better incorporate 'network' processes. It knocks a big hole in evolutionary biology in my view. But this doesn't challenge business control over production. So I think this indicates a shift in forces in big capitalism around production processes that represent the network structure of products. And the silly book by Keen represents a bit of a battle about culture that in his words represents the mob taking control of culture, but is really how producing network information is increasing in significant ways and driving profit away from older modes of knowledge production. thanks, Doyle Saylor
