Information Revolution - Utopia or Bust?

In response to Wasiq (Reply #: 59):

Dear Wasiq:

Wealth is needed to satisfy basic human needs, wants, and luxuries. Of course, luxuries for one person are simply needs of another person. In Pakistan, millions of people hardly earn their bread (not butter). In America, a lot of dogs and cats enjoy a better standard of living (quality of life) than millions of human beings in other parts of the world. The owners of pets justify the expenses on their pets since the pet is like a child, a faithful friend, a source of happiness, etc. Many owners of pets are even of Indian and Pakistani origins (who, I am sure, have seen a lot of human misery in their countries of origin). In fact, it is a question of ``my`` money and ``I`` have every right to spend it the way I like (no responsibility to community or society). Some ``worthless descendants,`` as you rightly pointed out, inherit the wealth (in whatever way it was earned). Property rights indeed perpetuate disparity over generations.

I am not a determinist. Yet, I do believe that real disparity between the rich and poor is extremely difficult to reduce/minimize. It is not impossible, however. The persistence of disparity often encourages the common people to adopt some dishonest/violent means-such as stealing, robbery, kidnaping, and even bloody revolution. The situation in Pakistan is not hidden from us. One relatively ethical source of change is through education and access to opportunities. The history of (particularly urban) Pakistan suggests that even education is an insufficient basis for acquiring a (reasonable) job since the opportunities for white-collar employment are extremely limited and most people lack sufficient capital to start even a small business. The quantity and quality of opportunities are likely to become much more scarce because the population of Pakistan is expected to double itself within the next 30 years. Are we prepared to deal with the situation in 2030? Do we need to think seriously about the future of our coming generation(s)? If yes, when should we start this process of thinking? Should we, as common people, start thinking and acting or delegate the responsibility to our unscrupulous and unresponsive bureaucrats and politicians?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

TO THE SUPPORTERS of capitalism, here is the apology from the FIRST capitalist, the world bank

World Bank admits to past errors

WASHINGTON: After over 50 years of seeking to reduce poverty and disease

and educate the poor, the World Bank admitted on Wednesday that many of

its past policies were misguided and it needed help to succeed in the

future.

The bank`s annual World Development Report painted a bleak picture of a

developing world which has fallen even further behind rich nations

despite the efforts by the World Bank and others to make the world a

better place to live.

It also said that in many ways the bank had failed in its mission to

improve conditions of poverty, disease and poor education in the

developing world and admitted that it can no carry the burden alone if

its ideas are to work.

``Simple solutions--investments in physical and human capital, for

instance, and unfettered markets- -will not work in isolation,`` the

report said, admitting its past focus had been misguided. ``Governments,

the private sector, civil society, and donor organisations need to work

together in support of broad-based development.``

But the report remained optimistic for the future, laying out a new

policy for the future which builds on the knowledge gleaned from past

successes and failures.

The bank attributed much of its past problems to seeking out a ``magic

bullet`` which would solve the woes of the world`s poor.

``The conceptual frameworks for development of the past 50 years ...

tended to focus too heavily on the search for a single key to

development,`` the report noted. ``When a particular key failed to open

the door to development in all times and places, it was set aside in

search for a new one.``

As an example, the report said projects like building dams--something

the World Bank was prolific in during the 1950s and 1960s--can carry

hidden costs and harm communities through population dislocation and

other cultural and environmental problems.

It also said ``trickle-down economics``--the practice of cutting taxes for

the rich hoping it would benefit the poorer in society--does not work.

But whatever policies were used over the past 50 years, one thing is

certain: poverty continues to rise. Today 1.5 billion people live on an

income of less than $1 a day, up from 1.2 billion people in 1987. The

report forecast the numbers living at that lowest of incomes would reach

1.9 billion by 2015.

The gap between rich and poor has also widened. Between 1970 and 1985

the average per capita income for the world`s poorest countries dropped

from 3.1 per cent of incomes in rich countries to just 1.9 per cent.

``The fact is that we are not winning the battle against poverty, poverty

is increasing,`` World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz told

reporters. ``But I think we do have within our reach the ability to

improve people`s lives,`` he added.

Learning from past successes and failures, the bank said a more

``holistic`` approach was needed to formulating development strategies.

``In some areas the most effective way to improve educational outcomes

for children may not involve increased expenditures on books or teachers

but instead may involve building a rural road or a bridge across a river

to facilitate access to schools,`` the report said as an example.

The bank`s new approach attempts to embrace a more comprehensive

approach which could be adapted for each country. The approach includes

the development of a sound economy but also building stronger legal

systems, banking sectors and other aspects of a nation`s fundamental

structures. (Reuters)

wasiq,

Assigning a net present value to the nature is the difficult task in any economic analysis. At a global level, flurocarbons used as propellents, has been sorted out because of effect on ozone layer, interestingly affects the white skinned more than the black skinned. Global warming, that could drown bangladesh and a few pacefic islands, but is likely to deliver warmer weather in the white ares is on the back burner. Life of a few bangladeshis, difficult to quantify, but the effect of skin cancer on the white is easier.

The value of bio diversity, can we put a value to it. You would have heard this sentence, some thing like this `` when the last tree has been cut, when the last river has been poisoned, when the last fish has been caught will men realise that we cannot eat MONEY``. Like every thing else, the topic we are dealing with is at the core of our being, if you consider the above statement by a native indian proFound, then we have at least an intersection of values.

Tarbela dam the details I donot know. But I can site an example from india, state of kerala. 30 years ago. The plan was to construct, at that time the largest hydro electric project, Shabari Giri dam. The govt wanted it, there was as usual power shortages. But it would have flooded the habitat of the Lion Tailed Macaq. After public intervention the dam project awas cancelled. Well kerala is unique. Hindus worship monkeys. You can draw you conclusion.

As an engineering student I was in support of the dam, i took part in demonstrations in support it along with the electricity board staff. Age does strange things to people.

Response to Wasiq #: 39

You asked why I regard Pakistanis to be followers and not leaders, so please note: Let us define a ``leader`` to be someone who comes up products (conceptual like ideas or values or tangible like IT) that other people willingly adopt. How many products can you count that we have created in 50 years that fall in this category? Prof. Yunus of the Grameen Bank is a leader since he came up with a product (an idea in this case, that poor women can prove to be very credit-worthy, putting to shame the ``elite`` in the same society) that has provided the first real breakthrough in the war against poverty. Try finding another example of such leadership in South Asia or Pakistan. Now look for examples of ``followership`` and you will find that these abound (I do not mean to say that being a follower is bad by any means - we all learn from one another, and only those who adapt survive, it`s just that that is not enough to be a follower).

On capitalism: I think capitalism has ``triumphed`` for now since it is aligned with the reality that people need incentives to work hard for economic security, while socialism is aligned with the fiction that people work for the greater good. Capitalism too will become irrelevent, imho, when it is no longer necessary to work hard for economic security (as is bound to happen, imho, in the coming decades). The Information Economy is, again imho, creating new realities whereby survival will be of those most capable of cooperating with one another.

In response to TAhmed321 (Reply # 53):

Thank you for your extremely generous appreciation of my response to your question (see Replies # 32 and 35). My response was based on my personal expeience and common sense. I think most of the probelms of Pakistan can be dealt with adequately if we learn from our past experiences, use common sense, and be a little creative. The empowerment of the common people of Pakistan is, I think, a prerequisite for a free, stronger, and self-reliant Pakistan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

This responds to bahmed Reply #35

Dear bahmed,

Your reply to the question ``Why we Pakistanis are followers, and not leaders`` was so good - and so important - that I think it would be the perfect education policy, and indeed the perfect economic development policy, for the country. Since I cannot improve on what you said, I shall do the second best and refer anyone reading this to go back and read your Reply #32.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

In response to Jay (Reply # 50):

Dear Jay:

Jay`s reference to Ivan Illich`s Deschooling Society (1971) is extremely important for understand the relationship between education and social reproduction. There are many Marxist/radical critiques of public education in industrialized societies.

Paul Willis, a British sociologist, has argued that part of the explanation of the fact that working-class kids get working-class jobs (particularly in the United Kingdom) is simply that they want such jobs. They predominantly reject the more ``white-collar`` culture of the school, and the way teachers behave and live does not realistically strike them as something to desire or emulate. In fact, working-class kids get working-class jobs and girls end up doing women`s work (Willis, 1977, Learning to Labor). More detailed insights on the reproduction of a stratified labor force is offered for the British and American contexts by Halsey et al. (1980) and Bowles and Gintis (1976) respectively.

Some scholars have sought to ensure that schooling becomes a more powerful influence than social origin of children (see Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977: Reproduction in education, society and culture; and Bourdieu, 1984: Distinction). Pierre Bourdieu considers ``cultural competence`` necessary to participate in any subculture. He argues that: ``A bachelor who lacks the specific code feels lost in a chaos of sounds and rhythms, colours and lines, without rhyme or reason`` (1984: 2). Bourdieu suggests that cultural competence is a ``cognitive acquirement.`` His contribution shows that understanding particular cultural codes in order to decode them requires detailed ethnography rather than underground theorization. This is exactly what Willis has done for his study of the British kids.

In criticizing the institution of schooling itself, Illich contends that schools privilege certification over actual competence, unreasonably restrict the domain of what counts as worth learning, and prescribe restrictive and unhelpful modes of learning. The New Right has adapted some of the New Left critique of schooling for its own purposes. The New Right is against the agenda setting power of teachers (particularly with the help of their unions) and wants to transfer such power to the parents. This has led to some sort of the breaking up of schooling monopolies and consumer enfranchisement.

Information about Ivan Illich and his works (even the full text of Deschooling Society) is available at Infoseek.go.com.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Wasiq (Reply # 46):

Dear Wasiq:

I am not sure if I believe in any form of capitalism. If some form of socialism is an alternative to it, I wonder if I would believe in it either. The form of socialism developed in the Soviet Union, China, and several other countries is not the kind I really fancy. Because I live in an essentially capitalist world, I (a la Marx) am more interested in understanding the nature and process of capitalist development. Wasiq, you have asked two important questions pertaining to the future of capitalism and its alternative. I think, the answer of these questions may be found if we examine the historical-geographical development of capitalism.

Pure capitalism is no more in existence. Perhaps it never existed in any society: Marx`s distinction between the capitalist mode of production and capitalist formation. Marx had abstracted the essential nature of, and tendencies in, capitalism: ``Accumulation for accumulation sake; extraction of surplus value; falling rate of profit; crisis of capitalist production; etc.). Marx and Marxist scholars have generally neglected the geographical and spatial dimension of capitalist social relations. Only recently (starting early 1970s), Marxist geographers have made some noteworthy contributions to overcome this weakness in literature (see, David Harvey`s Limits to Capital).

Wasiq, the notion of the success of capitalism is somewhat contentious. It is like half-glass full and half-glass empty problem. In fact, the true beneficiaries of capitalism are just a few, while most others simply struggle to (barely) survive. Anyhow, the apparent success of capitalism cannot be attributed to its purely economic character. The states have played a significant role in dealing with some of its conflicts, contradictions, and crises. We should not, however, forget the role of colonialism, imperialism, and militarism in the historical process of development/underdevelopment.

I think, one of the biggest negative consequence of capitalism is its uneven development. As long as capitalism is alive and well in any form, we will continue to see the coexistence of richness and poverty in our communities, cities, regions, nation, and the world at large. I don`t see the possibility of the rich people to equally or equitably share all their wealth and resources under their control with the rest of the world, let alone with their own country people. The people around the world are increasing acquiring the capitalist culture. This has led to some serious problems (e.g., conspicuous consumption). If we really want to minimize the negative consequences of capitalism, we need to understand it and take sensible measures to tame it. As the European Community has organized itself to both confront and cooperate with the United States, an Afro-Asian or Asian Common Market seems necessary to confront and cooperate with the United States, the European Community, and the rest of the world. In the interest of Pakistan (and other South Asian countries), our first attempt should be to strengthen the SAARC. We need to learn from our own experience (SEATO, CENTO, RCD) as well as the experience of other people around the world.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

During discussions on this artcle, some where I mentioned that the american propaganda has been swallowed lock stock and barrel. The response from a few chowkwalas has been promt, their views are based on articles in respected magazines and journals and not part of any propaganda. The essential element of advertisement sales strategy of publications is that they arrange for `scholarly` articles that promotes the product categories advertised. The IT magazines always promote the Y2K problem, internet is the do all and how beautiful and comfortable the mankind will be all that information.

There was once a `popular` book, De-schooling Society` by Ivan Illich, I dont know whether any of generation X have heard of him.

wasiq,

Capitalism is essentially christian, it is guidede by the central christian premise that humans are superior, all other creations are servents to this great master. It is this idea of domination of all othere creatures that has been the engine of capitalist domination. The native Australians, till 1975 were considered as part of the fauna, were not included in the census, and slaughtered like other ferral animals to make way for economic enterprise like farming and mining, a view consistant with capitalism and the christian world view.

To me environmentalism and green movement are possibly the greatest changes coming to capitalism. The degradation of the planet is for the first time questioning the christian world view, man if it continues the `domination` may not last long. May be the notion of biodiversity, may be the idea that animals and plants have a right to exist eventhough it may not be of any economic benefit is a revolutionary idea that could change the face of capitalism.

In south africa there is ecotourism and wild life shootings, the existence of the wild fauna and flora is justified from a competing resource alocation model. That is a good step, the final one is to drop the economic analysis and siply state that, hey they have a right tro exist.

What happened in canada good be a harbinger of the coming times, the return of large tracts of land to the traditional owners.

Re: Wasiq 41

It seems that being a scientist, you took my comments personally. But I think you should take a more objective look at my arguments. Actually, in your answer to TAhmed321, you have proved my point about the ethical nature of the current scientific culture. I said that science and ethics are not congruent with each other. Let me call the prevalent scientific culture as scientism to distinguish the kind of the scientist I am from the arrogant ones. The immorality really stems from the arrogance as such ``[I would have]felt sorry for God. The theory is correct.`` So scientists are now saying ``Hey, `nature`s` designs are deficient and we can make them better!`` So comes the use imprudent use of genetics. But due to the limited brainpower and the culture of the reductionism scientists fail to look the total picture. For example, a plant was genetically changed to ``improve`` its production, resistant to disease etc. But its pollens became toxic to a particular species of butterfly that eats them. They are disturbing the delicate balance of nature.

If you can take a look at yesterday`s article about the rapid extinction of salmon in the Science Times, it would be enough to convince you that humans` so called progress is destroying the world. So I do not think that the problem is limited to ``some black sheep`` - the problem is with the whole scientific culture.

Second, most of the quotes that are thrown around about science and God are from people with Judeo-Christian background. They have a perception of God not compatible to that of the Muslims. For a Muslim God is not a Supreme Being or anthropomorphic as Quran says; nothing is like Him. For that, I find both of Einstein`s quotes meaningless.

Third, I do not think Einstein is a special case. There has been countless other physicist from Newton to Feynmann who were humbled by Nature`s wonders. I have seen more biologists who are atheists than the physicists. That might be because physicists have a concrete medium of mathematics to work in. Biologists dish out theories based on flimsy evidences.

``First of all evaluators of Linux do not qualify as scientists in any sense of the word. ... What kind of science will you categorize evaluation of Linux as? Which discipline does it fall into? What qualifications of a proper scientific discipline do you think Linux evalution has that makes it a scientific discipline? I am very curious to find out :)``

Computer science! It is not just looking for evreything being printed on the screen as required, e.g., spellings. Some of the features of the modern OS`s are quite sophisticated such as multi-threading and memory management. So I reckon that there should be few computer scientists present among the team of evaluators.

To bilal,

I am extremly thrilled to note that you are also interseted in development economics, once up on a time I was a research student in that. In those days I was enthralled by the dependencia theory, the days of samir amin, and havnt updated eversince.

There are a lot of `confirmed` capitalists on the chowk, sold their souls to percapita GDP and economic growth. In those days some work, pioneering and anti west was being done on new `development` indices. Any idea what is happening these days. I remeber one Mehboobil Haque. At times it would be useful to remind the other chowkwalas, do I have an ally here, that the economic theories they are treating as `science` and truth are only a capitalist version and there are other consistant and equally valid thories.

Re-Wasiq 41

First I would like to comlement you on your exemplary conduct as a chowk writer. Exchange of ideas , or interactivity is really important for a forum like this.

Re- capitalism. I think we have a misunderstanding here. I was not contemplating any

non-capitalist alternatives, but merely pointing out that there are possibilities of empowerment of

communities, and of a turn towards egalitarianism,

within the framework of a capitalist framework.

We can delineate the developmental logic of capitalism by analysing it as a social organisation of production, and as a world system.

It was in this context, that I had pointed out that the absence of capital controls, and the fact that the dominant business houses based in the US are dangerously leveraged, creates the prospect of enormous volatility, and the possibility of changes, which may or may not lead towards the emergence of a captalism with a more human face. The determining factors would relate to the answers we have to the questions put by Bilal in post 34. To contemplate non-capitalist solutions in the prevailing political context would be utopian.

We do have today a conscousness supportive of democracy on an increasingly broad scale. Struggles for gender equality, human rights, rights of children, are increasingly acquiring a global character. This year we saw the unrepresentative Europen bureaucracy humiliated and dismissed by the European parliament, which marks an important step towards checking the democratic deficit in Europe. In canada, as the budget deficit has been checked, the ruling Liberals are returning towards their social democratic roots. At the institutional level, we have seen progress in the enactment of effective legislation against war crimes and political torture. Pinochet continues to cool his heels in London. Last year, the determined initiative of the OECD states to negotiate the global charter of rights for capital , The Multilateral Agreement on Investments(MAI) was nipped in the bud as the proposed text was leaked on the net by a global alliance of popular NGOs, and the OECD governments failed to put up with the resulting anger over its proposals. In the US Congress, there is unanimity among the majority of Republicans and Democrats in opposition to the extension of regional and global free trade legislation. All these developments indicate that it would be premature to dismiss the possibility of positive changes. Right wing political scientists here, have been fuming about the increasing influence of post materialist values in Europe and North America. That is the increasing tendency of people to give greater importance to quality of life issues, than to the attainment of material benefits. I think these number crunchers are on to something, and unlike them, i am pleased about it. In the field directly related to your subject, witness the growing popularity of OS Linux, and its applications. The whole concept of liberation from capitalist intellectual property rights is catching on at the grass roots level.

Re Bilal post 34

I do not have a quarrel with any of your arguments. I had read the Arrighi collection during the late 1980s. I will dust it of the shelf, and examine it again. I remember, that I was struck by the fact that when Wallerstein and his associates do concrete anylyses of concrete situations, they neatly sidestep the restrictive conservative bias of their theoretical approach. But your remarks indicate that i might have missed something. I will read it again.

Re Feroze K. Post 31

The tentacles of the US connection to East Timor reach Australia itself. The Australian Government of Prime Minister Fraser, whose role you cite, came in existence as the result of the unprecedented sacking of the majority Government of labour prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who was guiding Australia during the early 1970s towards a non-aligned path, and was interested in developing an Asian identity for his country. The US was impliacted in his ouster by the Australian Governor general. There is excellent material on the historical developments regarding East Timor on www.lbbs.org .

Re Einstein

It is true that one can have one`s own face of Einstein to love. Mine is his pacifist and socialist side. He was among the founders of the peace research think tank Pugwash. He also wrote the first article in the first issue of Monthly Review, entitled ``Why Socialism?``

In response to Jay (Reply #: 42):

Dear Jay:

Your dissatisfaction with uneven capitalist development is well taken. For the sake of many Chowkwallas, I want to provide a brief theoretical background of some of the points raised by you.

In order to sustain and enhance their economic power, the leading capitalist countries have often devised some novel ideas. One such major effort was made in the 1950s and 1960s in the form of modernization theory (in response to the growing power of the so-called communist regimes, particularly the Soviet Union and China). One noteworthy effort to lure the so-called underdeveloped nations was made by Rostow in his famous ``Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto``. Back in the early 1960s, as young University students, some of us were highly skeptical of the usefulness and applicability of ``such`` imported ideas, experience, and propaganda.

In the 1970s, a vigorous debate over the issues of development and underdevelopment began with a radical critique of mainstream modernization theory. As the people of many Latin American countries were made to bear the brunt of modernization theory in practice with the Monroe Doctrine and the postwar Pax Americana, most early critics were of Latin American origin. Frank, in his dependency theory, argued that a powerful core of the world economy exploited a weak periphery to foster an enforced dependency. Frank suggested that the underdevelopment of Latin America was actually a product of an ``active`` peripheral engagement in the world economy. Frank`s dependency theory, in essence, warns against too much and too fast dependent development. Frank`s theory was followed by its criticism and several alternative approaches–such as the theory of unequal exchange, the regulation theory/school, theories of global production, and theories of uneven geographical development. Please note that some of Jay`s observations are in sync with Emmanuel`s theory of unequal exchange.

Emmanuel (1972) argues that inequality between the core and peripheral countries in the world economy should be understood in terms of unequal terms of trade. He rebuts the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage, on which conventional trade theory is based, and which argues that the exchange of commodities is by definition an exchange of equal values to the mutual benefit of both parties. Emmanuel also criticizes Marx`s analysis of commodity exchange. Emmanuel contends that there is a ``hidden transfer of value`` from the periphery to the core, when products are exchanged between low- and high-waged nations. Because of proportionately higher labor costs, commodities from the core generally sell at a higher price than those from peripheral countries. At a specific price level, the high-waged nation receives a greater quantity of labor value from the low-waged economy than the periphery can buy from the core at the same price. The so-called `exchange of equal labor values` on the market is therefore structurally unequal in favor of high-waged core countries. In short, this theory sought to explain the exploitation and underdevelopment of peripheral regions in terms of differential wage structures in an otherwise global market for capital. But, as many critics pointed out, this explanation attributes to Third World countries very little responsibility for their own development. Like dependency theory, unequal exchange theories assign Third World societies a subordinate and ultimately submissive role. Amin thus calls for looking beneath the asymmetries of trade to the fundamental relations of production that engender not just unequal exchange but a more pervasive unequal development.

Shaikh, another noteworthy critic of Emmanuel, argues that a theory located in the exchange sphere fails to capture the root causes (mechanisms) of uneven development. He maintains that, despite the structural patterns of international uneven development to exist, there may be zero or even positive net transfer of value from the underdeveloped capitalist region export sector as a whole. In short, Shaikh rejects Emmanuel`s unidirectional relationship between wage differentials, value transfer, and uneven development.

Where do these theories take us? Perhaps, not too far. This suggests the need for developing theoretically-informed cases studies of the processes of uneven development in specific historical-geographical contexts. But, such studies require scholars trained in various society-centered social sciences–particularly geography, sociology, and critical social theory.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

The general consencus is that capitalism works, it is based on what is considered to be a basic human instinct, greed. Great, it works, but is it sustainable, is it good for the `mankind` or is it good only for the capitalist. How about the poor in the US, the oft quoted example of the capitalist success story, is it good for the 60,000 who get shot and killed every year, is it good for that poor black guy who is in prison, sentenced for 25 years for stealing a slice of pizza.

A global capitalism of the US type is simply not sustainable. That type of capitalism works by extracting the resources form the periferal countries to the centre. It might be news to the chowk capitalist that there is net flow of capital from the third worl to the first world, the interest and the loan payments, flowing back for the `great` help extended to them during the70s.

The real success stories of capitalism in asia is Korea, Taiwan. May be the chowwalas can give a thought, how come these are not members of the UN. Very funny. Must be some conspiracy theory. Then ofcourse, there is Singapore, it is a city state, not a mosel for any country of decent size.

Then there is the unbridled support for foreingn trade, export and that is the key to success, export to the US. For a rich indian to have the luxury of a, because it IT topic, imported IBM computer, it is estimated that a poor fisher man on the coast of Krala will have to fish for six months and sell all of his best cach to the Americans. I have no doubt what so ever, capitalism is good, in the US I can still eat the best of Kerala food.

Dear Goga,

You write that ``It seems to me that for you something scientific automatically implies morality. I would have to disagree. Many scientists have little or no morality.`` I present the following points for consideration:

(a) Isnt science nothing more or less than an profound expression of interest in God`s creation, from the minute world of sub-atomic particles to the vastness of the galaxies to the mysteries and the beauty of living creatures? (b) Isnt the scientific method, namely to start with recognizing that whatever conclusions we draw are based on assumptions, a true expression of humility? Contrast that with the ease with which people will present their speculations as immutable facts. Isnt this humility and recognition of man`s limitations in the face of the majesty of God and his creation a fundamental part of religion and morality?

(c) One of the greatest scientists - Einstein - was, as you probably know, also deeply religious and in awe of God as is evidenced by his many references to God (``God is in the details``, ``God does not play dice with the universe``, ``What is truly important is why God created the universe, the laws through which the universe operates are mere details``, and so forth). And Einstein was no exception among scientists in this regard.

(d) You say that scientists could not survive without grants. If these people (who are unquestionably smart) really wanted, couldnt they easily shift professions and become money-making businessmen? (Incidentally, I am not a scientist myself, I just have a lot of respect for these people).

I rest my case.

On the question of being a follower is OK, I partly agree with you. Trouble is the leader will probably recognize the cliff in time and veer off in time (or fly off) while the follower, by the time he starts thinking about it, is already half-way down the cliff.

Thanks for taking up the two points I made, though, and regards.