4 ms·
I don't buy the argument that, because these other people might abuse the science for political or commercial ends, therefore it's ok for some other people to a
by simonh 4y ago
I don't buy the argument that, because these other people might abuse the science for political or commercial ends, therefore it's ok for some other people to abuse the science for their own ends. Let's just fight abuse of the science.
- the-smug-one 4y agoI don't buy the way you're constructing your argument! You're saying that both party A and party B wants to "abuse the science for political or commercial ends". But the political ends of party B is to prevent the destruction of their native lands, including the historical artifacts within that land, by party A. One of these is defensive, only abusing the system to prevent destructive abuse, and one is offensive. >Let's just fight abuse of the science. We'd all love this, I think. But what about before that? I don't think it's in our interests to not use the rules to our advantage before a new ruleset (that's non-abusive) has been put in place.
- simonh 4y agoI think there's an argument there when it comes to archaeological finds that are identifiably associated with a particular modern cultural group. There's a matter of scale though. 10,000 year old finds, sorry I don't see the argument. The australopithecine finds in Africa are also tribal ancestors.
- einpoklum 4y agoThat's not the argument. The argument is that what might be presented to you as inappropriate conduct by native-american tribes may be mis-represented, or taken out of the context of posturing by interested parties in disputes over land access. So I would treat reports of such stereotypical behavior with more than one grain of salt.