I can agree with Mark Jones last post expressing shock at rkm's
capitulation to bell-curve backed notions of racialist differences. My
view is that the jury is still out on the method, ontology,
and assumptions of such research. The complexities and processes
involved in the shaping of a human being seem to defy behavioural
methodologies with their predictive and scientistic leanings. I am
prepared however to believe that the crudities in rkm's post was perhaps
in his articulation. The pursuit of a nuance can prove hazardous if the
articulation is rushed. I do agree with rkm's last point though on the
dangers of IQ-chauvinism.
On another note, we can appreciate the socially useful
benefits that can arise out of the Norweigian solar &
wind-powered vehicle. The only thing here is that we can again standby
and observe how the victory for principle (ecological preservation) will
be proclaimed at the precise time that it COINCIDES with the interest of
capitalist and state chieftains in Norway. For those interested in the
pursuit of ascent or graduation in the world system, I suppose this is a
good discovery for Norway. But for those very overpopulated,
low-accumulation countries and cities, they await the outcome of the
political fashioning and structuring of the market (inclusive of
production arrangements, patenting rules, and cost) for `clean'
vehicles. I thought I would say this to counter the altruism and
moralism that was evident in the comments of a Norweigian solar
architect along with others in the Grimes post (re. Reuter news story).
>Got to go.
Don D. Marshall
Department of Government, Sociology & Social Work
University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus.