Re: disconcerting choice
Steve B
>Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
>>t'would seem that almost all research nowadays requires significant
>funding.
>>Indeed, I have the impression that professorships are awarded, not only on
>>academic merit but more so on an individuals ability to generate income for
>>their institution.
>That's pretty close to the truth.
>>I think theocracies are certainly outmoded nowadays.
>Er, iran, al quaeda, pakistan under zia, parts of saudi, etc etc.
Broadly speaking I would say that all these are in a state of transition. I
don't see that they can remain isolated from the rest of the world without
maintaining a total isolationist policy, which seldom works. I don't see
theocentric cultures being able to survive through the 21st century, hence
outmoded - unless the whole shebang goes bear shaped. then its back to the
dark ages in a handcart, in which case it is likely that the the most
backward of these theocratic countries will be best positioned to come out
ahead and say 'I told you so!'
>>I am not sure they were
>>ever a good form of government anyway,
>They are positively dreadful. The very worst type of dictatorship with
>rights to do absolutely anything 'in the name of god'.
It was written, It will be, Or else.
anyway, was not Tibet a theocratic country?
>>but don't know enough background to make
>>sensible comment.
>Not been following the news these last 30 years then?
I was thinking of the news over the last few millenia, I would have thought
that in some corner of the globe at some period in history there would be an
example of a theocratic government that got it right.
>>If Darwin had been born in the USA, his ideas might have been more accepted
>>there. There again, he might have been tarred and feathered and never heard
>of
>>again.
>Considering he left it for several decades (apart from a few in the
>know) in the UK for fear of retribution I imagine he wouldn't have
>lasted long in the US.
>>In which case, we'd have the same controversy regarding Wallace :)
>No. See tarred and feathered above ...
Oz
>Oz wrote
>
>>Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
>
>>>t'would seem that almost all research nowadays requires significant
>>funding.
>>>Indeed, I have the impression that professorships are awarded, not only on
>>>academic merit but more so on an individuals ability to generate income for
>>>their institution.
>
>>That's pretty close to the truth.
>
>>>I think theocracies are certainly outmoded nowadays.
>
>>Er, iran, al quaeda, pakistan under zia, parts of saudi, etc etc.
>
>Broadly speaking I would say that all these are in a state of transition. I
>don't see that they can remain isolated from the rest of the world without
>maintaining a total isolationist policy, which seldom works.
Absolutely, and they know it. They aim (with some success) to return the
rest of the world to the middle ages when theocracies were effectively
the norm outside china/japan.
>I don't see
>theocentric cultures being able to survive through the 21st century, hence
>outmoded - unless the whole shebang goes bear shaped. then its back to the
>dark ages in a handcart, in which case it is likely that the the most
>backward of these theocratic countries will be best positioned to come out
>ahead and say 'I told you so!'
Absolutely, and their rulers know it.
They aren't going to give up nearly 2000 years of power (+ pharoes etc)
without a fight.
>>>I am not sure they were
>>>ever a good form of government anyway,
>
>>They are positively dreadful. The very worst type of dictatorship with
>>rights to do absolutely anything 'in the name of god'.
>
>It was written, It will be, Or else.
>
>anyway, was not Tibet a theocratic country?
Yes. Pretty dictatorial but in practice surprisingly communistic in a
primitive sort of way. They still had castes, but very muted indeed and
more to do with wealth. The theocratic rulers came (largely) from the
people and what it actually was was a social structure that kept surplus
population well (enough) fed by the people at large but which did not
breed. For a country with limited food supply this was a 'godsend'. Also
note that buddhist monks and nuns rank top of the social scale. NB Whole
monasteries went home for the harvest so a big labour force was
available just when needed too.
>>>but don't know enough background to make
>>>sensible comment.
>
>>Not been following the news these last 30 years then?
>
>I was thinking of the news over the last few millenia, I would have thought
>that in some corner of the globe at some period in history there would be an
>example of a theocratic government that got it right.
I'm sure there are more examples, perhaps egypt under the pharoes (by
and large), possibly the incas/aztecs but in an odd sort of way. You
might consider europe from perhaps 1000AD to the reformation (lingering
on for a few centuries more) as one example but this is somewhat
tarnished by the success of europe once the shackles had been loosened
by the reformation.
But thin on the ground.
--
Oz