Volatility

June 25, 2012

The Spirit of Science

Filed under: Corporatism, Food and Farms, Mainstream Media, Scientism/Technocracy — Tags: — Russ @ 3:42 am

>

Science is a tool intended to help humanity, to increase our prosperity and enhance our positive freedom. The spirit of science is the mindset which seeks to use this tool this way, and which admires and respects it where it serves humanity.
 
True science is the province of the active people, especially where we engage in our own democratic work, toward our own individual and community weal, unalienated by any anti-human system. The vast majority of science is done in the active labor field, usually by regular people without any formal, specifically “scientific” training. The best example of this is ten thousand years of practical agronomic science performed by regular farmers, as part of their day-to-day work. In modern times this scientific foundation has been supplemented by a great amount of more formal scientific work, with the result that the science of agroecology and organic farming now stands as the most fully researched and developed, demonstrated, and ready-for-deployment science of all. Organic agriculture stands ready as science at the pinnacle of potential human benefit. It was built primarily by the people, it’s the province of the people, and it shall be deployed by the people, from the bottom up, in accord with the need of the people. 
 
But the corporate/government system says science only trickles down from formally accredited cadres. Only such credential-holders can participate in scientific analysis, from which all political policy must then flow, in the form of technocracy. Anyone outside this system process who disagrees with this and rejects it is by definition acting against science.
 
The truth is the opposite. True science, practical science, starts with experimentation which leads to empirical success. Thus for ten thousand years farmers have proven themselves by far the most successful scientists of the human project. Meta-knowledge of empirically established truth can then follow. Therefore in science induction leads the way, with deduction then later building upon that. Those who deny this, like the “pure” (i.e. pro-corporate) scienticians of today, are merely engaging in a version of being born on third base and claiming they hit a triple.
 
So science starts with and builds upon what works. At every point it follows the empirical evidence. By contrast, today’s corporate scientism (including the vast majority of credentialed technicians) starts by deducing from corporatist ideology and the profit imperative, pre-emptively promulgates “conclusions” like “GMOs are equivalent to regular crops and are therefore safe”, and then denies all the contrary empirical evidence that follows. Publicity of the evidence is left to un-credentialed citizens, who of course have already been disenfranchised and relegated to the official unscience and anti-science category.
 
This remains true no matter how much the evidence and therefore science itself reject lies like “GMOs increase yield” or “GMOs reduce pesticide and herbicide use” or best of all “GMOs are needed to feed the world”.
 
Thus we have a final conflict between true, human science, and prostituted corporate anti-science. As I said, most of the professionals are on the side opposed to humanity and the earth.
 
This struggle between science and anti-science is in turn one of the array of battlefields comprising the final war between humanity and neo-feudal corporatism.

>

Advertisements

10 Comments

  1. There is an important, but overlooked, link between the development of Science and Gnostic ascent practices and metaphysics. The struggle you suggest could be defined as as struggle between the physical/somatic and the mental/mind.

    Science has betrayed its own roots by abandoning the intuitive nature of the discipline in favor of massaged statistical outcomes that fit the narrow mental box of Late Stage Capitalism.

    Comment by Ross — June 25, 2012 @ 9:32 am

    • I don’t know much about Gnosticism, but I don’t see any conflict between body and mind. Indeed, that’s another false dichotomy hierarchies have always sought to indoctrinate and manipulate.

      You’re right that establishment technicians, like all other professional cadres (not each and every individual professional, of course, but every group) have long seen themselves as purely instrumental in the service of the profit/growth imperative, and of corporate totalitarianism. Not that this is unique to modern corporatism; professional cadres have generally been flunkeys of power. But it seems that never has the servility been so abject and complete.

      It’s worst in the case of scientism/technocracy, since in principle science is supposed to serve apolitical truth (as opposed to lawyers, accountants, psychiatrists, etc., who are largely creatures of the system in the first place), and because modern technology can have far worse consequences for our health and freedom. GMOs are a prime example.

      ***

      How’s your community farm doing? I want to learn more about it, since we’ve batted around a similar idea here. I think you gave a link to it once, but I forget what thread that was.

      Comment by Russ — June 25, 2012 @ 6:34 pm

  2. I see my so-called progressive senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, both voted against the Sanders Amendment which would have “allowed” states to require labeling of GMO foods. This fact has not been publicized in the press here at all. They are phonies and traitors, but I already know that from past votes, especially of Klobuchar.
    I plan to nail them to the cross on this one, and finally get my web site started that will provide resources for my neighborhood to prepare for the inevitable collapse of this cosmically clown-run system.
    Still – their back-stabbing is pretty galling.

    Comment by publius — June 26, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

    • I look forward to seeing that web site.

      I never expected any different from the senatorial filth. But it’s still worthwhile remembering who stood up to be counted against humanity on this.

      Comment by Russ — June 26, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

      • I just tried a different tactic than my usual angry call. I called Senator Franken’s office and stated that I was writing an article about my Senators’ votes on the Sanders Amendment. The intern asked, of course, who I was writing for. I stated that I was a freelance writer who has been published in the Star Tribune and other locations (true), and would also be publishing it on my web site and social media sites. The intern then talked to people, and actually gave me the name and number of Senator Franken’s press secretary in his DC office! I will therefore call her tomorrow, and simply ask the reasoning behind the Senator’s vote. What will the likely canned response be, and what counter-arguments and further probings can I be prepared with? Thanks…

        Comment by publius — June 26, 2012 @ 5:20 pm

      • I haven’t really been following the Farm Bill stuff, but I suppose the explanation, assuming they give one at all, would involve rigmarole about process, how that’s the FDA’s purview, or that the federal government shouldn’t be getting involved in state legislative matters, etc. They might also repeat the lie about labeling increasing food prices. (But labels are changed all the time for all sorts of reasons, and that somehow never triggers price catastrophes. Why would just this labeling change do so?)

        Needless to say, those are all lies. No one in government cares about any of those things, and will happily violate them whenever that’ll achieve the desired end. But here the desired end, to make democratic transparency and food freedom more difficult, means to pretend to care about the “process”.

        There’s a thousand refutations of the process garbage, everywhere you look. Why do the Farm Bill and federal subsidies for agriculture exist at all? What could possibly be more of a naturally local/regional issue than food policy? Where in the constitution is any of that authorized? Meanwhile the FDA and other food bureaucracies are supposed to take direction from the legislature, and do so in innumerable ways in every farm and food bill. Obviously the central government feels free to interfere with the states and localities any time it pleases. It simply didn’t please it to do so in this particular case.

        I’m sure every last one of them is such a coward that none will stand proud and say, “I’m against democratic transparency and choice, because that would injure the GMO cartels.” The closest anyone comes is the “it confuses the consumer” lie, although that’s certainly insulting and condescending enough.

        A quick search couldn’t find Franken giving a rationale, but I did find one commenter who said, “He’s putting the Franken in Frankenfoods”.

        Comment by Russ — June 26, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

  3. […] All this must be scoured from the stained Earth. We have to assert ourselves as food growers and scientific workers. We have to abolish corporatism. We have to tear down the barbed wire and toll booths which […]

    Pingback by Our Labor Sovereignty and Birthright « Volatility — September 3, 2012 @ 2:10 am

  4. […] of malevolent socioeconomic structures, just as today; and secondarily of insufficient knowledge. We now have the knowledge. All we need to make the post-oil future a future of abundance is the Food Sovereignty movement […]

    Pingback by True and False Solar Cornucopias « Volatility — October 1, 2012 @ 7:58 am

  5. […] “agroecology” indicates its basis in the combined sciences of agronomy and ecology. It is truly scientific in the best sense of the term, in that its practitioners are constantly experimenting, and based on the results modifying and […]

    Pingback by Corporate Hunger and Africa (2 of 3) | Volatility — June 11, 2013 @ 3:34 am

  6. […] or at least primary, nature of the precautionary principle, and the core rationality of it. Like the rest of our real science, it’s empirical, based on our demand for an understanding of reality, rather than an illusion […]

    Pingback by What’s the Precautionary Principle? | Volatility — July 13, 2013 @ 3:03 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: