[Linux-Anyway] Re: Fwd: Seattletimes.com: Suddenly, China liftsblock on Internet search engine
- From: Horror Vacui <horrorvacui@xxxxxxx>
- To: Linux-Anyway@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 01:13:32 +0200
Meph Istopheles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Right, but this is not the only thing I had in mind. It's not only money
>>that can corrupt, also the structures we have to work inside can
>>corrupt. Take the case of pharmacy. The people that do R&D there are all
>>graduates in medicine (what's the exact term for a medicine scientist? -
>>there's a hole in my vocabulary
>>
>>
>
> Doctor.
>
Nearly said that, but I was unsure if it applies to everything medicine.
In german, it's "mediziner", and applies to everybody, nurses not excluded.
>
>
>
>>therefore bound on the Hippocrates.... plea? shit, another
>>hole.
>>
>>
>
> Hippocratic oath, but it only means anything to those it means
>anything to.
>
Heh. There's a strange duality in english words of this type, like oath,
to swear and so on... Both negative and positive, and you have to rely
on the context to find out which it is. Just an aside.
>
>
>
>>Well, they should be trying to
>>help cure people in any way feasible - if you take the Hippocrates
>>thingy seriously, any scientist working in R&D of pharmacy corps should
>>be a potential mole, a spy ready to give away results of his research
>>on, say, HIV medicine to, say, any nigerian pharmacy expert eager to
>>save the numerous people that are about to die from AIDS, only because
>>they can't afford the cure.
>>
>>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Hippocratic oath only states:
>I will do no harm. Who's to say that the research does any harm?
>Sure, if extended to actual usage.... But they're only doing the
>work of research. Sell it to the highest bidder who just happens
>to have a history of harming others doesn't, necessarily, mean
>that the Dr has done any harm.
>
> Thin line, but anything can be justified -- somehow.
>
>
Selling to highest bidder is what I would do myself - but I think I'd
also be a mole. I'm not talking about actual harm done by pharmacy
companies - I'm talking about the harm that comes through the imperative
of return on investment. Corporations make money, and whether they
happen to do so by producing guns or medicine hardly matters: they all
have to pass the test of stock exchange. An investment in R&D must
return value, so you have to make sure nobody else can profit from it.
Develop an AIDS cure, and you're rich, as long you're the only one that
produces the cure. The same with Viagra. The difference is that without
AIDS cure people die, without Viagra they just don't attempt what they
are too old for (and avoid getting a heart attack). Companies, with
their ethics of a corporation, don't care for the difference. Apparently
their staff neither, at any rate not so much to risk the sack, jail or
disgrace.
But let's not be too harsh on uncle doc. If pharma companies wouldn't
pay for R&D, hardly anybody would. The doctor knows that those poor
beggars in Africa will die like flies because the company he's
developing it for must keep their stockholders happy by selling one
week's dosis at a price amounting a years income in some of the poorer
countries, and that the medical systems of those countries can't pay for
it (because the country needs the cash for weapons), but he's developing
it and helping at least some people. And he knows perhaps that he's the
only doc brilliant enough to develop it, so he won't risk being
blacklisted and condemned to have his tallent wasted. It's an evil state
of affairs, and you can't judge anyone.
But hey, we have a free market! Yipee!
>
>
>>That doesn't happen, or doesn't happen much: if poor countries
>>decide they don't give a shit about international laws if they
>>can't save their folks otherwise (with me cheering), they
>>generally have to reverse-engineer the pills. Why aren't there
>>cases of unlawful disclosure of "corporate IP", especially
>>since the Hippocrates thingy would mandate it? Because the
>>ethics is corrupted. I'm not judging, I just say it is.
>>
>>
>
> Highest bidder again....
>
>
>
>>So the scientist working in a marketing corporation, using his
>>knowledge of mathematics, philosophy, sociology, or whatever
>>can be useful at such a task, to create an algorhytm that can
>>gather data from Meph' activities and decide that he's to 89.4
>>% likely to buy a set of S+M kit, is exactly as corrupted as a
>>scientist that develops an algorhytm to decide whether the
>>behaviour of young Jiang Guangxiu makes bugging his apartment
>>and eavesdropping on his communications a good investment of
>>gestapo's ressources, once he's out of ground school or before.
>>
>>
>
> Uh, yes. This does support the statement rather well....
>
>
>
>>People often make the mistake of creating an illusion of
>>special ethics,
>>
>>
>
> We call that an act of "fooling themselves". Quite common with
>humans. For instance, I see no difference between physically or
>mentally beating & raping childern & dragging them to a rally in
>support of some cause of the parent. Each is child abuse, & I
>should think the parent should be imprisoned & both the child &
>parent sent off to years of therapy (though I have no respect for
>either profession of psychiatry or psychology). Parents who tell
>their kids to make statements to the press in support of anyone
>or anything are taking an unfair advantage of one who is not
>experienced enough to make a decision which does or does not
>support the cause. It's wrong, IMO.
>
>
Completely. Though I'll disagree as to the damage done to the child by
putting statements into its mouth. You'd better compare the creation of
someone like Britney Spears with the sexual abuse - that's rather to the
mark. I tended to despise her along with the phenomenon that she
represents, but after I saw a documentary on her on MTV, I dunno. That
mother of hers is no better than a sexual abuser in terms of causing
damage. Again, I can't judge - I had the luck to have parents that saw
me as "their child" but equally or more so as "its own human", I have no
right to judge a child that's been used as a weapon to take revenge on
the world.
In the documentary (or in some other) I saw the institution of "Young
Miss Contests" - mothers or grandmothers present their grand/children.
The children are tiny, but have the responsibilities and tight schedules
of grownups: ballet lessons, dance lessons, modeling schools, actors
schools, beautitians, coiffeurs take up their days as their proud
grand/mothers say into the camera (the children being less enthusiastic,
standing by foot as little soldiers that know their duties). When they
loose the contest, they're dragged out by their personally offended
grand/mothers, demonstrably decided to win the next time, at whatever
cost. I can imagine sexual abusers that are not quite as bad.
Compared to that, abusing them for political causes is just slimy tactics.
>
>
>>The memory of SS people saying "we were not thinking about the
>>deaths, we were in war and as soldiers we had our duties to do
>>what we're told..." - is still too vivid in the nation's memory
>>to be recycled.
>>
>>
>
> There is no difference in this statement than that of the
>pilots dropping the bombs. But history is written by the
>victors....
>
Well, pilots dropping bombs are necessary sometimes. It all depends on
the war. I have no objection to bombing the taliban away, no bigger than
having them opress and kill people, I also prefer bombs aimed at
military infrastructure over some soldateska running around killing
civilians at random (even if the bombs sometimes miss). It just gives me
the creeps to see them talk so bloody complacent about it, robot-like
repeating the doctrine, instead of showing a bit of human incertitude,
doubt as to whether what they're doing is right. Hearing a german pilot
say "It's a disgracefull business, but I think there's no other way than
to intervene" made me love him, but it also made me bitter - did those
millions really have to die in order for someone in your position to
show such a tiny but essential bit of common decency? And why it is only
because they died through the hands of your people that only you feel
obliged to think about your actions in human terms and not your
NATO-colleagues?
>
>
>
>>And think about those who consider themselves freedom fighters,
>>martyrs for the good cause, the just, and are considered such
>>among the palestinians, and who are considered terrorists,
>>cold-blooded killers by israelis.
>>
>>
>
> I've been saying this since they started the suicide bombing.
>While I have no sympathy for the terroist, nor for Arafat (the
>fat, lying, bastard), I'm all for slicing up Israel in favour of
>the Palestinians. Sure, the Jews have been treated badly
>throughout history, but who hasn't? I think it time Israel grow
>up & share their toys with the other kids.
>
>
The Jews have gotten the worst possible treatment though - no comparison
possible. Still, there's an error in the way humanity copes with this.
It is seen as a matter between germans and jews, making it a shame for
germans and a reason for jews to expect a decent treatment (which is
what they deserve, but something many others never get). The way I see
it, it is a matter of one group of humans doing things to other group of
humans. If somebody is to be ashamed because of what happened, it's not
the germans but all of us. I guess it's damned convenient for other
nations (including Israel) to speak about german atrocities, tacitly
excluding themselves from the responsibility. But the responsibility
doesn't lie with the germans, it's with the humanity.
Nevertheless, the Jews deserve special kindness after all the mess. And
our guilt for what happened to Jews should make us treat any group of
people better than we would otherwise.
>
>
>>In his circumstantial ethics of a freedom fighter, the
>>palestinian terrorist thinks that his murdering as many
>>civilians as he can manage is right.
>>
>>
>
> I'm surprised, as this is a direct correlation, that the
>religious aspect hasn't come into it in the way the Brits have
>spread the propoganda that the trouble between Irland & Northern
>Irland is between the Protestants & the Catholics -- it's that
>the wrong people control their land, damn it!
>
>
Jein (a german hybride of "yes" and "no"). Granted, in case of the
palestinians or irish you can say so, but that doesn't quite explain it.
In Spain there's a basque terrorist organisation, the ETA, that's quite
active and brutal in their actions - not quite as the palestinians, and
about equal with the IRA. Ok, they bomb because they don't want to be
ruled/opressed by the spaniards, or because they fear they'll dissapear
as a nation? Nay. They have an authonomy, own parliament, own government
that is quite independant of the spanish government. Their language is
taught in the schools, their culture institutions receive subventions.
Something over which the palestinians or irish would go nuts from joy if
they became it (the irish seem to be almost there). So why are they
bombing? They don't like being called spanish citizens, I guess.
>
>
>>And the tsahal soldier in his circumstantial ethics of defender
>>thinks that shooting a rifle at a crowd armed with stones is
>>right. None of them thinks about themselves as cold-blooded
>>murderers
>>
>>
>
> No more so than the lone, down-trodden individual with a
>high-powered rifel in search of a clock tower....
>
Heh, this makes me think of the admiration Stanley Kubrick puts in the
mouth of the drill-sergeant in "Full metal jacket", admiration for this
chap and Lee Harvey Oswald - for being excellent shots. Thus, being good
marines. I think the jet pilots I was talking about would miss the
sarcasmus completely and consider the drill-sergeant an excellent
example. Ironically.
>
>
>
>>Shit, I think I could talk about this for hours. I've already
>>written too much, so I'll just cut it.
>>
>>
>
> Remember, we've an open forum. Because that which effects us,
>also effect Linux, as it does everything else.
>
>
>
Well, the connection with Linux is a bit of a far shot, isn't it? I'm
autocensoring myself in order not to loose the focus of the group. An
open forum can stay a Linux forum only through the discipline of the
members, or rather through a consensus. I like keeping it a Linux forum,
but sometimes the typing does me good and thoughts want to get out to
the light of day. I'll be glad not to overdo the off-topic stuff (says
he after having written half a novel).
Cheers
Horror Vacui
To unsubcribe send e-mail with the word unsubscribe in the body to:
Linux-Anyway-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?body=unsubscribe
Other related posts:
