Dear Ivan and People's Science advocates:
I wrote the following before Dick Levins' comments which, I think, answer
I agree that there are better things to do in life than help the
police............that is a choice I make!
But, what is the core of the argument?
Ordinary fingerprinting to "identify" a person appears to be accepted, even
by the ACLU, to get a passport, to become a citizen or get permanent
What is (are) the difference(s) between using someone's finger markings and
someone's DNA strand markings?
Probably individuals should never have accepted to give away their thumb
markings in the first place. But that is still used as "signature" for
illiterate persons right here where I live today. Maybe the ultimate reason
to use such markings is the lack of trust in people's word. Is this what
writing is for? Commerce "über alles", capitalism recorded in signed
buy-sell operations, distrustful individualism .......
In the end, which "markings" can (or should ever) be used to mark people,
and which not? Who has the right to mark whom, and what for.
My feeling is that the fundamental question indeed lies deeper.
RUA PAU DE CANELA 1101
88048-330 S. C.
TELEPHONE : 55 (XX) 48 237 3140
FAX [after oral warning (depois de avisar)]:
55 (xx) 48 338 2686
e-mail: [log in to unmask]