Solaris

Here she is! While visiting England, George Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people. Bush asks how she knows if they're intelligent. "I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate." Bush watches as the Queen phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister, please answer this question: your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?" Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am." "Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?" Bush nods: "Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!" Bush, upon returning to Washington, decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. Bush summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me." "Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?" Bush poses the question: "Uhh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?" Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?" Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior Republican senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem. "Now lookee here, son, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?" Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course." Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House, finds George Bush, and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!" And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you idiot, it's Tony Blair!"

Oh Mouse, you're at it again! Give yourself a break! Now let's leave aside what I think about your standard set of right-wing anarchist propositions, so I won't bore you with arguments about institutions designed to "protect the democracy from itself". I see that this has already been discussed here a while ago, and some of Sasun's comments in that discussion you referred to(notably post #19) pretty much coincide with my own opinion. Just plain tell what is your alternative to liberal democracy!

That's him. He's the guy. I don't know the details either, but it seems that the double irony should be in the following. Firstly, Sen's famine theory is way more complex, but is largely known by his famous statement that " in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press”. It strikes me as overly presuming at the least – it is true that democratic institutions make massive coordination failures less likely, but they are not a guarantee against them. Secondly, in my opinion, none of those East Asian countries is truly democratic – while they may have formal institutions right, informal traditional institutions (such as castes in India) may effectively hamper the effectiveness of formal institutions. So a famine occuring in a phoney democracy like that would immedialy expose Sen's theory to media sharks... oops sorry to the criticisms of the "relatively free press"

This is no doubt very interesting, but in fact I didn't mean to say that there were no arts or sciences before the Renaissance. There indeed existed a thick layer of culture on which Renaissance was essentially based – I'd even say wouldn't be possible without it. But with a few exceptions, the "dark ages" culture lacked the true greatness of the Classical and Renaissance art, at least in my perception of greatness. I pretty much agree with good ole Einstein that "everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom". Any "claims" coming from so long ago would be anecdotal. Patent law and intellectual property rights were unknown back then!

Hey Mouse the Anarchist, I'll tell you this much – electoral democracy is always preferable to totalitarianism, and liberal democracy is always preferable to electoral democracy. The kind you are talking about, "pure" democracy, or the unfettered majority rule, does not exist any more and was essentially self-destructive. You obviously know this perfectly well, which gives me certain grounds to question your bone fide . I don't mean to say that the existing forms of liberal democracy are perfect, but as Churchill put it, it is the worst form of government ever invented, with the exception of every other form that came before it. In a liberal democracy Socrates is at least alive and kicking, enjoying his academic freedom and free speech. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to Jesus, no matter whether he had a supernatural poppa or not. By the way, determining Jesus' political colour is a tricky business - he seemed to be more attracted to the pinker end of the spectrum… And please spare me the Scholastics !!!!!! I won't go into more detail and will just repeat what I've already told you before – don't believe everything you read. There is a lot of crap on the Internet, besides, Nozick is not the only philosopher in the world, neither is Hayek. You may want to diversify your reading list, with Karl Popper or Jack Donnelly, for a change!

http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2003/oct/11happy.htm Nigerians happiest people, Indians 21st Agencies | October 11, 2003 16:58 IST Money, says a study, may not have much to do with human happiness. A survey of 65 countries, published by British magazine New Scientist, says that Nigerians are the happiest people on earth, followed by the Mexicans. Venezuela, El Salvador and Puerto Rico are close behind. India has been ranked 21st in the world happiness index. Nigeria, with an annual per capita gross national product of slightly over $300, ranks among the world's poorest as also the most corrupt countries. By contrast Romanians, Russians, and Armenians are the unhappiest people of all the countries surveyed. However, different countries and cultures give priority to varied factors while determining what constitutes happiness. For the Indians, family, society values and friends were the prime factors for being happy, while for the Americans, personal success, pride and self-esteem ranked topmost. The Japanese, somewhat like the Indians, said that living up to family and society expectations constituted happiness. The Pakistanis were just two slots behind the Indians and were ranked the 23rd happiest people. Canada stood 11th, Australia 13th, the United States 15th, the United Kingdom 16th and Japan 20th. The World Values Survey study was carried out in 1999-2001 and published for the first time by New Scientist. The survey is conducted once every four years, and tracks socio-cultural and political changes across the world. The survey shows that natives of Latin America, western Europe and North America are much happier than their counterparts in Eastern Europe and Russia. The survey fortifies the belief held by priests and monks that the desire for material goods suppresses happiness. In the developed world, happiness levels have more or less remained stagnant since the World War II, although there has been a tremendous rise in incomes in these nations. Except in Denmark, where people seem to have become more satisfied over the last thirty years. The study says that the reason for the lack of rise in happiness levels in the developed world is linked to consumerism. And yes, here's something more to think about. The survey shows that married people are happier than those who are single.

Hey Siamanto, this is pretty much what I had in mind when mentioning "the liberal tradition" in Islamic culture that was smothered in the beginning of the Second Millennium. I guess here I'll return you your own words that we all come from different backgrounds, and sometimes should take the chance to learn from each other, instead of heading to a frontal attack when someone mentions something we don't happen to know.

I mean quite the contrary. Did you really think I was a bigoted right-wing free marketeer worshipping Milton Friedman? Funnee! No, actually I burn incense to another Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, he of Economics of Information and leader of the opposite camp. I mentioned Sen and his book mainly because what he writes there is quite akin to your sentiments, and not the other way round. Sen in fact opposes the popular "wisdom" that human development amounts to economic development, commonly expressed in GDP per capita. The thrust of his argument is that human freedom is both end to, and a crucial set of means to, human development. Development is the very process of expanding the real freedoms that people have, in order to enable him to live longer, better, more meaningful and productive lives. The process of development is the process of removing obstacles to this real human freedom, which may come in a variety of forms. Sometimes the lack of substantive freedoms relates directly to economic poverty, which robs people of their freedom to satisfy hunger, or to obtain remedies to treatable illnesses, or to be sufficiently clothed, etc. In other cases, the unfreedom links closely to the lack of public facilities and social care, such as the absence of epidemiological programmes, or of organized arrangements for health care or educational facilities, or of effective institutions for the maintenance of local peace and order. In still other cases violation of freedom results directly from a denial of political and civil liberties and from imposed restrictions on the freedom to participation in the social, political and economic life of the country. Therefore, the point of public policy is the removal of obstacles to human freedom. Moreover, human freedom is itself a means to a goal of human freedom and there are mutually reinforcing interconnections between different sorts of human freedoms. What people can positively achieve is influenced by economic opportunities, political liberties, social powers, and the enabling conditions of good health and education, but it is also true that institutional arrangements for those opportunities are also influenced by the exercise of people's freedoms through the liberty to participate in social choices and in the making of public decisions that impel the progress of these opportunities. Honestly I don't know. Proved wrong by whom? Well, as you may know, the First Law of Economists is: for every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: they're both wrong. Sen got the prize in 1998 for "his contributions to the welfare economics", or something like that. As far as I know, there was nothing in 1999 or 2000 that shook the foundations of welfare economics to the point of rendering Sen's work invalid. Besides, one year surely wouldn't be enough to "prove" an economist wrong, since they all promise the Moon "in the long run", and in the long run, according to Lord Keynes, we are all dead. Okay, I won't argue over something I don't know. Tell me more, even if you're confusing him with someone, I'd like to know which Economics Laurate proved wrong...

Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Unfortunately don't have enough time to answer properly, but there is this book "Development as Freedom", by a Nobel-prize winning economist, Amartya Sen (the one who became famous for saying that famines do not occur in democracies). You can find some answers there. If you don't have the time to read the book, the title will speak for itself. And if you'll still ask what freedom is, then, okay, you'll have to read the book!

Hey Mouse, very impressive. But consider this: you link the tradition of individualism to the Christian heritage the Western civilization, while suggesting (if I got you right) that this tradition is in fact rooted in the philosophy of Ancient Greeks (I believe it is this philosophy that has influenced Christianity most, but let's leave it aside for now). What we can't ignore is that the Judo-Christian Civilization rests, in a great many respects, on the enormous layer of Greek and Roman cultures accumulated long before the era of Christianity, and to which creativity and the spirit of exploration were inherent characteristics. Above all, Greeks and Romans laid the foundations of modern science; the sources of modern political organization (electoral democracy and the rule of law) can easily be traced back to them; if it weren't for Greeks and Romans, the "classical" XVIII-XIX century thinkers, on whose ideas Western legal and political culture is largely based, would certainly have nothing to draw on. My feeling is that it is not exactly the religion that has shaped the tradition of individualism in the Judo-Christian Civilization. Rather, the seeds of early Christianity found a fertile ground in the parts of the Roman Empire where its humanist-individualist values could strike root, and from where they later spread to the North. Early Christianity was the religion of dissent at the time, as Jesus was the man of the time who wanted the whole rotten system down. And it was exactly this side of Christianity that remained totally dormant until the Renaissance. It was its worst side that dominated (all religions have such a side – by definition), making it a tyrannical religion all the way. Arts and sciences did not have the chance to develop before rigid religious dogmata were effectively challenged, by dissenters who would stand up against the Church defying the risk of being burned at stake like Giordano Bruno. As far as I know there have been no similar attempts to challenge Islamic dogmata after the liberal tradition in Islam had been smothered around X-XI centuries, leaving this civilization trapped somewhere in the Middle Ages. I think it is dissent that is Europe's most precious legacy to the world. Dissent is a refusal to believe what those in power or endowed with authority would have us believe, in all ways from totalitarian tyranny to media manipulation and cultural hegemony. It is an evolutionary mechanism, if you take my meaning, the only vehicle of progress, human as well as scientific and technological. This is what lies at the heart of European XVIII century rationalism, which gave it all a kick – industrial revolution, scientific discoveries, bills of rights, liberal democracy, etc. and this is what distinguishes Judo-Christian culture from all others. This however does not answer the question, what is it that makes western and northern peoples more receptive to individualist ideas, and thus to cultivate dissent, in the first place? And why is it that early Christianity spread so far westwards and to the north, and not to the regions adjacent to the area where this religion actually emerged – let's say to the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa?

You're right, there are no clear answers. I'll also say that it's impossible to summarize any theories here – too many and too diverse. Philosophers of the European Enlightenment were so keen on finding answers that they produced volumes of work which is still being quoted and drawn on – Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu (author of Eve's "climatic conditions" theory), Rousseau and many others. In later periods thinkers of all persuasions, from Malthus to Marx (and his hapless sidekick, Engels), from Freud and Levi-Strauss to Spengler and Toynbee, tried to tackle these questions in all imaginable ways. There is also a very curious piece of work by the founder of American anthropology, Lewis Morgan, entitled "Ancient Society, or Researches in the Line of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization". If you're really going to read some of this stuff, don't believe everything they say. It seems that none of those theories gives an adequate answer, each rather pinpoints one or a host of factors that have might influenced human development in different regions. I reckon the best for you would be to pick a couple of good textbooks on social and cultural anthropology, ethnology and sociology – they'll at least give you some clues.

It's actually terrific that Mouse agrees with him – we have come to a "common denominator" after all!

The truth is that, like it or not, such "scientific" "irrefutable" "discoveries", no matter now false, are quick to find high-ranking supporters, contributing to that very "gender stereotyping" and "discrimination". We don't even need to go far to find out how such thinking affects the treatment of women: During Dr Summers's presidency, the proportion of tenured jobs offered to women has fallen from 36 per cent to 13 per cent. Last year, only four of 32 tenured job openings were offered to women.

And I have encountered nearly as many dumb fellas as dumb gals, but in "my" dumb crowd there has been a clear tendency though: a rather big proportion of female dummies seemed to be aware of their modest abilities, keeping a relatively low profile (which makes them somewhat less dumb - and generally less harmful from the "public good" viewpoint), while the dumber the man, the more confident he seemed in his superior intelligence and abilities (hence the enormous damage caused by the activities of stupid men throughout the history?). Now if anyone has observed a similar pattern, can they explain me this particular phenomenon? Is this that very "inherent difference"? Just kidding.

If we move beyond the "hunting caveman" thing (which might have lost a good share of its relevance with the development of animal husbandry ), I seem more convinced by the theory linking the initial assignment of gender roles to the imperative need of the early community to protect its reproductive function. It has been argued that early communities were in an almost permanent state of war dominating all other aspects of life, and thus in need to shield women, as the "principal" bearers of this function, from the risks to which they might be exposed in the battle. While this doesn't necessarily mean that early women were less bellicose, or lacking taste for leadership (Amazons and Valkyries – such legends can't be entirely without grounds), the possible loss of women jeopardizing the group's very survival, the need to curb any such instincts was an overriding imperative. This state of permanent war, which also brought about the rise of the military as the "upper crust", lead to the severe restriction of women's initiative in almost all aspects of community life, limiting their role to the housekeeping and childcare. This rule took the form of a variety of societal taboos and became surrounded with religious norms. The "enforcement" was extremely brutal, especially in the Middle Ages, when any dissent, threat to the status quo (not only emanating from women, but just anyone), or merely an attempt to raise above her station was severely suppressed (by burning at stake for witchcraft, for instance). It doesn't take a soash professor to realize that such norms are so deeply ingrained in the fabric of the society that their "hysteresis effects" persist, more often than not in a distorted form, even when the circumstances having given rise to them cease to exist. However, even this did not prevent upper-class women from performing rather well even in the spheres to which they did have access – such as politics, either directly as monarchs or by pulling the strings from behind the scenes. There had even been incidents of dissent from the low-class women during periods when the screws were slightly loosened, although that took rather exotic forms, like Mother Ann Lee's Shaker community with its "feminist" flavour. (Has anyone read "A Maggot" by John Fawles by the way? Anileve?)

And you told you were through with this topic… The "boring circus" seems to be addictive, huh? Re the Occam Razor: no, it does not support your idea, if your idea is that of inherent genetic differences. Our question is: what is the possible explanation of gender disparities in science? We have i) the gene hypothesis – in fact a speculative assumption, as opposed to ii) the uncontested evidence of consistent subjugation, gender stereotyping, discrimination and disparagement. ii), no matter what you say, does hold weight – we all know that it exists. One should have a rather creative imagination to consider the speculative assumption as a more plausible explanation than the one based on well-established facts. The thing is that building your argument, you seem to be assuming the very thing that is being challenged. You a priori assume that those differences do exist, while you still need to substantiate them since they have been challenged. So you substantiate them by pointing to the under-representation of women – the very thing that needs to be explained (and which may in fact have other explanations, such as the host of factors having disadvantaged women). This is a very common vicious-cycle-like mistake. Re anthro: it doesn't look like you are familiar with its basics. But don't worry, I'm not going to quiz you – at least not here and not now. Nor am I going to tar and feather you - you may live, I am merciful!

Sad enough... True, it's for women to champion the cause of women's rights, it's for black people to fight for their "civil rights", it's for gay folk to fight for gay rights... et cetera. I already said in some post that regarding women and minorities as inferior is comforting for some and convenient for many, and not only for psychological reasons quoted above, but for purely practical ones as well (for saving on women’s pay, to bring just one popular example)…

If you're really through with this "boring circus", I'll try to be brief. Your apparently well-constructed phrase failed to impress those users, myself included, because the "illustration” (I’d rather use the word “evidence”) - of oppression in effect was never meant to be a “proof of potential". It is merely one possible explanation of the women’s under-representation, and, by the virtue of the good old Occam’s razor, deemed to be the most plausible one. As for your facile assumptions that human “subspecies have had, throughout history, same opportunities to grow intellectually", they are simply wrong and ill-informed, and apparently come from your unfamiliarity with the basics of anthropology. One simply cannot make such assumptions without taking into account the powerful impact that the host of interlocking factors – from climatic conditions to religious, social, economic, legal, and political institutions – have had on the shaping and development of modern societies. I think this is basically what Domino was trying to explain you, apparently to no avail.

Hey guys, QueBeceR, you finally asked that question! Yes, I'll be delighted to meet Stormig and Anileve, but that would be a hen-party rather than a date, while wishful thinkers suffering from sun-stroke will look on even more… I realized, at some point, that almost everybody had simply assumed I was a he. I didn't do it on purpose, but, considering the nature of the thread, just kept silent to see how things would evolve that way. In a word, I'm a gal, and, what is even worse, a blonde… So consider me as a valuable reinforcement to the forum's already mighty girl power!

Thanks Alileve! I'm flattered... ...Hey, I hope you meant my remarkable personality, and not the book, the movies... and that Solaris which as it turned out is less powerful than the HPUX!

Take it easy. Okay, you write like a French speaker, but so do the great majority of all French speakers I know, and there is nothing wrong with that. Anyway I didn't mean to say you were being unclear - I think I understood perfectly well what you meant in each post. I'm truly sorry if I touched a sensitive spot. I mentioned that only because Siamanto blamed others and me for not trying to "understand" the exotic use of certain words by Mouse. He pointed out the different countries of origin of the members apparently as a justification for a non-standard usage of the lingua franca (whether or not we should work out a pidgin English for the forum purposes is a different issue and we'd rather not tackle it here ). However on the same page S. didn't miss the chance to pick on your ideas just because one sentence read a little clumsy. For instance, when you simply meant to say that racists and sexists tend to be less intelligent than an average person, his words "Are you telling that the mathematical average of intelligence - a hard to quantify entity - in one population is lower than in another? Shall we consider it as a self disproving statement?" - stroke me as bigoted and unkind. I don't mind aggressive discussion techniques, but in that case, one shouldn't patronize others and "suggest" that it is "wiser to make an effort to "understand" Mouse. I am a native Russian speaker by the way, and if I should have "understood" Mouse, S. should have "understood" you. It was cristal clear what you meant to say, and it was basically S.'s bigotry that averted me. Again, I'm sorry if I unintentionally hurt you.

Siamanto, It would be wiser of us if we just avoided cramming this thread by this totally irrelevant personality feud, by admitting that we were both wrong; I am guilty as charged for being rude and you, for patronizing me improperly and being unfair to the QueBeckeR. If we do so, we'll hardly make great friends, but some modus vivendi won't be quite ruled out. As for your "recommendation": I did browse other threads (and other forums) just to find out that Mouse propounds even nastier ideas than male chauvinism – racism among others. As I consider the amateur forum psychic as the lowest form of Internet life, I won't even attempt gaining an insight into the possible socio-cultural, personal and psychological reasons for writing crap like that and will take Mouse's literature on its face value. Well, this brings us back to the "crap" thing – what I have possibly misunderstood and perceived as such. I won't go back to that weird "thing he has with the word equality" – he does definitely have it and has confirmed that in several posts following your first remarks. In this particular thread, it all boils down to the following (and I tried my best to find a relatively comprehensible passage in the Post #177): The roles proper to men and women are different from each other, and naturally so. This consideration makes the belief in the “equality” of the sexes not only false, but pointless. Men and women have their respective vocations to fulfill, and the appropriate relationship between the sexes is one of complementarity not emulating one or the other, which feminism propounds. The not-so-subtle implication is that (average) woman's place is properly in the kitchen mit kirchen und kinder, which does make her a Stepford mop-head, as Stormig aptly puts it. To my mind, this is male chauvinist crap. If one however shares Mouse's views, fine, for him this is not "crap" but a revelation – "crap", you know, is a concept of relativity and fluidity; more of a value judgment based on individual value system. As for you the "witch hunt" and your characterization of several users as a "lynch mob", again, heartily sorry, you did not offer a proper justification for that either. Mouse expressed a set of questionable propositions and those members expressed their disagreement, each in her/his own style. This is what happens in discussion forums, you know, and here no one has been harsh enough to justify the use of such a strong expression. Granted, you are free to choose your expressions – but then pray be consistent and resist the temptation of picking on other user's expressions. As for the use of words by Mouse, expressing one's ideas clearly is a forum member's courtesy to other forumers. I cannot but repeat that if he wants to be understood properly, it’s for him to make a little effort and give his ideas a comprehensible formulation. I'll also write some stuff relevant to your comments in my reply to QueBeceR.

Siamanto, Drop your patronizing self-righteousness and don't be such a bigot. For starters, you wanted me to be sensitive to "member views, idiosyncrasies and dynamics", but in the same post characterized several of those very members as a "lynch mob" just because they did not acclaim the crap your buddy the Mouse had spouted off. Very respectful and consistent indeedy. Secondly, if you wanted me to make an effort to understand Mouse's eccentric use of the word "equality" (although I fail to see why this word should have a different meaning for someone from Glendale "where Armenians are like fruit flies"), then you shouldn't be harsh on QueBeceR if his syntax and the choice of English words gives you the chance to pick on him (your post No. 169). No, everyone should to be nice and sensitive to you and the Little Mouse, but you should have the privilege of mock everybody in that slow-witted manner of yours. Can't even employ double standards properly, you're pathetic. And why should everybody adapt to some troubled kid's shibboleth if he can just stick to the plain usage of English words? Finally, every user, old and new, has the right to choose with whom to converse and whom to ignore. I recognized Mouse's inalienable right to believe in what he wants to believe, including "inequality" and characters from folklore, and am even with him. And by the way, I don't care about your "positive" evaluation of my initial "performance", so just ... and leave me alone. Edit: for language. Please, let's keep it clean.

I agree in principle. But in my opinion it's not only the below average intellect that makes a person receptive to such racist or sexist ideas, but rather its combination with ignorance and inferiority complex. I think the actual tenacity of racist and sexist prejudices feeds on the (subconscious) longing of an individual with inferiority complex to feel a priori superior to another, apparently worthier individual, due to some innate characteristics that the second individual does not have and which are objectively beyond her control. These are not innate personal qualities such as talent or intellect, nor are characteristics obtained by personal effort. They emanate from the belonging to some identifiable group, the membership of which is determined by birth, such as gender, race, color, religion, national, ethnic origin, or, to a lesser extent, class or social group. Am I being clear? I'm basically trying to say that racism or sexism are quite "convenient" for many because they allow otherwise worthless individuals to consider themselves "more intelligent" and "worthy", and claim priviledge, "by default", solely on the basis of their belonging to the "superior" group. As for ignorance, it is probably linked to stupidity: even mild brainwashing of an obscure layman into believing that women, blacks, colored folk, ethnic, religious or sexual minorities, etc. (make your pick), are "stupid", "ignorant", "pervert", "filthy", "evil", "second-class", "inhuman" etc. (make your pick again) may produce wonderful results in converting him into a racist or sexist. That's the point. I expected you to say this, otherwise I would write that myself. Any gender generalizations, be it Larry Stammers' unfortunate remarks or a more substantiated "research" aimed at "exploring" "inherent differences", are not only wrong by definition but also devoid of any practical value. Let's put aside the fact that no pure experiment to this end is even possible as personal variables would always obfuscate personal aptitudes (as that longish but timely paper posted by Sulamita can suggest). Even if some highly reliable research (and no such research can be reliable due to the huge margin of error) establishes some day that there are indeed more men than women with aptitude for sciences (which is, again, highly unlikely), the aptitudes of individual women would still have be determined on individual basis. So I can't see what’s the point of pressing this "gene argument", if not for the purposes cited above.