« As Bush's War Strategy Shifts to Iran, Christian Zionists Gear Up for the Apocalypse | Main | Who Do You Trust? »

January 25, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

thurmond

In so far as a materialist world view sugests its own (contested) discorse, and that of relgion implies another world view, and political visions are manifestly shared (economic and social development) between its adhearents, the divergence evidently makes posible a comlemntary arrangment between the two, with capitalism itself as the third mediating entity. This I think is possible in that none of them realy make ontological claims on capitalism, only negativly. The question is then what force are we talking about? Is'nt the real question that liberalism is now the imposible ally, and not the other way arround.

Please excuse the terrible spelling.

NotOften

Well I think there is something deeply interesting about this "heady" post. Yesterday in Edmonton I went to a Philosophers Cafe which discussed the emergence of biotechnology, the difficult history of eugenics in Alberta, and the affinities that these issues have with the Holocaust in Europe. Our philosopher host posed the problem as to how eugenics, which is involved in the quest for a better society, or the "good" can have adverse and haunting effects.
Anyhow, although most in the audience were clearly against any interference by government in regulating research (not surprising for the cowboy culture of Alberta, who are resolutely against goverment regulation in general, perhaps pathologically apriori), most people who spoke had clear reservations about controlling populations through biological intervention. So, there was a clear problem operating here: in one breath they (we) have difficulties accepting the fact that governments decide on our behalf all of the time about how we control populations. Yet, on the other hand, there was the worry that endless "democratic" "debate" really has no force to intervene in scientific research that is (always) already happening. There was a definite realization that contemporary practices of birth control, for instance, may have more similarities with the Eugenic experiments in Alberta in the 30's (the sterilization of the mentally handicapped was necessary or "good") than we may think. So, conservative-liberal crowds such as these usually reach towards the same paradoxes: 1) how dare governments intervene through policy, and 2) given that 1 is true no matter the issue, how can individuals' ensure that research is being conducted and applied in an ethical fashion.
So, your post Jodi I think suggests a similar paradox. How are we ever able to keep our personal beliefs seperate from our political ones? Isn't it the case, rather, that we like to believe what we believe, because we think that someone must surely be monitoring these things for us anyways. This way, we can say and believe what we want, without having to be responsible for the implications of what we say. This might be an explanation for why conservative governments, which are all about deregulating government, can be the "heaviest" and most interferring governments of all. Essentially, society does not exist, but neither does government. Since government is seen as a necessary evil (which operates automatically) we really don't have to worry too much about eugenics for example. Afterall, as I hear again and again, "these things have a way of working themselves out." Governments committ holocausts, but not liberal individuals...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo