|
Entrepreneurship |
|
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. spoke to a forum of the Iniziativa Italia, held on March 22 at the Judicial Palace in Milan, Italy, for two hours of remarks and question-and-answer dialogue. This is LaRouche's opening presentation. First of all, on the question of the economy: One should understand that the world monetary and financial system, in its present form, is doomed, and nothing can save it in its present form. This is a result of the changes in policy, which were introduced from the United States and Britain, during the period of approximately 1966 on. There was a change, as many of your know, who are older, there was a change, from an orientation toward a society based on production values, to one which was called a "consumer" or "consumption society." The change was--in the former period, we used to think of solving problems, in terms of production, in terms of better-quality products, more products, producing more.... The general way to solve unemployment, was productive employment. We used, often, productive employment in infrastructure, as a way of stimulating employment, because the productivity of an entire economy, is not the sum of the profits of the firms. The productivity of an entire economy, is the output of the economy, relative to the total population, especially the total adult population. And, therefore, if you have unemployed people, that lowers productivity, because part of the society is not producing. And, therefore, if you can get useful production going, of whatever form--infrastructure, whatever other form--that is useful: It improves productivity, because more people are producing. And, if it's done intelligently, it can not help but benefit the economy as a whole. That is the way we used to think. We used to think about minimal amounts of unemployment. We used to think about improving the quality of employment. We used to think about raising the productivity, in physical terms, in production; increasing skill levels, use-skill levels; more investment in technology; less repetition; more innovation. These were the ways we tried to solve problems. From 1966 on, this changed. There was a change in values, which hit first at the university-age youth of the late second half of the 1960s--a shift against these values; a shift for so-called "consumer values." The producer, the laborer, the worker, was considered the enemy of the proper culture. We had to go to a "post-industrial culture," which meant a "post-productive culture." We had to go to a "post-agriculture culture," as well as a "post-infrastructure culture." We had to lower our standard of living to have a simpler life, based only on consumption. We had to eliminate blue collars, and wear only white collars--that sort of thing. `We Don't Produce. We Import!' This change occurred, and spread throughout the world, and resulted in great social, and moral, and cultural convulsions, over the period of the past 35 years. Now, today, people say, "We don't produce any more. We import!" We import cheap goods, produced by cheap labor, in other countries. How do we pay for it? On credit! We borrow the money--or we steal it, from them. We ruin the currencies of countries that produce, and thereby, we get what they produce, cheaply. We lower their standard of living. We get things more cheaply. We buy on credit. We go into debt. But, we don't worry: because we have the power. We can go into debt indefinitely. Now, we have gone into debt so much, that we are all bankrupt. And, this happened over 35 years. Obviously, what we have to do, is find some way to get back to sanity. We have to abandon the consumer-value society, and go to a producer-value society, in which we produce the means on which we live, or the equivalent--we produce something useful for the world; we exchange our products with other parts of the world; we invest at home, we invest abroad, in order to do this. We give credit, in order to encourage people to buy our products; and that sort of thing. The way we used to solve problems. The way we solved the problems of the postwar period. The way in which Franklin Roosevelt led the United States out of a Depression, caused by the silliness of his predecessors, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge, and so forth. And, the way we got through the war; the way Europe was rebuilt, reconstructed, in the postwar period, up to the middle of the 1960s. That worked. Now, that system included many things that were unfair, unfair to many people. The world was divided by a strategic conflict, between the Soviet system, and the Anglo-American and allied systems. That was unjust: Justice was not given to the so-called "developing sector." Roosevelt had promised the freedom of all nations, from the colonial powers of Portugal, of the Netherlands, of Belgium, of England, and of France. That wasn't done: Colonialism was reimposed at the point of a bayonet. And, other forms of police were imposed: Africa was given freedom, but it was given no "freedom." It was given the freedom to enslave itself, not true freedom to develop. Similarly in other parts of the world. So, there were many injustices in this system, but the system worked. The system produced, for those who benefitted from it, the nations that benefitted, it produced an improvement in the standard of living, in the progress of humanity. That began to come to an end, 35 years ago. From 35 years ago, we have become increasingly insane. One of the benchmarks of insanity, was Nixon's decision of August 1971: We destroyed a fixed-exchange rate system, on which international progress had depended. We introduced a floating-exchange-rate system of insanity, which is the basis for the collapse of much of international trade and development. We stopped regulation of economies, especially under Carter--we destroyed it. We changed the IMF into a monster: From being the instrument of nations, it became the monster that ate nations--including what it did to Italy, beginning in 1976, and that sort of thing. So, now, we've come to the point that the system is bankrupt. It's hopelessly bankrupt. The system in its present form, can not be saved. It can only be saved by a bankruptcy reorganization. Since you can not destroy a nation, when you put it through bankruptcy, you must find means to save the nation, from its own bankruptcy. You must save the true values. You must wipe out things that can't be saved, you wipe them off the books, in order to get the economy moving again. You must create new credit, expand employment, inject new technologies--all the other things that have been done in the past, to enable nations or the world to recover from depressions. Europe in Bankruptcy This is not a normal depression: It's much worse than a depression. This is much worse than the Depression that hit between 1929 and 1933, in most of the world, in Europe and in the Americas. It's far worse. This is what's called "a general breakdown crisis." This does not mean [merely] that a depression sinks us into a deep slacking of our production, of mass unemployment, no. It means disorganization, destruction, obliteration, of the institutions of government and nationhood. That's where we're at. The alternative is fairly clear. Now, Europe is now operating at a level of bankruptcy--Western Europe. That is, Western Europe is no longer producing enough to meet its current needs, to maintain its current levels of consumption and production. Typical is the case of Germany. Germany has become the keystone nation of Western Europe. All the other economies--the Benelux countries, Italy, France, and so forth--have depended, for a number of years--especially since about 1976--have depended upon the role of Germany as an export-driven economy, in order to stabilize Europe as a whole; through credits and other mechanisms; and also, Germany as a market, for other parts of Europe. Now, that's come to an end. Germany has lost its position in export, in every country, except growth in China, and in Russia. And, a very large, continued level of exports to India. Germany is collapsing. As you know in Italy, the rest of the markets of Europe are collapsing, too. The United States has ceased to be the importer of last resort. China must accept a 40% reduction in its expected exports. Other countries, similarly: Southeast Asia, and so forth. Japan is about to disintegrate. The fight between the former Foreign Minister, Mrs. Tanaka, and Koizumi expresses an underlying tension, an explosion waiting to blow up in Japan. Korea has been destroyed, largely by the United States, in the aftermath of 1997: a looting operation, followed by an actual, intentional wrecking crew. South Korea is still a viable economy. It could be brought back. But, it's living on the edge of being crushed. As I say, China's in a crisis. Its external market of cheap goods, to the United States and elsewhere, has come to an end. It is now turning to its own, internal market--investment in the deep interior, in the poorest sections of China, and in infrastructure generally, to try to maintain the Chinese economy at something like the present rate. India is in a crisis. Southeast Asia is being crushed, by the effects of this collapse. The Strategic Triangle and Capital Goods So, the question is: How does Europe get out of this? And, the basic answer is, exports. A revival of exports, but of a specific type. The principal market for West European exports, is Russia and Asia. It's a market which has three legs: Russia, China, and India. Not these nations alone, but these nations if they cooperate, with the intention of bringing Asia into a phase of general development. Then European high-technology and related exports, become the means needed to assist Russia and the rest of Asia, to begin to come up again, and at the rate needed. China needs technology. It has some advanced industries. It has made much progress--but, it has a large population, many of whom are extremely poor. And, if we're going to meet the requirements of the interior of China, and the people as a whole, more technology must be injected into China, on the basis of medium- to long-term credit, than China could generate, presently, by its own means. India is a somewhat different economy, but it represents a similar kind of opportunity. It has high-technology capabilities. It has reservoirs of well-trained, well-educated cadres. But it needs--again--infusions of additional technology, from outside India, in order to meet the requirements of all of its internal population--a growing population, which will soon officially reach the level of 1 billion people. And, India's only one of a group of nations, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, and others, which are in similar straits, or worse straits (Pakistan, in particular). Iran is a land with complications, but it, essentially, is a very strong culture, a very ancient culture--or assimilation of many ancient cultures, blending of them--which has been the crossroads between the Subcontinent, the Far East, and Europe, for a long period of time. Remember things like the Arab Renaissance under the Caliph Haroun al-Rashid and the Abbasid dynasty. We remember things of the great florescent period of Iran. We remember the transmission of advanced culture, at the time the Roman Empire was disintegrating, from India, through Iran and through the Middle East, into feudal Europe, and so forth. So, these are areas, which all have a peculiar kind of potential--differences in culture, different forms of potential, but they all have potential. And, if they're able to cooperate, they represent a great and durable market, for technology supplies, of various kinds, and technological assistance of other types, from Europe into these markets. If the long-term credit can be mustered--that is, credit at base rates of 1-2% simple interest, over periods of up to 25 years, for infrastructure and for other things; or for credit to banking systems or credit systems, for rollover credit, in trade and so forth, over a period of time--then we have a sustained, long-term, great market for the products of Western Europe, which are useful to the peoples in Russia, and the peoples in Asia, generally. And that is the way that Europe can recover, together with internal developments. We have to, of course, go back to an emphasis on technological progress, of the type of emphasis we had, prior to 1966. We must go back to science-driven technological progress. Entrepreneurs Have a Mission Now, there's another aspect to this, in which the entrepreneur, as such, [is key,] as distinct from the corporate form of stock corporation, the absentee ownership. The problem with the absentee owner--the large corporation, the large industry--has been that the ownership, residing in people who are interested in the profits from the stock, not the product of the company, are not progressive, normally, although with government stimulation, they become somewhat progressive. And, the way you control that, is generally by regulation. You set up rules and regulations of government, of finance, and taxation, and supervision, which, in a sense, fight against the reactionary tendencies of the stockholders, to become simply bloodsuckers on the corporation, and [you] allow the corporation to concentrate itself on technological progress and improved qualities of product. In the case of the entrepreneur, it's different: The entrepreneur, who is sitting in the firm he or she or his circles own, as a closely held enterprise, has a mission-orientation. It's the way most entrepreneurships start. You have cases in Italy, where people started--or their grandfather, or their father, or they themselves--started as workmen in some industry, as skilled workmen; they went out, and often started a business, in order to use something from their skill, they thought they could market as a product, or as a type of product, or type of service, and succeeded. And, they are people who are mission-driven, to succeed, and mission-driven to accomplish something useful, in the community, and for society in general. In other words, there's a personal sense of personal of pride and identity, in accomplishing a job done by building this firm and its activities. You will find, in history, especially in modern history, that it is entrepreneurs of this type--particularly the "science-driver" entrepreneur--who tend to be the infusers of technological progress into the economy as a whole. For example: You take the case of space projects (which I've been involved in, to some degree). Now, you had a firm, I'm told, [and] what happened in the 1989-90 period: the firm Messerschmidt-Bolkow-Blöhm, in Germany. It was an aerospace firm, which employed about 10,000 skilled cadres, of machine-tool grade. This firm is not really important, in itself, for the aerospace industry, but its technological progress required it to call upon small industries of high technology throughout Germany. Often these smaller industries were owned by a scientist, or a scientist and a few engineers, or group of engineers. They would develop a technology. A firm, like an aerospace firm, would go to these vendors, and they would procure from them, an improvement in technology, necessary for the new product they were designing. A firm like this aerospace firm would go to larger firms, which built aircraft, or built other things--spacecraft--and they would contribute their component into the total effort of such spacecraft, or whatever. So, that's the way industry tended to function. In the United States, it was not the large automobile industries that made the successes in the automobile industry; it was the smaller firms, their vendors, who developed the products which, as components or elements, were included in the design of the vehicle, and made it work. So, it was the entrepreneur, the person who broke his back, in a sense, in order to achieve something--more than profit--and expected to make a living, and expected to have his company grow, as a result of those efforts. The same thing is true today. Morality and Discovery Now, there is a very specific problem here: The problem is a moral one. What is a moral way of generating a profit? Moral way of generating a profit? Well, first of all, what's moral? What is morality? Some people have lists they paste on the wall, "Don't do this; do this." Mothers do that, sometimes, with children. Employers do that, sometimes, with employees: "Do this, don't spit here; spit here; don't--" and so forth. Well, that is not morality. That is an attempt to manage. And, business management is a very bad thing! It is not morality; it is not good economics. Morality is an understanding--this is especially clear in Christianity, or should be, clear to those who profess to be Christians--it's an understanding of a fundamental difference between any animal species and humanity, the human individual. Only the human individual has those powers of discovery of universal principles, by which man is able to increase our species' power to exist in the universe. No other species but man, is capable of increasing its so-called "ecological potential." Only mankind can do it. Mankind does this, through creativity. By creativity, we often mean--typified by Leonardo da Vinci, or Johannes Kepler, or others--we often refer to physical scientific discoveries of universal principle: Like Kepler's discovery of a principle of universal gravitation, first reported in 1609, in the book called The New Astronomy, where the process of discovery is detailed in great length, to be studied again, today, for people who want to learn how to make discoveries. But, also, there are other areas of discovery, which are important. When you discover a principle, a true, universal principle, and you test it, how do you communicate that discovery to somebody else? You have to share with them, the reliving of the process of discovery; they have to relive the experience of the problem, the paradox, which could not be explained, without the discovery. They have to relive the effort to find the solution to that paradox. They have to relive the experience of the kind of experimental test, which demonstrates whether that proposed solution is true, or not. Therefore, it is social relations among people, of this form, in communication of discovery of creative ideas, which is the basis for the ability of society to apply discoveries of fundamental principle, to nature. In other words, a society is not improved by one person making a discovery, and running out and screaming, "Eureka!" in the streets, thinking he's Archimedes. Discoveries are made by individuals. And, only the individual human mind can make a discovery. But: How do you get members of a society to cooperate, in developing and using a discovery? They must share the experience, of making that discovery--re-enact it. For example: If you had a good science education, you didn't learn from a textbook. You never learned from a textbook. A textbook was a nuisance. It distracted you. You learned, by reliving the individual act of discovery, by a specific discoverer. You are presented the problem; you relive the agony of trying to deal with the paradox. You thought you saw the solution to the paradox. And, then, with the aid of a classroom teacher or someone else, you came to recognize whether this discovery you thought you'd made, was true or not. Then, you both had had the experience; now you can share that experience, and cooperate. That was a good scientific education: that you shared the experience of discoveries, made by people from many thousands and hundreds of years before. The Common Good This is called a "Classical education," as opposed to a textbook education, as opposed to a drill-and-grill education, of the type that people tend to get, today. So, therefore, the social relations among people, as typified by that quality of education, that approach to education, is the basis for people's ability to cooperate, and apply discoveries, to increase the human race's power, in nature, and over nature. That's the difference between man and an animal. Therefore, since we recognize, by that standard, that man is not an animal, that man has a creative power, which we otherwise can attribute only to the Creator of the universe, therefore, every person has a sacred quality, because of this natural endowment of every person. Morality is regard for what that implies. Morality is what Plato, and what Paul, and the Apostle John, also, referred to as agape, which is, sometimes called, in English, it's called the "General Welfare." Or it's called, in theology, sometimes, the "Common Good." This principle of agapé, typified, for example in Christianity, by I Corinthians 13, it is the essence of morality. It is not do's and don't's, as the Apostle Paul emphasizes in that source. It is true love of mankind; love of mankind, in the sense, that man, as each individual embodies the image of the Creator of the universe. And, therefore, our relations to other people, must be creative relations, or relations based on this creativity. We must organize our activities, not to repeat what we already know, but to create new solutions, and to share those solutions and their benefits. It is the process of progress, not any fixed result, which is precious. Now, the true entrepreneur, or the entrepreneur who has discovered this, about themselves, and their own role in life, has a special morality. We're all going to die. And, so, therefore, what we accomplish within our life, as such, does not mean much: We die. We don't take that with us. But, what do we leave after us? What is never taken away from us? We have contributed to the process, of the progress of humanity. We have done something good, today; we have done something good this year. We have made things better, and we have created a foundation, a platform, on which humanity can build further. We become a part of an eternity, which, in a sense, exists, in simultaneity. We are part of humanity, from all past history, and all future history. And, it's that sense of personal identity, that enables, the true entrepreneur--particularly as the great inventor, who sometimes spends generations in trying to develop, 25 to 50 years--there are individuals who have done that, who spend 25 to 50 years of their life, trying to bring a problem to a solution. And, therefore, what's the motivation of somebody who does that? Next year's profit? No. It's being able to keep the business alive, keep it going, to get to the next step; to get to the next program, the next product, the next challenge. Profit Is Only a Means Many of you were involved in this, in export areas; not only within Europe, but outside Europe, outside the European Community, particularly to other countries like Russia, for example. You faced very special kinds of problems, which are not the problems that are familiar in Europe. How does the entrepreneur succeed? Some of you work at this, I'm sure. (I don't know, individually, but I'm sure some of you do this.) You find yourself, for example, in Russia: In Russia, there is no understanding of entrepreneurship. That was the problem with the Soviet system. The Soviet system undervalued the individual. Undervalued the individual morally. The tendency in Russia, was to do the same thing, over and over and over again: You could not introduce changes. Where did Russia make changes? In the military-scientific field! Why? Because they didn't think it was economics. They thought it was patriotism. They thought it was warfare. They thought it was desperation to save the nation, to make it powerful. It was a mission-orientation, a mission for scientific progress! And, they did it! They performed miracles in that area. But, the same Russians, in a civilian industry, were failures! When you go into Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, or Poland, or other parts of the Comecon, you'll find the same problem: They don't know what entrepreneurship is! And, therefore, you will find great opportunities for partnerships and similar kinds of relations, with people in Russia, or in other countries. But they don't know what entrepreneurship is. So, sometimes, the most important thing you take with you, to them, is the fact that you know how to think as an entrepreneur, and they don't. And you'll be able to show them, and introduce to them, the way of thinking as an entrepreneur. So, what we have to do, essentially--in reaching out, around the world--is, we have to have a mission-orientation, as opposed to a corporate profit-orientation. Yes, we're not going to make losses, if we can avoid them. We're going to make profits, because it's necessary to make profits, to keep the enterprise going and progressive. But, we're not in there for profit. We make profit, as a means to an end. Profit is a means to keep going, to keep doing our job. Like a person who does his job for hire: He does his job, and tries to progress on the job, by improving its technology, improving himself. The entrepreneur does the same thing, with an added feature: Improve himself! Improve the enterprise! Be able to take on new challenges; solve new kinds of problems. And with the sense of achievement, that the dying entrepreneur can say, "I have achieved something I give to you to continue. Progress. Do something good for humanity." And, that's what's required. Therefore, we must organize society, with that in view. We have, out there, in Eurasia--and Eurasia is the immediate market for Western Europe--. Yes, there's Africa, but that's another problem: We have to do things about that, too. The Americas? That's a different problem. But, Eurasia is the immediate market for Western Europe. So, what's our problem? What do we have to do? Well, first of all, we have to build a system, which realizes what the potential of Eurasia is. Now, let's look at the central part of Asia: Central Asia, as such, and the northern part of Asia. It's a desert to semi-desert area. In the north, it's a tundra, which is frozen, much of the year, with the permafrost underneath, which never really fully melts. But, in this area, which is, otherwise, somewhat desolate, there's some of the concentration of mineral deposits, that are the most precious on the planet. To get at these things, you have to build an infrastructural corridor of development, to get in there. You have to apply the technology, which enables you to master these areas. You have to move great rivers, like the Lena and Ob, and transfer some of the waters downward, into Central Asia, rather than just let them flow into the Arctic, and waste it. You have to build the infrastructure, which enables you to build urban centers, in the tundra area, which are acceptable for human life and work. That's another challenge. You have to do the same thing with desert areas. You have to do mass projects of water development. You have to, also, make a transformation in the character of the Eurasian continent. Until recent time, in all human existence, the major means of economic development, was by water. Now, this is still true for Italy, in terms of the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean was the basis for the development of the culture of Europe. Egypt, intersecting with the invasions--chiefly from the Peoples of the Sea, such as the Etruscans, and such as Ionian Greeks, and so forth--developed a Mediterranean culture, from which emerged Classical Greek culture and Hellenistic culture, which is the basis for European culture, in general. And, that still is the basis, geographically and strategically. And, especially for Italy, which is sitting in the middle of the Mediterranean, poking itself down there; poking towards Tunisia, a short distance beyond Sicily. Poking toward Egypt, which is the bridge to Asia. Poking toward Egypt, which is one of the chief bridges into Africa, where the next great shield of mineral potential is located, in the South African Shield--great sources of minerals for the future: a poor area, which needs development. We have to, as missionaries, in a sense, bring economic development into that region. Biosphere and Noöshpere So, what's this challenge in Asia? Well, I should point out to you, a gentleman of some interest, to me: His name is Vladimir Vernadsky. He was a great Russian scientist, who was of the school of Mendeleyev; who studied, like Mendeleyev, in Germany and in France; who worked with Pasteur's successors, the Curies; who went back to Russia, after the Bolshevik Revolution, and became, really, the most effective, leading scientist of Russia. Who developed the concept of the biosphere. Who went beyond that. Who was the father of modern nuclear technology. Russia, in 1925, was committed, under Vernadsky, to develop nuclear energy as a source of power for humanity. He understood it. He was the father of all Russian nuclear technology. It was Vernadsky. Now, we're out there, looking at this arid world; we have vast mineral deposits; we have what is called an "ecology," a "biosphere," out there, which needs to be transformed. We have human beings who can transform that. But we have to do it right. We can not simply go out, helter-skelter, and try to transform the biosphere, transform this planet, without knowing what we're doing. Therefore, we have to take a science like that of Vernadsky, the science of the biosphere-noösphere: We have to treat that as an applied science, in the development of the concepts, of how to do the greatest engineering job that's ever been done on this planet: the transformation of this vast area of Eurasia, including Central and North Asia, from a permanent/semi-permanent desert, into one of the rich lodes, on which the future development of Western Europe, [and] other parts of Eurasia, including China, India, and so forth, depend, absolutely. So, we have a mission-orientation out there. A chance to change the face of humanity, to give a new challenge, a new moral challenge to humanity, to progress. To take the practical problem before us, of bringing this economy, of Western Europe, in particular, out of depression, out of chaos, into something great; something of which your descendants will be proud, and you should be proud in doing. We have out there a great, specific challenge, an immediate challenge, of how do we transform Central Asia and North Asia, from an essentially non-usable area, predominantly--of desert, of wasteland, of tundra--how do we transform that into the potential it represents, for all of Eurasia? And, how do we go beyond that, into Africa, and take a similar problem, but different, in Southern Africa? How do we transform that area, into something for its own people, and something for all humanity, at the same time? We have a similar situation in the Americas. South America is rich. Argentina has a rich potential, which somebody's trying to steal, for nothing, presently. Patagonia: tremendous potential. Italians used to want to flood over there, and conquer the place, because of the rich potential there. Brazil has tremendous potential. So, similarly, we have great biosphere, great noösphere challenges in various parts of the world. This is not the end. But this is an intermediate term, for the next 50 years, the next 75 years: These are the great challenges, for which we should prepare ourselves, and future generations. In the meantime, in getting in that direction, with that understanding, we must transform the individual's conception of humanity: the most important thing of all. We must understand, what morality is. We must understand, the true significance for practice, of the fact that we can demonstrate in the laboratory, that man is made in the image of the Creator of this universe, as no other creature is. Producer vs. Consumer Values And, therefore, human purposes, human missions, human social relations, must be based on that conception of man. We must understand, in particular, the role of true entrepreneurship, as the vehicle, which mediates the power of creativity, as generated in our culture, and translates that into practical applications, as solutions for practical problems which arise in the course of business. If we take that view, if we eliminate the nonsense, which pollutes us; if we get away from being a "consumer society," to becoming a society oriented to producing good, in the moral sense of good--produce good for humanity, by solving particular problems for particular human beings, or groups of human beings: Do good, and achieve, and survive in doing it. That is what we need. No matter what the program is. Without that kind of change, we will not succeed. We thought we had succeeded, in rebuilding after the War, in the 20 years from 1945 to the middle of the 1960s. Then look what happened. We had solved many problems. We had succeeded. We had an economy that worked. What did we do? We destroyed it! In a shift from producer value to consumer values. We destroyed it! By denying creativity. We destroyed it! By destroying our educational systems. We don't educate children in schools any more: We blab at them. We tell them to look it up on the Internet. We don't allow them to think any more, we don't encourage it. We destroyed the culture, upon which, from the Renaissance period on, all European achievement was based. So, the danger is not that we don't know how to succeed. Humanity has succeeded before. The danger is that we will throw it away, again, the way we threw it away during the past 35 years. And, therefore, I would say that, apart from all the technical matters, which fascinate me and which motivate me greatly, that this technical concern will fail, unless we can situate that, in terms of reference to a moral sense of why do we do, what we do. Why do we choose this system? Why do we not abandon it? Because we keep our eyes on the moral principle, that the human being is made in the image of the Creator of the universe, and we have to deal with each other, and with the universe, accordingly. Thank you. Return to the Home Page |