Discussion in Steve Hsu's blog on Bruce Charlton's answer to why are so many leading modern scientists so dull and lacking in scientific ambition? .
There is much Bruce Charlton's answer quoted there that I agree with. At the same time, I think that there is some flexibility in the system and the system is not uniform all over the world, for some non-conformists to survive. Moreover, compared to 60-70 years, there are many more cumulative achievements in science ) in mathematics, one has only to think of Fermat, Poincare conjectures. Still, there is much to worry about and I think that it is a useful discussion.
Bruce Wilder defines economics in the comments to "How Activists Make or Break Radical Innovations":
"The economy is something we do, something we make -- an artifact and outcome of social action. It's not the weather. It's not a gift of divine providence. It is an instrument for living in a material world, and an evolving product of strategic conflict and cooperation."
His version of "'social affiliation' seems less interesting to me:
"It's not just facebook and twitter, is my point -- and it is not just about "identity" but about translating individual ambition into the primacy of collective achievement in a highly organized world: learning voice for a world of no exit, and learning to find power and make a life out of highly-specialized insignificance."
Outlookindia has a few articles on racism in India :
Our True Colours and 'India Is Racist, And Happy About It'.